UEC (UEC)
Quantitative Summary
DeterministicFinancial health is average: Piotroski 4/9, Altman Z 31.7. Beneish M-Score of 261.65 exceeds the -2.22 academic threshold — earnings quality may warrant further review.
Generated deterministically from quant metrics and financial statements. Not a recommendation.
Algorithmic Teardown
AI-GeneratedThe fundamental economics of UEC present a stark dichotomy between explosive top-line expansion and severe operational erosion. While revenue growth YoY has surged to 29,738%, this metric is entirely offset by a net margin contraction to -131.2% and a negative ROIC spread of -6.5%, indicating that the company is generating value at a rate significantly below its cost of capital despite high leverage on assets. The DuPont decomposition suggests margins are the primary driver of poor returns, as profitability has turned deeply negative even though gross margins remain positive at 36.6%. Compounding these operational weaknesses, the Piotroski F-Score of 4/9 signals a lack of financial strength relative to peers, while an Altman Z-Score of 31.7 and a Beneish M-Score of 261.65 simultaneously suggest that while bankruptcy risk is currently low based on leverage metrics, earnings quality faces significant scrutiny for potential manipulation or aggressive accounting practices.
Valuation dynamics are obscured by the absence of sector benchmarks and historical averages due to unknown industry classification, making relative P/E comparisons impossible without external data points not provided in this analysis. However, the implied growth assumptions required to justify current market pricing appear misaligned with the underlying cash flow destruction evident in the -6.5% ROIC; any fair value model relying on standard DCF inputs would likely struggle to reconcile massive revenue volatility with sustained losses unless a specific turnaround catalyst is priced in by the market that contradicts the fundamental data presented. The disconnect between astronomical top-line growth and deeply negative bottom-line results suggests the current valuation may be pricing in an unsustainable normalization of margins or a one-time event rather than enduring profitability.
The risk profile remains elevated given the conflicting signals from financial health metrics. Although the high Altman Z-Score indicates a low probability of immediate insolvency, the combination of negative returns on invested capital and a mediocre Piotroski score points to structural inefficiencies that could deteriorate further if revenue growth decelerates or margins continue their downward trajectory. Investors must weigh whether the extreme revenue anomaly represents a genuine business model shift or an accounting artifact highlighted by the elevated Beneish M-Score, as this distinction will ultimately determine the sustainability of any future equity value creation.
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.
Risk Profile
Sharpe = risk-adjusted return (higher is better). Max drawdown = largest peak-to-trough decline. 1,200+ trading days.
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 XME or VDE, the fund manager is mechanically forced to buy or sell UEC shares regardless of UEC's individual fundamentals. We estimate $559M of passive capital is structurally linked to UEC through 7 tracked ETFs. Passive flows have a limited but growing influence on UEC's daily trading dynamics.
Passive exposure = Σ (ETF AUM × stock weight in ETF) across 7 tracked ETFs. Actual passive ownership is larger (includes mutual funds). Not investment advice.
ETF Contagion Visualizer
Simulate a price drop in UEC to visualize passive redemption contagion across ETFs and collateral stocks.
If UEC (UEC) experiences a significant drawdown, ETF redemptions can create collateral selling pressure on co-held stocks. Our model identifies Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) as the most exposed collateral stock, sharing 2 ETFs with UEC. This is the "Passive Contagion" effect described in the Inelastic Market Hypothesis.
Contagion model based on shared ETF exposure and constituent weights across 7 tracked ETFs. Estimated selling pressure is a simplified model — actual impact depends on market liquidity, ETF redemption mechanics, and market-maker activity.
UEC Ownership Dynamics
Passive funds hold 1 in every 11 UEC shares, reducing daily market volatility.
UEC (UEC) exerts measurable gravity on the passive index market, currently representing 4.0% of the XME (XME) and 0.3% of the VDE (VDE). Across 7 tracked ETFs, approximately 43M shares (8.7% 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 UEC Exposure
Float lock-up computed from 7 ETFs tracked by SecuritiesDB. Actual passive ownership is higher (includes mutual funds, pension funds, etc.).
UEC 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 UEC over the past year sits near $13.35 (14% of 252-day volume). The current price of $15.44 trades 15.7% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-14 | 177 | $15.37 | $2,720.49 |
| 2026-05-12 | 4,863 | $16.47 | $80,093.61 |
| 2026-05-07 | 4,052 | $15.77 | $63,900.04 |
| 2026-05-06 | 739 | $14.50 | $10,715.5 |
| 2026-05-05 | 278 | $14.82 | $4,119.96 |
| 2026-05-04 | 6,908 | $14.94 | $103,205.52 |
| 2026-05-01 | 132,757 | $14.89 | $2.0M |
| 2026-04-29 | 200 | $14.46 | $2,892 |
| 2026-04-22 | 5,533 | $14.45 | $79,951.85 |
| 2026-04-21 | 264 | $15.13 | $3,994.32 |
| 2026-04-20 | 23,500 | $14.97 | $351,795 |
| 2026-04-17 | 32,657 | $15.16 | $495,080.12 |
| 2026-04-16 | 953 | $14.82 | $14,123.46 |
| 2026-04-15 | 3,500 | $14.13 | $49,455 |
| 2026-04-14 | 8,947 | $13.95 | $124,810.65 |
| 2026-04-13 | 389 | $13.53 | $5,263.17 |
| 2026-04-07 | 38,811 | $13.36 | $518,514.96 |
| 2026-04-06 | 35,000 | $13.57 | $474,950 |
| 2026-04-02 | 19,229 | $13.43 | $258,245.47 |
| 2026-04-01 | 7,663 | $13.50 | $103,450.5 |
| 2026-03-31 | 15,969 | $12.52 | $199,931.88 |
| 2026-03-30 | 9,123 | $12.92 | $117,869.16 |
| 2026-03-27 | 144 | $13.05 | $1,879.2 |
| 2026-03-26 | 38,737 | $13.44 | $520,625.28 |
| 2026-03-25 | 29,233 | $13.19 | $385,583.27 |
| 2026-03-19 | 2,500 | $13.53 | $33,825 |
| 2026-03-18 | 3,052 | $13.99 | $42,697.48 |
| 2026-03-16 | 1,268 | $13.41 | $17,003.88 |
| 2026-03-11 | 304,980 | $14.48 | $4.4M |
| 2026-03-05 | 59,960 | $15.04 | $901,798.4 |
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.
Price Correlations
Statistical correlation of daily returns with other stocks. High correlations indicate stocks that move together; negative correlations can offer diversification.
| Peer | 252-Day (1Y) | 126-Day (6M) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| WTGXX | NaN | NaN | |
| LEU | 0.527 | 0.612 | Moderate |
| BWXT | 0.466 | 0.522 | Moderate |
| ASTS | 0.431 | 0.555 | Moderate |
| CDE | 0.428 | 0.582 | Moderate |
| RKLB | 0.409 | 0.556 | Moderate |
| RGLD | 0.397 | 0.519 | Moderate |
| CW | 0.389 | 0.532 | Moderate |
| GFI | 0.387 | 0.532 | Moderate |
| NEM | 0.386 | 0.495 | Moderate |
Pearson correlation of daily log returns. 252d ≈ 1 trading year. Computed from price history. Not investment advice.
Compare UEC 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.