Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

MPWR Technology · Semiconductors
Delayed 15 min
Last close
$1,249.20
Oct 16, 2026
52-week range
$833.18 — $1,714.09
-27% from high
Market cap
61.4B
Diluted basis
Dividend yield
0.6%
P/E
76.0
Trailing
Verdict status · Oct 16, 2026

Not yet scored

Filing.fyi has not computed forensic scores for MPWR yet. Scores appear after the company's next data refresh.

No verdict yet
RED DEEP Scores pending shown after the next data refresh
Composite Health
AI synthesis · written from this company's SEC filings · not investment advice

What the filing actually says.

AI · forensic preset

The filing data available for Monolithic Power Systems is narrow: annual revenue for fiscal years 2018 through 2025 and nothing else. No Beneish M-Score, Piotroski F-Score, Altman Z-Score, or Fog Index is on file for this company, so this synthesis does not report any forensic score and cannot say whether any score is in an elevated zone, a neutral zone, or a readability band. The absence of scores is a gap in the data, not a clean bill of health, and readers may want to keep that distinction in mind. What the revenue series does show is a company that grew from $582.38 million in 2018 to $2.79 billion in 2025, roughly 4.8 times larger over seven years. The path was uneven: revenue rose about 43% in 2021 and about 48% in 2022, then nearly flattened in 2023 before growing about 21% in 2024 and about 26% in 2025. These are simple year-over-year calculations from the reported figures, and they describe scale and pace, not quality of earnings. Because no MD&A text is on file, this analysis cannot tell readers what management attributes the growth to, whether pricing, volume, product mix, or a particular end market, and it cannot compare management's explanation against the reported numbers, which is the core test of this kind of synthesis. Readers may want to read the MD&A section of the company's most recent annual report on EDGAR, then check whether the narrative about drivers matches the cash flow statement and balance sheet. Those statements are also not included here, so no claim is made about cash conversion, margins, debt, or liquidity. For a learner, the most useful next step is to pair the revenue trend with the full set of financial statements and the risk-factor section, then review the forensic scores once they are available to see whether the statements raise any screening flags.

Catalyst.The only company data on file for Monolithic Power Systems is annual revenue, so the clearest signal is the top line. Revenues rose from $2.21 billion in 2024 to $2.79 billion in 2025, an increase of about 26%, following growth of roughly 21% from $1.82 billion in 2023 to $2.21 billion in 2024. Revenue grew about 1.7% in 2023 from $1.79 billion in 2022, a much slower year. The MD&A text, which would explain which products, end markets, or customers drove these results, is not included in this data set, so this paragraph cannot attribute the growth to specific causes.

Hidden risk.The most material point a casual reader could miss is what this data cannot show. Revenue growth is not the same as cash generation, profitability, or balance-sheet strength, and none of those line items are included here. Risk-factor text is also not on file, so this synthesis cannot describe customer concentration, supply, competition, or regulatory exposure as the company discloses them. Readers may want to look at the risk factors section of the company's annual report and its cash flow statement directly, since a fast-growing top line can coexist with working-capital pressure that revenue alone does not reveal.

Market signals · from trading data, not filings

What traders are betting.

The scores above come from what MPWR reports to the SEC. These readings come from how traders are positioned in its shares. They change quickly, they can be wrong, and they are not part of the verdict.
Short interest Shares sold short · reported twice a month
5.1%
of the shares available to trade
Moderate
0%5% · 10% · 20%25%+

The metric

Shares that traders have borrowed and sold, betting the price will fall, and not yet bought back. Brokers report the total to FINRA twice a month. Days to cover divides it by the shares that change hands on a typical day.

Shares sold short
1.9M
Change since Aug 31
−7.0%
Days to cover
2.6

What it tells us

A noticeable minority of traders is betting that MPWR shares will fall.

Little changed since the Aug 31 report (−7.0%).

At normal trading volume, short sellers would need about 2.6 days to buy back every borrowed share.

How investors use it

  • Squeeze watching. Some aggressive traders seek out heavily shorted stocks, betting that good news will force short sellers to buy back shares and push the price higher.
  • Hedging. Funds short one company to offset risk in another, often owning a stronger business and shorting a weaker one in the same industry.
  • Timing. Chart-based traders pair rising short interest with price patterns, such as a break below a level where buyers used to step in, to decide when to enter or exit.
  • Warning sign. Some owners treat a sharp rise in short interest as a red flag and respond by tightening stop-loss orders or holding smaller positions.

Lesson: short interest, explained →

Short-interest report for Sep 30, 2026, via Yahoo Finance. Reports come out about a week and a half after that date.

SEC filings · last 12 months

SEC filings

The current reports (8-K) Monolithic Power Systems filed in the last 12 months, each linked to the original document on SEC EDGAR.

  • Sep 10, 2026
    8-K
    Current reportItem 8.01: Other events0
    EDGAR →
  • Jul 30, 2026
    8-K
    Current reportItem 2.02: Results of operations (earnings)0
    EDGAR →
Further reading · curated for this filing

If this case caught your eye

Affiliate links — Filing.fyi earns a commission on Amazon purchases. We pick the books first, attach the link second.

Financial Shenanigans

Howard M. Schilit

Schilit's framework for the seven shenanigan types is the standard reference for the kind of MD&A pattern-matching this site does.

View on Amazon →

The Interpretation of Financial Statements

Benjamin Graham

The original — and still the clearest — explanation of why working-capital trends matter more than headline earnings.

View on Amazon →

Quality of Earnings

Thornton L. O'glove

Out of print, expensive, worth it. The chapter on receivables-vs-revenue divergence applies almost word-for-word to most distressed filings.

View on Amazon →