WES (WES)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z 1.6.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe equity economics reveal a highly profitable operation driven primarily by aggressive leverage rather than operational efficiency. While the 30.7% net margin and robust 6.6% revenue growth suggest strong pricing power, the DuPont decomposition indicates that an Equity Multiplier of 3.60x is the dominant force behind the 28.4% ROE, as asset turnover remains modest at just 0.26x. This capital-intensive structure yields a positive spread between its 9.2% return on invested capital and typical cost of equity, yet the Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 signals potential deterioration in financial health or profitability trends that contradicts the surface-level margin expansion.
Valuation metrics present a compelling divergence between market pricing and intrinsic value models. Trading at a current P/E multiple of 14.0x, the stock appears significantly discounted relative to its implied growth trajectory when evaluated against a DCF fair value estimate of $99. This discrepancy suggests the market may be underweighting future cash flow potential or is reacting adversely to specific balance sheet concerns not fully captured in the earnings yield alone.
However, risk indicators introduce notable friction into this value proposition. The Beneish M-Score of -2.69 implies a low probability of financial manipulation, lending credibility to the reported margins; conversely, $198,738 in net insider selling over the last 90 days serves as a cautionary signal regarding management's confidence or liquidity positioning. These conflicting signals—a strong fundamental score on one axis and active insider distribution on another—create an ambiguous risk-reward profile where the attractive valuation must be weighed against potential governance or strategic uncertainties.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
InteractiveSensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 6% | 7.5% | 9.5% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $119 | $80 | $53 |
| 3% | $159 | $99 | $62 |
| 4% | $240 | $127 | $74 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs —.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=7.5%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $99 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
⚠️ Dividend consumes >80% of FCF — sustainability risk.
DuPont Analysis — ROE Decomposition
Breaking down Return on Equity to see how the company generates its ROE — efficiency, margins, or leverage.
Balance Sheet Health
Insider Activity (Last 90 Days)
Open-market buys vs sells by company insiders. Source: yfinance.
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Underwater (Drawdown from Peak)
How far below the all-time high the price has been over time. Deeper = more pain for holders.
Rolling 60-Day Beta vs S&P 500 (VOO)
How the stock's sensitivity to market moves changes over time. β > 1 = more volatile than the market.
Fundamentals
Passive Flow Attribution
ETF Draft EffectWhen investors buy or sell ETFs like VPL or VYMI, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell WES shares regardless of WES's individual fundamentals. We estimate $1.8B of passive capital is structurally linked to WES through 8 tracked ETFs. Index rebalances and ETF creation/redemption cycles can create noticeable volume spikes unrelated to company news.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 8 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in WES to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If WES (WES) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (005930) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 3 ETFs with WES. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 9 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
WES Ownership Dynamics
ETFs with Highest WES Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 9 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
WES Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does WES convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
WES converts 64% of its EBITDA into free cash flow, an exceptional conversion rate indicating an asset-light business model with minimal capital reinvestment drag. The positive ROIC-WACC spread of 1.7% confirms that reinvested capital creates shareholder value.
Capital efficiency = Free Cash Flow ÷ EBITDA. Reinvestment = (EBITDA − FCF) ÷ EBITDA. Metrics from latest annual filings. Not investment advice.
Fails-to-Deliver (FTD) History
SEC-reported settlement failures. Elevated FTDs can indicate high short-selling pressure, operational settlement issues, or naked shorting activity.
| Date | Failed Shares | Close Price | Notional Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-06 | 1,156 | $42.77 | $49,442.12 |
| 2026-05-01 | 3,225 | $43.48 | $140,223 |
| 2026-04-21 | 488 | $40.69 | $19,856.72 |
| 2026-04-16 | 1,197 | $40.41 | $48,370.77 |
| 2026-04-14 | 41 | $41.05 | $1,683.05 |
| 2026-04-13 | 5,193 | $41.08 | $213,328.44 |
| 2026-04-02 | 1,576 | $40.75 | $64,222 |
| 2026-04-01 | 1,552 | $41.17 | $63,895.84 |
| 2026-03-26 | 791 | $42.01 | $33,229.91 |
| 2026-03-23 | 996 | $41.66 | $41,493.36 |
| 2026-03-20 | 167,869 | $41.33 | $6.9M |
| 2026-03-19 | 168,369 | $40.94 | $6.9M |
| 2026-03-03 | 137 | $42.09 | $5,766.33 |
| 2026-02-19 | 119,782 | $43.90 | $5.3M |
| 2026-02-18 | 114,133 | $43.73 | $5.0M |
| 2026-02-13 | 10,899 | $42.35 | $461,572.65 |
| 2026-02-09 | 14 | $41.12 | $575.68 |
| 2026-02-03 | 10,875 | $40.12 | $436,305 |
| 2026-01-22 | 83 | $40.52 | $3,363.16 |
| 2026-01-20 | 11,223 | $41.61 | $466,989.03 |
| 2026-01-14 | 9 | $42.16 | $379.44 |
| 2025-12-26 | 6,325 | $39.56 | $250,217 |
| 2025-12-24 | 6,325 | $39.47 | $249,647.75 |
| 2025-12-04 | 60 | $39.23 | $2,353.8 |
| 2025-12-02 | 116 | $39.33 | $4,562.28 |
| 2025-12-01 | 250 | $39.33 | $9,832.5 |
| 2025-11-28 | 100 | $39.00 | $3,900 |
| 2025-11-24 | 5,674 | $38.96 | $221,059.04 |
| 2025-11-17 | 3,744 | $38.69 | $144,855.36 |
| 2025-11-14 | 114,075 | $38.59 | $4.4M |
Source: SEC Regulation SHO FTD data. Data is reported with a ~30 day delay. High FTD quantities relative to average daily volume may indicate settlement stress.
Compare WES to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: N/A.
SecuritiesDB provides programmatic data aggregation for informational purposes only. None of the metrics, summaries, or algorithmic flags constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any security.