Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$12.76
▲ $0.07 (+0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/19 01:25 AM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$2.20B
Day Range
$12.46 - $13.03
52-Week Range
$11.39 - $24.24
Beta
—
Next Earnings
13.11.2026
Support
$11.39
Resistance
$22.63
AADX is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-34.0% (1Y)
🔴 Weak
Strengths: 2/10 factors positiveRisk: High
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
MACD
MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 7.6% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
50
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
37
Risk
42
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
100
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of **Applied Aerospace & Defense, Inc.** has centered on its stock performance and strategic shifts. After a 35% post-IPO decline, the company’s valuation now sits below 3x sales, sparking investor analysis. A key development was the appointment of **Elizabeth Robertson** as Executive Vice President of Business Development, aimed at expanding its space, defense, and launch systems markets. Additionally, heightened **implied volatility** in stock options and analyst price target increases suggest growing market speculation about its backlog-driven growth potential.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Applied Aerospace & Defense, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
21
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
80
Fundamentals
—
Technical
37
Valuation
—
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-33%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+9
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant panic selling reflects extreme oversold conditions (RSI 25) and a 26.3% three-month drawdown, where traders appear to be liquidating positions aggressively. Loss aversion (35) is the second-highest signal, indicating defensive behavior to mitigate further declines. The narrative gap (-10) hints at a disconnect where sentiment (40) lags reality (50), possibly due to delayed negative news absorption. The key question is whether volume will sustain or if traders are merely front-running a potential rebound. The subdued volatility (0.77x) suggests caution rather than panic-driven chaos.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 07:58 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Can Applied Aerospace & Defense (AADX) Convert Its Backlog Into Durable Earnings Growth?"
"Applied Aerospace & Defense stock is down 35% post-IPO, pushing valuation below 3x sales"
"Applied Aerospace & Defense Appoints Elizabeth Robertson as Executive Vice President of Business Development"
"Implied Volatility Surging for Applied Aerospace & Defense Stock Options"
📈 16D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Thorstein Veblen — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between technical and fundamental camps, with high-scoring methodologies emphasizing cyclical and trend-following signals while others dismiss it outright. Technical analysts like Samuel Armstrong Nelson (96) and Jack Schwager (87) see a favorable cycle position and disciplined setup, suggesting the stock may be oversold and ripe for a rebound. Meanwhile, growth-oriented thinkers such as Thorstein Veblen (80) and Charles Mackay (86) agree it aligns with real value creation and lacks crowd-driven mania, reinforcing a cautiously optimistic view. In contrast, fundamentalists like Benjamin Graham (50) and Philip Fisher (50) are stymied by insufficient data, while Howard Marks (46) warns of potentially inflated expectations. The stark contrast with Morgan Housel (0) and Gerald Loeb (26)—who flag volatility and risk—highlights a disconnect between those who prioritize momentum or relative value and those who demand rock-solid fundamentals or patience. Even the efficient-market camp (28) sides with passive investing, leaving the stock as a polarizing case.
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 72
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 66
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 63
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 53
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 31
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 30
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 26
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 75 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 bearish · 1 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Medium confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 8 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Fintel · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Business Wire · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Zacks · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Yahoo · 19.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 19.8.2026
Yahoo · 14.8.2026
Motley Fool · 14.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Applied Aerospace & Defense, Inc. (AADX) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for AADX specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
AADX's technical score is 37/100, which currently reads as bearish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 7.6% of price; Price is below the 50-day average; -35.2% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AADX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 8 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 14 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA&D Holdings, LP | Other Transaction | 15.7.2026 | 11,456,787 | -11,456,787 | — |
| AA&D Holdings, LP | Other Transaction | 15.7.2026 | 126,786,731 | -11,456,787 | — |
| McRae Jeffrey L. | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $20.00 |
| Lynch Susan D | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 8,000 | +8,000 | $20.00 |
| Goldstein Scott (NMN) | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 4,250 | +4,250 | $20.00 |
| Katzman James C | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 4,250 | +4,250 | $20.00 |
| Goldstein Scott (NMN) | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 500 | +500 | $20.00 |
| Katzman James C | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $20.00 |
| McRae Jeffrey L. | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $20.00 |
| Katzman James C | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 4,250 | +4,250 | $20.00 |
| Katzman James C | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 29,250 | +25,000 | $20.00 |
| Lynch Susan D | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 8,000 | +8,000 | $20.00 |
| Goldstein Scott (NMN) | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 4,250 | +4,250 | $20.00 |
| Goldstein Scott (NMN) | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 4,750 | +500 | $20.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,166,050 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,708,589 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 38.0% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology