Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$1.43
▲ $0.04 (+2.5%)
Market data updated: 09/18 10:31 AM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$3.38M
Day Range
$1.35 - $1.45
52-Week Range
$0.76 - $10.86
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
ABTS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-74.2% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 5/12 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 9.1% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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.
The stock registers an overall investor score of 81 and a "STRONG" rating, driven primarily by robust technical metrics and upbeat news sentiment. Technically, the price sits above both the 50‑day and 200‑day moving averages, the MACD histogram is positive, the RSI is at a healthy 62, and the %K indicator is in a neutral range, collectively yielding a technical score of 86. This suggests sustained upward momentum and a price trend that is well‑supported by chart patterns. News sentiment is exceptionally favorable, with a score of 92, reflecting multiple positive mentions of the stock and its sector, including partnership announcements that could enhance visibility and growth prospects. However, risk considerations are markedly lower, with a risk score of 34. The ATR of 10.1 % of price indicates notable price volatility, while a Calmar ratio of 0.17 (15.4 % three‑year annualized return against a 92.1 % maximum drawdown) points to a steep potential downside. Volume decline despite price gains further hints at weakening participation. Consequently, while the strong technical foundation and positive market coverage lift the overall score, the pronounced risk factors temper the outlook, keeping the composite rating at a solid but not exceptional level.
Price is above the 50‑day and 200‑day averages, MACD histogram is positive, RSI sits at 62, and %K is neutral, producing a technical score of 86.
These indicators confirm bullish momentum and a stable price trend.
Recent news items are uniformly positive, including sector‑wide gains and a partnership announcement, resulting in a news score of 92.
Positive coverage can attract investor interest and support price appreciation.
ATR equals 10.1 % of price and the Calmar ratio is 0.17, reflecting high volatility and a large potential drawdown, leading to a risk score of 34.
Elevated volatility and low risk‑adjusted return increase the probability of adverse price moves.
StockIQ conclusion
The stock benefits from solid technical strength and enthusiastic news coverage, which together drive a strong overall score. Nevertheless, heightened volatility, a low Calmar ratio, and waning volume introduce notable risk elements. Investors should weigh the bullish technical and sentiment factors against these risk considerations when forming a view.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
as of 09/10/202664
This Week
72
7D Ago
↓ -8
Weakening
Technical
59
7D Ago: 71
↓ -12
News
92
7D Ago: 92
→ 0
Risk
34
7D Ago: 34
→ 0
Biggest Declines
📊 Score History
64
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
14d ago · $1.54
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 72)
What happened after
16d ago · $1.47
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 23 to 56 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
64 / 100
🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 28, 2026
Then
76
$1.35
Now
64
$1.43
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 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
59
Risk
34
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
The provided news sources do not mention **Abits Group Inc.** directly, so no specific coverage of the company is available. The headlines focus on unrelated IT and tech stocks (e.g., Core AI Holdings, Quantum, Domo) and unrelated corporate partnerships (SAP-Signavio). Without relevant sources, no summary of Abits Group’s recent media focus can be provided.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Abits Group Inc. News trend score: 92. Reason: 7 of the last 8 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
64
Fundamentals
—
Technical
59
Valuation
—
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+26%
Market Narrative
63
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+13
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a tension between recent gains (+17.1% ROC) and a prolonged drawdown (-24.1% over three months), with traders exhibiting **loss aversion** as the dominant state. The narrative gap (31 points) further indicates a disconnect between optimistic sentiment (92/100) and the stock’s underperformance relative to peers. While **FOMO** and **euphoria** are present due to momentum and positive news, the lingering decline may suppress aggressive buying. The key question is whether traders will prioritize locking in gains or hold for recovery, given the psychological weight of past losses.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 03:42 PM
What could change this?
📈 15D 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
Charles Mackay — 71/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Jesse Livermore’s high score (73) standing out as an outlier, suggesting the price action aligns with his trend-following principles. Meanwhile, most value and fundamental investors—like Graham, Fisher, Lynch, and Bagehot—scored it a neutral 50 due to insufficient data to apply their rigorous frameworks, highlighting a lack of clear balance-sheet strength or growth signals. On the cautionary end, the lowest scores (from Housel, Nelson, and Loeb) flag volatility, overbought conditions, or excessive risk, while Howard Marks’ mixed verdicts split between cycle positioning and outright valuation concerns. The contrast underscores whether ABTS is a speculative trade (Livermore’s view) or a red flag for patient, disciplined investors.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 71
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 62
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
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
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)
🟡 46
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 27
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 20
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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 278 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (5 bullish · 3 bearish · 2 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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low 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) — 7 positive, 1 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 8 articles.
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 31.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 19.8.2026
ChartMill · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 4.8.2026
Benzinga · 23.7.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Abits Group Inc (ABTS) — 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 ABTS 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.
ABTS's technical score is 59/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Price is above the 50-day average; RSI 51.3 — healthy positive momentum; +19.0% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 9.1% of price; Calmar: 0.16 (3y annualized return 14.9% / max drawdown 92.1%); Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ABTS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 4 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deng Conglin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 40,000 | -40,000 | — |
| Deng Conglin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Deng Conglin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 77,355 | +40,000 | — |
| Deng Conglin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.4.2026 | 0 | -40,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
76,264 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 47,463 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
41.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 33.2% 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