Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$5.06
▲ $0.22 (+4.5%)
Market data updated: 09/18 09:42 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$921.54M
Day Range
$4.69 - $5.07
52-Week Range
$3.08 - $8.22
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
ACDC is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+25.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/30 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$4.39 vs. price $5.06 (-186.7%)
Fair Value
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.
🗓️ 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
38
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
26
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
36
Risk
26
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
16
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 ProFrac Holding Corp. has centered on its mixed financial performance and market sentiment. Analysts like Morgan Stanley downgraded the stock to "Underweight" with a lowered price target, citing sector volatility and competitive pressures. The company’s Q2 earnings call revealed flat year-over-year sales due to oil and gas market instability and pricing challenges in West Texas proppant markets, though operational momentum in South Texas was noted. Insider buying activity was also reported, suggesting confidence among executives.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ProFrac Holding Corp.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
15
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
78
Fundamentals
16
Technical
36
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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.
Price (3M)
-20%
Market Narrative
55
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ACDC’s psychology is dominated by **Loss Aversion**, reflecting a 25.7% drop over three months and subdued trading activity. The **Confirmation Bias** (narrative-reality gap of +35) and **Overconfidence** (price momentum vs. stagnant fundamentals) suggest investors may be clinging to outdated narratives or ignoring weak fundamentals. Meanwhile, **FOMO** and **Herding** signals (peer outperformance) indicate some buyers are entering, but the dominant reluctance to sell into losses keeps volume low. The key question: *Will the narrative gap widen further, or will fundamentals force a reckoning?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 11:32 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Morgan Stanley maintains ProFrac Holding with an Underweight rating and lowered price target to $4.5"
"Shares jumped after Brent crude rebounded to mid-$80s due to geopolitical risk premium"
"Competitive pricing pressure, especially in proppant markets in West Texas, impacted margins"
"ProFrac Holding insider bought shares worth $2,867,649 and $3,616,641"
📈 15D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 82/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with the most passive and market-neutral approaches like the **efficient-market** model (69) cautiously suggesting it *might* justify a deviation from a broad index—likely due to its relative stability or sector-specific tailwinds. Meanwhile, **Charles Mackay’s** crowd psychology lens (61) hints at growing speculative interest, while **Howard Marks’ cycle-based view** (47) places it mid-cycle, neither a screaming buy nor a sell. However, the majority of value-oriented and contrarian frameworks—from **Graham’s defensive criteria** (35) down to **Loeb’s risk aversion** (10)—pile on red flags, with **Bagehot’s liquidity concerns** (2) and **Housel’s volatility sensitivity** (0) painting it as a high-risk bet. The contrast underscores a tension: while some see it as a *potentially* justified niche play, the bulk of disciplined, risk-averse, or quality-focused methodologies would steer clear, viewing it as either overvalued, cyclically stretched, or structurally unstable.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 82
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 77
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)
🟢 74
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 51
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 39
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 36
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 23
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 21
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 18
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 18
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 10
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 2
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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?
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 a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 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 downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High 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.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
-11.6%
Net Margin
-19.0%
EBITDA Margin
9.8%
ROE
-51.4%
ROA
-14.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.22
Cash
$22.90M
Total Debt
$1.02B
Current Ratio
0.81
Debt/Equity
1.42
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$5.06
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$4.39
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-186.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $18.62M | $17.08M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $18.04M | $15.18M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $17.81M | $13.75M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $17.92M | $12.70M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $18.37M | $11.94M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$19.60M
Terminal Value
$289.71M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$188.29M
Enterprise Value
$258.95M
Net Debt
$997.40M
Equity Value
$-738.45M
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$4.26
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.87
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 10 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 28.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Yahoo · 15.8.2026
StockStory · 15.8.2026
Motley Fool · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
StockStory · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
StockStory · 10.8.2026
Yahoo · 10.8.2026
Zacks · 7.8.2026
Yahoo · 7.8.2026
Zacks · 7.8.2026
Yahoo · 7.8.2026
ProFrac Holding Corp. (ACDC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 38/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ACDC currently scores 38/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, ACDC's estimated fair value is -$4.39, which is 186.7% below the current price of $5.06. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ACDC's technical score is 36/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$4.39 vs. price $5.06 (-186.7%); Operating margin: -11.6% (negative); Net margin: -19.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACDC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 20 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 88,107,422 | +30,820 | $4.81 |
| THRC Holdings, LP | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 83,816,235 | +30,820 | $4.81 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 30,820 | +30,820 | $4.81 |
| THRC Holdings, LP | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 30,820 | +30,820 | $4.81 |
| THRC Holdings, LP | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 83,785,415 | +363,757 | $4.70 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 88,076,602 | +363,757 | $4.70 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 363,757 | +363,757 | $4.70 |
| THRC Holdings, LP | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 363,757 | +363,757 | $4.70 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 21.8.2026 | 87,712,845 | +212,650 | $4.74 |
| THRC Holdings, LP | Open Market Purchase | 21.8.2026 | 83,421,658 | +212,650 | $4.74 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 21.8.2026 | 212,650 | +212,650 | $4.74 |
| THRC Holdings, LP | Open Market Purchase | 21.8.2026 | 212,650 | +212,650 | $4.74 |
| Wilks Matthew | Open Market Purchase | 11.8.2026 | 22,481 | +22,481 | $5.44 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 11.8.2026 | 202,331 | +202,331 | $5.44 |
| Wilks Matthew | Open Market Purchase | 11.8.2026 | 502,097 | +22,481 | $5.44 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 11.8.2026 | 87,500,195 | +202,331 | $5.44 |
| Wilks Matthew | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 57,519 | +57,519 | $4.86 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 517,669 | +517,669 | $4.86 |
| Wilks Dan H. | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 87,297,864 | +517,669 | $4.86 |
| Wilks Matthew | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 479,616 | +57,519 | $4.86 |
| Wilks Johnathan Ladd | Disposition to the Company | 7.8.2026 | 370,883 | -370,883 | — |
| Wilks Johnathan Ladd | Disposition to the Company | 7.8.2026 | 85,033 | -370,883 | — |
| Wilks Dan H. | Other Transaction | 25.6.2026 | 1,071,454 | +1,071,454 | $4.72 |
| Wilks Farris | Other Transaction | 25.6.2026 | 1,071,454 | +1,071,454 | $4.72 |
| Wilks Farris | Other Transaction | 25.6.2026 | 1,071,454 | +1,071,454 | $4.72 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,650,339 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,308,304 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 55.2% 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