OSCR (OSCR)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicBelow-average fundamentals indicated by Piotroski score of 2/9.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of OSCR present a stark contradiction between top-line expansion and deteriorating capital efficiency. While revenue growth accelerates at 27.5% year-over-year, the company is generating negative returns on invested capital at -5.2%, indicating that new investments are destroying value rather than creating it. This operational weakness is underscored by significant profitability erosion, with a net margin contraction to -3.8%, and further confirmed by a distressed Piotroski F-Score of 2/9, which signals severe financial distress relative to historical norms. The inability to convert revenue into cash flow or sustainable profits suggests that current growth metrics may be masking underlying structural fragility rather than reflecting genuine competitive moats.
Valuation analysis reveals a significant divergence between market pricing and intrinsic value estimates derived from discounted cash flow models. With the stock trading at levels far below its calculated fair value of $45, the market appears to have heavily penalized the asset for its negative ROIC and lack of profitability, potentially pricing in an extreme risk premium or permanent capital impairment rather than temporary operational hurdles. This wide gap implies that while the growth rate is robust on paper, investors are skeptical about the durability of this trajectory given the company's inability to generate positive cash flows from its expanded revenue base.
The synthesis of these factors paints a high-risk profile where aggressive top-line momentum fails to translate into shareholder value creation. The combination of negative capital returns and a failing financial health score suggests that future earnings quality remains uncertain, despite the apparent valuation discount. Investors must weigh whether the current price adequately compensates for the risk of continued value destruction or if there is sufficient catalysts required to reverse the negative trends in profitability before any meaningful recovery in equity value can occur.
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 → | 8% | 10% | 12% |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2% | $52 | $41 | $35 |
| 3% | $59 | $45 | $37 |
| 4% | $69 | $49 | $39 |
Center = base case. Green = >10% upside, Red = >10% downside vs $21.14.
Pre-computed DCF: WACC=10.0%, terminal growth 3%. Fair value $45 (+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.
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 KIE or VBK, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell OSCR shares regardless of OSCR's individual fundamentals. We estimate $89M of passive capital is structurally linked to OSCR through 4 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on OSCR'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 OSCR to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If OSCR (OSCR) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 1 ETFs with OSCR. 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.
OSCR Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 51 OSCR shares, reducing daily market volatility.
OSCR (OSCR) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 2.9% of the KIE (KIE) and 0.1% of the VBK (VBK). Across 4 tracked ETFs, approximately 5M shares (2.0% 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 OSCR Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 4 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
OSCR 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 OSCR over the past year sits near $14.79 (14% of 252-day volume). The current price of $21.14 trades 43.0% 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 (14% 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 | 19,854 | $22.00 | $436,788 |
| 2026-05-11 | 12,905 | $21.31 | $275,005.55 |
| 2026-05-07 | 140,999 | $19.84 | $2.8M |
| 2026-05-04 | 5,870 | $18.49 | $108,536.3 |
| 2026-04-27 | 5,834 | $16.81 | $98,069.54 |
| 2026-04-20 | 36,282 | $15.79 | $572,892.78 |
| 2026-04-17 | 4,985 | $15.63 | $77,915.55 |
| 2026-04-16 | 5,129 | $15.59 | $79,961.11 |
| 2026-04-14 | 3,662 | $15.48 | $56,687.76 |
| 2026-04-13 | 4,050 | $14.45 | $58,522.5 |
| 2026-04-02 | 1,716 | $11.73 | $20,128.68 |
| 2026-03-31 | 844 | $10.85 | $9,157.4 |
| 2026-03-23 | 450 | $12.63 | $5,683.5 |
| 2026-03-20 | 1,452 | $13.30 | $19,311.6 |
| 2026-03-18 | 1,452 | $13.51 | $19,616.52 |
| 2026-03-06 | 5,420 | $14.39 | $77,993.8 |
| 2026-03-05 | 1,163 | $15.05 | $17,503.15 |
| 2026-03-04 | 125 | $13.67 | $1,708.75 |
| 2026-03-02 | 7,703 | $13.64 | $105,068.92 |
| 2026-02-20 | 5,692 | $13.73 | $78,151.16 |
| 2026-02-19 | 14,599 | $13.70 | $200,006.3 |
| 2026-01-20 | 1,490 | $16.55 | $24,659.5 |
| 2026-01-16 | 2,700 | $17.42 | $47,034 |
| 2026-01-14 | 5,301 | $17.38 | $92,131.38 |
| 2026-01-13 | 5,668 | $17.66 | $100,096.88 |
| 2026-01-12 | 3,403 | $17.73 | $60,335.19 |
| 2026-01-08 | 15,858 | $16.48 | $261,339.84 |
| 2026-01-06 | 3,049 | $16.57 | $50,521.93 |
| 2026-01-05 | 1,500 | $14.97 | $22,455 |
| 2025-12-24 | 38,394 | $14.84 | $569,766.96 |
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 OSCR 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.