NVTS (NVTS)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicBelow-average fundamentals indicated by Piotroski score of 1/9.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of NVTS exhibit severe distress, characterized by a negative ROIC of -15.8% that indicates capital destruction rather than value creation. This poor return profile is compounded by an alarming net margin contraction to -254.7%, suggesting operational inefficiencies or significant one-time charges are eroding profitability despite maintaining a gross margin of 31.0%. The DuPont decomposition implied here points squarely at drastic margin collapse and likely insufficient asset turnover, as leverage cannot offset such negative operating returns given the Piotroski F-Score of 1/9. This low score signals deteriorating fundamentals across multiple dimensions, while the Beneish M-Score of -4.16 stands out as a strong indicator that management earnings quality is likely high and financial statements are not subject to manipulation, distinguishing this decline from potential accounting fraud but confirming genuine operational weakness.
Valuation metrics for NVTS cannot be meaningfully anchored against historical multiples or sector averages due to the absence of positive earnings required for standard P/E comparisons; any existing valuation would rely entirely on non-GAAP measures or price-to-sales ratios that fail to reflect the underlying cash burn. The market appears to have priced in a scenario where revenue is contracting sharply, with year-over-year growth plummeting 44.9%, implying that current share prices may already reflect worst-case expectations regarding future scalability and path to profitability. Without positive earnings generation or a credible turnaround strategy visible in these metrics, traditional valuation frameworks offer little insight into intrinsic fair value, leaving the stock exposed to significant downside risk if operational improvements do not materialize quickly.
The convergence of negative ROIC, collapsing net margins, and severe revenue contraction creates a high-risk environment where the probability of further capital erosion remains elevated until fundamental inflection points are reached. While the low Beneish M-Score provides some comfort regarding earnings integrity, it does not mitigate the operational realities reflected in the financial statements. Investors must weigh whether the current market price adequately discounts the potential for continued value destruction or if there is a speculative premium attached to any rumored strategic pivot that could reverse these negative trends.
Generated by LLM from quantitative data inputs. May contain inaccuracies. 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.
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 XSD or VTWO, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell NVTS shares regardless of NVTS's individual fundamentals. We estimate $121M of passive capital is structurally linked to NVTS through 4 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on NVTS's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 4 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in NVTS to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If NVTS (NVTS) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with NVTS. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 4 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
NVTS Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 26 NVTS shares, reducing daily market volatility.
NVTS (NVTS) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 3.5% of the XSD (XSD) and 0.1% of the VTWO (VTWO). Across 4 tracked ETFs, approximately 9M shares (3.9% 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 NVTS Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 4 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
NVTS 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 NVTS over the past year sits near $8.59 (25% of 252-day volume). The current price of $25.86 trades 201.0% above this institutional floor — a sign of upside momentum, though a pullback to the POC zone is a common reversion target. The highly concentrated volume profile (25% at POC) indicates strong consensus on fair value — institutional participants have repeatedly transacted near this price.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-12 | 7,293 | $22.65 | $165,186.45 |
| 2026-05-11 | 24,861 | $18.20 | $452,470.2 |
| 2026-05-07 | 139,787 | $16.68 | $2.3M |
| 2026-05-04 | 6,200 | $17.45 | $108,190 |
| 2026-04-29 | 2,163,086 | $15.12 | $32.7M |
| 2026-04-28 | 1,069 | $18.30 | $19,562.7 |
| 2026-04-27 | 10,300 | $17.28 | $177,984 |
| 2026-04-24 | 306 | $18.51 | $5,664.06 |
| 2026-04-23 | 286,333 | $18.47 | $5.3M |
| 2026-04-22 | 40,332 | $15.33 | $618,289.56 |
| 2026-04-21 | 17,275 | $13.20 | $228,030 |
| 2026-04-17 | 149,662 | $12.37 | $1.9M |
| 2026-04-16 | 1,141 | $10.26 | $11,706.66 |
| 2026-04-15 | 2,274 | $9.87 | $22,444.38 |
| 2026-04-13 | 700 | $9.54 | $6,678 |
| 2026-04-10 | 4,211 | $9.42 | $39,667.62 |
| 2026-04-02 | 5,124 | $8.54 | $43,758.96 |
| 2026-03-31 | 20,182 | $7.83 | $158,025.06 |
| 2026-03-26 | 141,468 | $9.48 | $1.3M |
| 2026-03-25 | 3,243 | $9.28 | $30,095.04 |
| 2026-03-23 | 4,200 | $8.75 | $36,750 |
| 2026-03-20 | 317,265 | $9.17 | $2.9M |
| 2026-03-19 | 5,059 | $9.06 | $45,834.54 |
| 2026-03-17 | 39,202 | $10.49 | $411,228.98 |
| 2026-03-13 | 42,214 | $9.98 | $421,295.72 |
| 2026-03-11 | 100,000 | $8.68 | $868,000 |
| 2026-03-09 | 307,618 | $8.20 | $2.5M |
| 2026-03-02 | 1,200 | $9.00 | $10,800 |
| 2026-02-27 | 293,913 | $9.51 | $2.8M |
| 2026-02-26 | 5,114 | $9.88 | $50,526.32 |
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 NVTS 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.