MELI (MELI)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z 2.6.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe capital allocation efficiency demonstrated by a 16.9% ROIC against a 13.6% WACC creates a robust +3.3% spread, indicating strong value creation potential relative to the cost of equity and debt financing. However, the DuPont decomposition reveals that this return is driven primarily by high leverage rather than operational excellence or margin expansion; while gross margins sit at an attractive 44.5%, net margins remain compressed at 6.9%, suggesting significant operating expenses are eroding top-line profitability despite accelerating revenue growth of 39.1% year-over-year. Creditworthiness metrics present a mixed signal: the Beneish M-Score of -3.04 and Altman Z-Score of 2.6 suggest low earnings manipulation risk and moderate bankruptcy safety, yet the Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 points to underlying financial weakness or declining fundamentals that may not be fully reflected in current growth rates.
Valuation metrics indicate a significant premium relative to historical norms and sector peers, with a current P/E of 42.0x implying the market is pricing in sustained high-growth execution far beyond what the modest net margins support. This aggressive multiple contrasts sharply with a DCF-derived fair value of $5864; if this target represents an intrinsic valuation floor based on conservative assumptions, the current trading price likely assumes growth rates that exceed the company's historical ability to convert top-line expansion into bottom-line earnings power. The disconnect between the high revenue velocity and the low net margin suggests that future cash flow generation may lag behind stock price appreciation unless operating leverage improves significantly in subsequent quarters.
The risk/reward profile is characterized by a tension between exceptional growth momentum and structural profitability constraints, with insider activity or Fama-French alpha data not provided to further refine this assessment. Investors must weigh the safety of low earnings manipulation risks against the vulnerability posed by weak fundamental scores and thin net margins that could limit downside protection if growth decelerates. The current valuation implies a high bar for future performance; any miss in margin expansion or revenue velocity would likely trigger a sharp re-rating, as the market's premium is predicated on flawless execution of its business model over an extended period.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. Not investment advice.
DCF Sandbox
Interactive5-year two-stage DCF. Terminal growth 3%. Default sliders match the pre-computed base case. Drag to explore scenarios. Not investment advice.
Sensitivity Matrix
| TG ↓ / WACC → | 11.6% | 13.6% | 15.6% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $5425 | $4388 | $3662 |
| 3% | $5924 | $4701 | $3871 |
| 4% | $6553 | $5078 | $4116 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $1672.83.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=13.6%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $4701 (+0.0%). Not investment advice.
Price Chart with Moving Averages
Quant Health Deep Dive
Profitability & Value Creation
Balance Sheet Health
Earnings Surprise History
EPS estimates vs actuals for the most recent reported quarters. Source: yfinance.
Dividend History
| Date | Amount | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2017-12-28 | $0.1500 | 0.0% |
| 2017-09-28 | $0.1500 | 0.0% |
| 2017-06-28 | $0.1500 | 0.0% |
| 2017-03-29 | $0.1500 | 0.0% |
| 2016-12-28 | $0.1500 | 0.0% |
| 2016-09-28 | $0.1500 | 0.0% |
| 2016-06-28 | $0.1500 | 0.0% |
| 2016-03-29 | $0.1500 | +45.6% |
| 2015-12-29 | $0.1030 | 0.0% |
| 2015-09-28 | $0.1030 | 0.0% |
| 2015-06-26 | $0.1030 | 0.0% |
| 2015-03-27 | $0.1030 | -38.0% |
Dividend and split data from SEC filings and market data. Amounts are per share, not adjusted for splits. 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 ARKF or VCR, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell MELI shares regardless of MELI's individual fundamentals. We estimate $195M of passive capital is structurally linked to MELI through 6 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on MELI's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 6 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in MELI to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If MELI (MELI) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with MELI. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 6 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
MELI Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 419 MELI shares, reducing daily market volatility.
MELI (MELI) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 2.9% of the ARKF (ARKF) and 1.2% of the VCR (VCR). Across 6 tracked ETFs, approximately 0M shares (0.2% of float) are held by passive funds and rarely trade on the open market. As passive ownership grows, index inclusion changes may increasingly drive price discovery.
ETFs with Highest MELI Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 6 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
MELI Institutional Volume Profile
252-day volume distribution by price level. The Point of Control (POC) marks — the price where the most institutional volume transacted — an implicit support/resistance floor.
The highest-volume price zone for MELI over the past year sits near $2386.42 (10% of 252-day volume). The current price of $1672.83 sits 29.9% below the POC — suggesting potential mean-reversion upside if institutional demand reasserts at this level.
Volume Profile computed from 252 trading days of OHLCV data. Volume allocated to price bins proportionally based on daily high-low range. Not investment advice.
MELI Capital Efficiency
How efficiently does MELI convert operating profits into free cash? The FCF Conversion ratio measures the gap between accounting earnings and real cash generation.
MELI converts 282% 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 3.3% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 3 | $1562.00 | $4,686 |
| 2026-05-04 | 2 | $1850.05 | $3,700.1 |
| 2026-04-27 | 300 | $1835.22 | $550,566 |
| 2026-04-24 | 29 | $1809.20 | $52,466.8 |
| 2026-04-16 | 5 | $1872.12 | $9,360.6 |
| 2026-04-15 | 1 | $1840.66 | $1,840.66 |
| 2026-04-13 | 31,935 | $1773.96 | $56.7M |
| 2026-04-10 | 1 | $1793.21 | $1,793.21 |
| 2026-04-06 | 26 | $1715.52 | $44,603.52 |
| 2026-03-31 | 1,202 | $1619.20 | $1.9M |
| 2026-03-24 | 4,912 | $1666.08 | $8.2M |
| 2026-03-03 | 571 | $1777.00 | $1.0M |
| 2026-02-19 | 1 | $2009.05 | $2,009.05 |
| 2026-02-11 | 386 | $2025.32 | $781,773.52 |
| 2026-02-05 | 29 | $2052.78 | $59,530.62 |
| 2026-01-30 | 2 | $2218.14 | $4,436.28 |
| 2026-01-26 | 10 | $2137.29 | $21,372.9 |
| 2026-01-22 | 5 | $2057.77 | $10,288.85 |
| 2026-01-20 | 702 | $2075.01 | $1.5M |
| 2026-01-16 | 39 | $2098.85 | $81,855.15 |
| 2026-01-12 | 42 | $2178.41 | $91,493.22 |
| 2026-01-07 | 1 | $2187.04 | $2,187.04 |
| 2025-12-30 | 1 | $2014.97 | $2,014.97 |
| 2025-12-29 | 2,313 | $2005.71 | $4.6M |
| 2025-12-22 | 404 | $1997.61 | $807,034.44 |
| 2025-12-11 | 4 | $1970.73 | $7,882.92 |
| 2025-12-08 | 101 | $2066.42 | $208,708.42 |
| 2025-12-03 | 1 | $2115.91 | $2,115.91 |
| 2025-12-01 | 128 | $2071.78 | $265,187.84 |
| 2025-11-21 | 708 | $1899.75 | $1.3M |
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 MELI to Peers
Quant metrics computed deterministically from financial statements and price data. Updated: 2026-06-02.
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.