For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Enova International Inc. (ENVA) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-10-07): Designation Watch · Gem Score +6 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 16 · Value -1 · Sentiment -76 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $871.97 vs $179.23 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Enova International Inc.
ENVA NYSEEnova International Inc. is a prominent player in the financial services sector, specializing in providing innovative and technology-driven financial solutions. As a leading online financial services provider, Enova offers a diverse range of services, including consumer and small business lending products. The company leverages proprietary analytics, state-of-the-art technology, and advanced machine learning models to evaluate credit and other risks, effectively meeting the demands of its established and growing customer base. Enova's portfolio extends to various industries, significantly impacting consumer finance and small business sectors, by addressing their credit needs through efficient online platforms. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Enova International has made a significant mark in the digital finance landscape, ensuring accessibility to financial resources for underserved markets. Its commitment to responsible lending practices and innovative technology makes it a key player in expanding financial inclusion and enhancing customer experience within the industry.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 11.52
Total Equity: $1.34B
Shares: 26,769,878
Total Debt: $4.50B
Cash: $71.71M
EBITDA: $455.81M
Total Debt: $4.50B
Cash: $71.71M
Revenue: $3.15B
Revenue: $3.15B
Revenue: $3.15B
Total Equity: $1.34B
Tax Rate: 23.1%
Equity: $1.34B
Total Debt: $4.50B
Cash: $71.71M
Current Liabilities: N/A
Long-Term Debt: $4.50B
Total Debt: $4.50B
Total Equity: $1.34B
Shares: 26,769,878
Shares: 26,769,878
CapEx: -$47.14M
Shares: 26,769,878
Stock Price: $253.35
Net Income: $308.39M
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 7:40pm (69d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $1.2B | $1.7B | $2.1B | $2.7B | $3.2B |
| Cost of Revenue | $260.2M | $734.4M | $1.1B | $1.4B | $1.7B |
| Gross Profit | $947.8M | $1.0B | $1.0B | $1.2B | $1.5B |
| Operating Expenses | $611.2M | $733.6M | $807.8M | $944.7M | $1.1B |
| Operating Income | $336.6M | $268.1M | $227.4M | $294.3M | $406.7M |
| Net Income | $256.3M | $207.4M | $175.1M | $209.4M | $308.4M |
| EBITDA | $374.3M | $306.9M | $265.7M | $341.3M | $455.8M |
| EPS | $7.05 | $6.42 | $5.71 | $7.78 | $12.25 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $6.79 | $6.19 | $5.49 | $7.43 | $11.52 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 7:16pm (69d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $165.5M | $100.2M | $54.4M | $73.9M | $71.7M |
| Total Current Assets | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Assets | $2.8B | $3.8B | $4.6B | $5.3B | $6.5B |
| Current Liabilities | — | — | — | — | — |
| Long-Term Debt | $1.4B | $2.3B | $2.9B | $3.6B | $4.5B |
| Total Liabilities | $1.7B | $2.6B | $3.3B | $4.1B | $5.1B |
| Total Equity | $1.1B | $1.2B | $1.2B | $1.2B | $1.3B |
| Retained Earnings | $1.1B | $1.3B | $1.5B | $1.7B | $2.0B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 7:40pm (69d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $471.9M | $894.0M | $1.2B | $1.5B | $1.8B |
| Capital Expenditure | -$29.7M | -$43.6M | -$45.2M | -$43.4M | -$47.1M |
| Free Cash Flow | $442.2M | $850.4M | $1.1B | $1.5B | $1.8B |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$29.2M | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | — | — | $396.2M | $500.0M | — |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | -$116.7M | -$143.1M | -$153.2M | -$289.3M | -$214.6M |
| Net Change in Cash | -$143.3M | -$47.5M | $199.0M | -$54.8M | $85.2M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jul 30, 2026 7:40pm (69d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +43.7% | +22.0% | +25.5% | +18.6% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +5.7% | +3.3% | +19.7% | +20.3% |
| Operating Income Growth | -20.3% | -15.2% | +29.5% | +38.2% |
| Net Income Growth | -19.1% | -15.6% | +19.6% | +47.2% |
| EBITDA Growth | -18.0% | -13.4% | +28.4% | +33.6% |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — upside vs downside from this company's own quarters
Computed 2026-10-04 02:02A +1σ run of quarters pays +40%; a −1σ run costs 2%. Ratio 17.5:1 (μ 20.4%, σ 4.4% , 16 pairs).
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($179.23) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +31% | 19.7% | $493.77 | +176% |
| Base — stabilizes | +20% | 17.1% | $323.10 | +80% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +10% | 14.6% | $204.44 | +14% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | +15% | 10.8% | $180.84 | +1% |
| Upside — a +1σ run of quarters (v2) | +25% | 11.3% | $251.15 | +40% |
| Stress — a −1σ run of quarters (v2) | +16% | 10.1% | $175.13 | -2% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-09-17 16:58The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.
Claude Reading
Independent read first: ENVA is a subprime consumer/SMB lender compounding revenue at ~18% YoY (Q2/26 $928.9M vs Q2/25 $764.0M) with net income expanding faster (+38% YoY) and quarterly margins climbing from 6.3% eight quarters ago to 11.3% now. Annual FCF of $1.77B against a $4.46B market cap is arresting on its face — a ~2.5x price/FCF — but this is a lender where "FCF" largely reflects loan book accounting (originations vs. collections) and is not distributable cash; the $4.5B debt stack funds a receivables book, not free capital. The right frame is P/E 13.3 and P/B 3.2 on ROE ~26%, which for a subprime lender at what looks like peak credit conditions is reasonable but not screaming cheap. Insider behavior is telling: every non-award transaction in the last month is an option-exercise-and-immediate-sell — no open-market buying anywhere.
On the prior models: the Valuation Synthesis output of a $728–$872 fair value versus $179 price is nonsense and should be discarded — it's almost certainly capitalizing that $1.77B "FCF" as if it were owner earnings for a software company. Any DCF on a balance-sheet lender must use earnings or dividends/buybacks, not operating cash flow that includes loan repayments net of originations. The Market Forces module swings to the opposite extreme ("avoid at any price," "catastrophic accounting quality," "existential debt risk") which is also overwrought — debt/equity of 3.3x is normal for a specialty lender, interest coverage on $407M operating income is adequate, and there's no evidence in the provided data of accounting restatements. The Pre-Flight framing (mature subprime lender at fair multiple, market discounting margin sustainability) is the most honest of the bunch, and the Narrative layer correctly identifies that no cult premium exists here — it's a math argument.
The contrarian case against the bullish trajectory: subprime lenders always look best right before they look worst. Net margins expanding from 6.3% to 11.3% over eight quarters while the loan book is presumably growing means loss provisions are being outrun by originations — classic late-cycle optics. When vintages season and unemployment ticks up, the same operating leverage reverses violently; 2022's $207M NI on $1.74B revenue (12% margin) came before the current rate cycle really bit borrowers. The 41% earnings CAGR is not sustainable and shouldn't be extrapolated. CFPB overhang on small-dollar APRs is real if a Democratic administration returns focus there, and the 33% drawdown from highs plus systematic insider selling suggests informed sellers see the same peak-cycle setup. Sector is lagging, macro is flagged as headwind, and revenue growth is decelerating quarter-over-quarter in absolute dollar adds (Q/Q growth: $37M, $17M, $37M, $36M, $54M — noisy but not accelerating).
GPT Reading
The core fact here is that Enova is not behaving like a distressed subprime lender in the numbers we have today. On a trailing basis through 2026-06-30, revenue is about $3.45 billion and net income is roughly $355 million, up from about $2.93 billion and $256 million in the prior-year window. That is 17-18% top-line growth with nearly 39% earnings growth, and the quarterly cadence is getting better, not worse: revenue has risen sequentially from $802.7 million to $839.4 million to $875.1 million to $928.9 million, while net income moved from $80.3 million to $79.0 million to $91.1 million to $105.1 million. The most recent quarter’s 11.3% net margin is the best in the set. That does not fit the “peak cycle and cracking” narrative. It fits a lender scaling receivables profitably while holding unit economics together.
Valuation also looks plainly undemanding relative to that operating trajectory. At $179.23, the market cap is $4.46 billion, which is only 1.37x TTM revenue and about 12.6x-13.3x TTM earnings depending on the exact share count and metric source. For a business compounding revenue above 20% over several years and now expanding margins again, that multiple is low unless you believe current earnings are near a cyclical high or materially overstated. The balance sheet is levered, but this is a lender; the right question is whether leverage is outrunning profitability, and the evidence here says no. Debt of $4.50 billion against equity of $1.34 billion is substantial, but ROE of 26.1% and rising earnings power indicate the company is earning on that leverage rather than being crushed by it. I also do not put much weight on the headline free cash flow figure of $1.77 billion; for a credit business, cash flow statements are noisy and often flattering because loan book movements swamp true distributable cash. Even after stripping that out mentally, the equity still screens inexpensive on earnings and book-relative profitability.
What stands out most is the contradiction between the scary qualitative overlays and the actual reported trend. The model output throws around “existential debt risk,” “catastrophic accounting quality,” and “avoid at any price,” yet the raw figures show four straight quarters of sequential revenue growth, four straight quarters of solid profitability, and year-over-year margin improvement from 6.3% to 11.3% in the comparable quarter. If there were acute funding stress or a genuine credit accident forming, I would expect to see it first in flattening revenue, spiking loss drag, or collapsing net margins. Instead, the business is accelerating into mid-2026. The price-to-book of 3.16x is not cheap in absolute terms, but for a lender generating a mid-20s ROE, that is not stretched; 3.16x book divided by 26% ROE implies an earnings yield broadly consistent with the reported P/E. This looks much more like a good lender in a distrusted category than a broken lender the market has somehow missed.
The best argument against my view is simple and serious: subprime credit almost always looks best just before it doesn’t. Enova’s debt-to-equity of 3.35x, cash of only $71.7 million versus $4.50 billion of debt, and regulatory exposure mean this is not a forgiving business if loss rates turn or funding costs rise. Annual net income was $256.3 million in 2021, then $207.4 million in 2022, before recovering strongly, so earnings are clearly cyclical. The market may be correctly refusing to capitalize current earnings at a premium because these are unsecured and near-prime/subprime lending revenues, not recurring software revenues. A bear would also note that 2025 operating cash flow of $1.82 billion is not a clean sign of owner earnings in this industry, and insider activity includes sale lines, even if paired with option exercises. I weigh these concerns as real but not thesis-breaking because none of them yet show up in deterioration of the latest operating run-rate; they are reasons to cap the multiple, not reasons to price the stock like an impaired franchise.
What would change my mind is not another narrative about regulation or macro. I would want to see it in the numbers. If the next two quarters break the pattern—revenue stalling below roughly $900 million per quarter, net margin slipping back under 9%, or net income falling materially below the $90-100 million range despite a larger revenue base—I would assume credit costs or funding are catching up and that today’s earnings power is overstated. A sudden jump in leverage without corresponding revenue growth, or evidence that book value is being eroded by charge-offs, would also flip me. Until then, a business growing revenue nearly 18%, earnings nearly 39%, and printing a 26% ROE does not deserve to sit at 13x earnings unless the market is early on a downturn. That may happen, but the present data do not prove it.
Grok Reading
Enova’s numbers describe a scaled, still-accelerating consumer and SMB credit platform, not a stalled mature earner. Trailing-twelve-month revenue through mid-2026 is roughly $3.45B (928.9 + 875.1 + 839.4 + 802.7), up from $3.15B in calendar 2025 and $2.66B in 2024, with sequential quarters still climbing and recent revenue growth near 18% and earnings growth near 39%. Net income in the latest quarter hit $105.1M on an 11.3% margin, up from the mid-single-digit margins of late 2024; TTM net income is about $355M. ROE at 26% and an operating margin near 24% show the underwriting and funding machine is throwing off real equity returns even after credit costs. At $179 and a $4.46B market cap the stock clears at roughly 13× TTM earnings, 1.4× sales and under 11× EV/EBITDA—cheap for mid-teens-plus growth if the credit book holds. The $1.77B “free cash flow” figure is the tell that prior models are misreading a lender: principal collections inflate operating cash flow, so that cash is not equity free cash in the industrial sense and cannot support a $700–$870 DCF target. Strip that error and the clean story is high-teens revenue growth, expanding margins, and a low-teens multiple.
Leverage is structural rather than accidental. Year-end 2025 debt of $4.50B against $1.34B of equity (D/E ~3.35) and only $72M of cash is exactly what a balance-sheet lender looks like; the risk is refinancing cost and charge-off intensity, not an imminent liquidity cliff so long as originations stay funded. ROIC has jumped from an annual 5.4% toward a TTM near 10%, consistent with operating leverage kicking in as the book seasons. Insider prints are mostly awards plus option exercise-and-sale pairs, not a clean distribution signal. The market narrative layer is correctly quiet: this is a fundamentals-versus-cycle argument, not a cult stock, which is why the 13× multiple embeds skepticism rather than a growth premium.
The strongest case against owning it is straightforward credit-cycle and regulatory math. Subprime and near-prime installment and line products are first to gap wider when unemployment or payment rates deteriorate; the thesis engine correctly flags CFPB fee-structure risk and credit-cycle deterioration as the dominant fragilities. Debt service on $4.5B becomes punitive if funding spreads gap or if net charge-offs force tighter underwriting and slower originations—the same volume engine that just delivered 18% revenue growth. Revenue growth is already labeled decelerating on a sequential basis, and a lender that stops growing must shrink the receivable book or accept higher delinquencies, either of which compresses the 11% net margin back toward the 6–9% zone of 2024. Accounting-quality and “existential debt” language in the market-forces block is overstated relative to the income statement trajectory, but the directional worry is fair: one ugly credit quarter or a material CFPB consent order would justify a lower multiple and a lower earnings base simultaneously. Peers trading richer on cleaner prime books make the relative discount look earned rather than anomalous.
I would flip from constructive to neutral or outright cautious if TTM net charge-offs or provision rates rise enough to push net margin back below 9% for two consecutive quarters, if sequential revenue growth falls into the low single digits while debt stays flat, or if a concrete CFPB or state-level fee cap lands that permanently impairs the CashNetUSA/NetCredit unit economics. Conversely, another two quarters of 10%+ net margins with stable delinquencies and continued mid-teens revenue growth would argue the 13× multiple is still too low and would push a higher conviction bid. Until those prints arrive, the raw income and returns data beat the panicked model overlays.
Qwen Reading local experiment · off-panel
The most glaring contradiction in this briefing is between the "Market Forces" model screaming "existential debt risk" and the actual cash flow statement, which shows Enova generating $1.82 billion in operating cash flow against a mere $47.1 million in capex. This is a cash-generating machine, not a zombie. The "Market Forces" model likely misread the $4.50 billion total debt figure without contextualizing it against the $1.77 billion in free cash flow (FCF). With a debt-to-FCF ratio of roughly 2.5x, the leverage is manageable, especially for a business with 24% operating margins. The real story is the explosive earnings power: net income has grown from $209.4 million in 2024 to $308.4 million in 2025, a 47% jump, while revenue grew 18%. This margin expansion is the alpha. The market is pricing this at a 13.3x P/E, which is absurdly cheap for a company growing earnings at a 41% CAGR. The "fallen-angel" narrative is a red herring; the numbers show a business that is scaling efficiently, not decaying.
The strongest case against this bullish read is the balance sheet structure and the regulatory overhang. Enova is a subprime lender, and its $4.50 billion debt load is a fixed cost that becomes lethal if the credit cycle turns. The "Thesis Evaluation" correctly flags CFPB regulatory action as the top fragility. If the CFPB cracks down on fee structures or APRs, the 24% operating margin could compress rapidly, turning the high leverage into a death spiral. Furthermore, the insider selling—specifically the 28,498 shares sold in July 2026—suggests that those closest to the company are de-risking. While the "Valuation Synthesis" model produced a nonsensical fair value of $727 (likely a data error or misapplied DCF), the "Market Forces" model's warning about "catastrophic accounting quality" is worth taking seriously. Subprime lenders often have opaque loss reserves, and a sudden spike in charge-offs could wipe out the equity cushion of $1.34 billion.
I am committing to the view that the market is over-penalizing Enova for its subprime status while under-pricing its cash flow generation. The 13.3x P/E is a value trap only if the credit cycle breaks; if it holds, the re-rating potential is significant. The 20.5% revenue CAGR and 25.1% FCF CAGR are not "mature earner" metrics; they are growth metrics. The "Mature Earner" classification from the rule-based model is wrong. This is a high-growth, high-leverage financial that is being valued like a utility. The key risk is not the debt itself, but the correlation between subprime credit quality and the regulatory environment. If the CFPB remains passive and consumer credit holds, Enova is a deep value play. If the CFPB acts, the debt becomes a liability that the equity cannot absorb.
What would change my mind is a quarterly report showing a spike in net charge-offs above 15% of revenue, or a CFPB enforcement action that directly targets Enova's fee structures. A drop in operating margin below 15% would signal that the cost of capital is rising faster than the yield on loans, which would break the margin expansion thesis. Conversely, a buyback announcement or a debt reduction plan would confirm that management is managing the balance sheet proactively, which would strengthen the bullish case. The insider selling is a yellow flag, but not a red one, given the size of the company and the typical nature of option exercises. The real test is the next two quarters of credit quality metrics.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Enova is a subprime/near-prime online lender showing genuinely strong operating execution: revenue grew from $1.48B (2022) to $3.45B (TTM 2026-06), a ~23% CAGR, with operating margin expanding from 20.1% in 2024 back to 24.0% TTM and net income accelerating to $355.5M. Reported FCF of $1.95B is enormous relative to a $4.46B market cap, though for a lender FCF is heavily influenced by loan-book funding dynamics and is not equivalent to industrial FCF. Share count has fallen from 31.4M to 26.4M (-4.3% CAGR) with buyback/SBC at 688%, so per-share value is being actively concentrated with only 1% SBC dilution.
Verify before trusting this (6)
- Net charge-off rates and loan loss provision trends across consumer and SMB segments
- Composition and maturity ladder of the $4.89B debt stack (securitizations vs corporate)
- Whether reported FCF nets loan originations correctly or overstates distributable cash
- Customer/product concentration between subprime consumer (NetCredit/CashNetUSA) and OnDeck SMB
- Regulatory exposure (CFPB, state APR caps) that could compress unit economics
- Whether CEO sales are under a 10b5-1 plan and historical baseline for insider selling
The e2e composite FV of $872 and DCF of $1,315 against a $179 price imply 300%+ upside, which fails the smell test for a subprime lender - these outputs are almost certainly a runaway extrapolation of recent growth and buyback-driven per-share metrics, and the EPV floor of -$14 confirms the model is unstable. I discount both heavily. On sober multiples, a specialty consumer lender earning through a benign credit window typically deserves 8-10x earnings and roughly 1.2-1.5x book; ENVA reportedly trades around 8-9x earnings with mid-teens ROE, which lands deserved value somewhere in the low-to-mid $200s.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Net charge-off rate trend and 30/60-day delinquency by product (CashNetUSA, NetCredit, OnDeck)
- Cost of funds and warehouse facility renewals - spread compression risk
- Loan loss reserve coverage vs vintage seasoning
- Regulatory disclosures on state APR caps and CFPB actions
- Share count trajectory and remaining buyback authorization
The dominant force on ENVA right now is a fresh, narrative-breaking event: the withdrawal of the Grasshopper Bancorp applications took the stock down ~25% in a single session and hollowed out the bull case that ENVA was on a path to a bank charter and cheaper funding. That is a live, story-cracking headline in a name whose narrative was already fragile and low-conviction (fallen-angel archetype, minimal intensity), so there is no cult bid or believer base to absorb the shock. Management's framing (blaming political pressure and unclear standards) leans into the exact bear frame - subprime lender, regulatory overhang - which makes the news doubly damaging to sentiment. Layer on a risk-off tape (VIX 17.7, S&P off highs, 10y at 5%) hitting a 1.21-beta subprime consumer credit name in the middle of a broader financials pullback, and the macro amplifies rather than mutes the idiosyncratic hit. Faster buybacks and a reaffirmed outlook are a partial offset, but buybacks rarely arrest a narrative break in real time, and a potential $5M break fee is another small negative headline still to clear. Net: this is one of those rare moments where a decisive, dominant force is actively pressing the tape lower on this specific name.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Whether sell-side downgrades or price-target cuts follow the deal withdrawal in the next 1-2 weeks
- Resolution and size of the Grasshopper break fee
- Any signs of stabilization in ENVA's daily tape vs the broader financials cohort
- Consumer credit data (delinquencies, subprime charge-offs) that could either confirm or ease the bear frame
- Next earnings print and management commentary on strategic alternatives now that the bank path is off
The world is handing non-bank digital lenders the customers banks stopped underwriting after 2023, and machine-learning underwriting is the durable edge in a segment where approval precision, not distribution, decides economics. The countervailing force is a late-cycle consumer: a 5% 10y and a flat curve keep both funding costs and borrower stress elevated, so the growth is real but levered to credit quality. Regulation is the tail that would change the category's shape, not just Enova's — and Enova's diversification into SMB lending reduces, without eliminating, that single-product exposure. Net: a growing category, a share-gaining operator, and a cyclical credit variable that determines whether growth is 20% or 8%.
When we made this prediction on Sep 18, 2026, ENVA was $176.18. We expect it to be $205.00 by Mar 2027, and we consider it great value under $165.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Sep 18, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.
Post-Report Due Diligence NOTES
Evidence for a closer look, not a verdict — no score or designation on this page has been changed by it. Items marked material are ones where a conclusion above moves to the other side of the price.
trailing_eps
flips down 25%
adjusted_pe
flips down 25%