Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$66.93
▲ $2.11 (+3.3%)
Market data updated: 09/17 04:05 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$948.85M
Day Range
$65.94 - $68.50
52-Week Range
$28.46 - $127.19
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
+109.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/31 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.15
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$17.18 vs. price $66.93 (-125.7%)
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
46
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
37
Quality
47
Value
33
Momentum
23
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
63
Institutional
0
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 **ACM Research, Inc.** has focused on its stock performance and analyst optimism, particularly around potential price recovery. Headlines highlight technical indicators suggesting a possible bottoming out, with analysts revising earnings estimates upward. Additionally, there’s attention to options market activity predicting a near-term stock spike, though broader semiconductor sector trends—like AI-driven demand—are mentioned only indirectly through comparisons with peers. No substantive operational or product updates are present in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ACM Research, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 of the last 20 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
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
73
Fundamentals
63
Technical
23
Valuation
33
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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)
-41%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+16
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a disconnect between extreme positive sentiment (100/100) and weak technical momentum (-4.1% ROC), consistent with detached euphoria rather than rational pricing. The 17.7% premium above the 200-day average, despite negative short-term momentum, indicates investors may be ignoring recent underperformance. The narrative gap (59 vs. 37) further implies optimism outweighs fundamental reality. The key question is whether this euphoria persists or if price will revert toward momentum-neutral levels.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 02:05 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"‘Solid AI Demand’ driving semiconductor sales (article 1)"
"‘Wall Street analysts revising earnings estimates higher’ (article 4)"
"‘ACM Research backed by strong growth drivers’ in China (article 11)"
"‘Options market predicting a spike in ACMR stock’ (article 8)"
📈 7D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for ACMR reflects deep philosophical and methodological splits among the historical investors. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on liquidity and resilience during crises, suggesting the stock’s strength in a credit squeeze—an approach starkly contrasting with Benjamin Graham’s defensive framework, which dismisses it as failing core valuation criteria. Meanwhile, Samuel Nelson’s cyclical optimism and Charles Mackay’s caution about crowd behavior hint at a speculative edge, while the lower-scoring methodologies—like Fisher’s quality focus or Veblen’s critique of unchecked growth—imply the stock lacks the enduring competitive advantages or intrinsic merit they prioritize. Even within the same investor’s toolkit (e.g., Howard Marks’ mixed verdicts), the stock’s perceived risk and market positioning shift dramatically, revealing tensions between valuation, trend-following, and macroeconomic timing.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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)
🟢 72
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)
🟢 69
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 57
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 57
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 40
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 39
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 38
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 36
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 28
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 21
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 13
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
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 (1 bullish · 9 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.
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
44.4%
Operating Margin
12.1%
Net Margin
10.4%
EBITDA Margin
13.7%
ROE
6.4%
ROA
3.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.47
Cash
$757.37M
Total Debt
$214.01M
Current Ratio
3.27
Debt/Equity
0.15
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$66.93
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$17.18
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-125.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-83.26M | $-76.39M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-99.39M | $-83.66M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-113.06M | $-87.30M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-122.24M | $-86.60M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-125.30M | $-81.44M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-66.61M
Terminal Value
$-1.98B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.28B
Enterprise Value
$-1.70B
Net Debt
$-543.36M
Equity Value
$-1.16B
*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
$21.75
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$21.71
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 8 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 26.8.2026
ACM Research, Inc. (ACMR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ACMR currently scores 46/100 (Moderate) 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, ACMR's estimated fair value is -$17.18, which is 125.7% below the current price of $66.93. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ACMR's technical score is 23/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.15; Current ratio: 3.27; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$17.18 vs. price $66.93 (-125.7%); Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 8.0% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACMR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 4,807 | -4,807 | $76.73 |
| Wang David H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.9.2026 | 70,000 | -70,000 | — |
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 33,493 | -33,493 | $73.80 |
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 18,934 | -18,934 | $74.67 |
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 1,100 | -1,100 | $77.59 |
| Wang David H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.9.2026 | 70,000 | +70,000 | $1.00 |
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 11,666 | -11,666 | $75.58 |
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 51,374 | -51,374 | $77.15 |
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 12,323 | -12,323 | $78.08 |
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 4,803 | -4,803 | $75.99 |
| Wang David H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 70,000 | -70,000 | — |
| Wang David H | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $78.57 |
| Wang David H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 70,000 | +70,000 | $1.00 |
| McKechnie Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | — |
| McKechnie Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 30,199 | -30,199 | — |
| McKechnie Mark | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 11,209 | -11,209 | $77.89 |
| McKechnie Mark | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 13,625 | -13,625 | $76.34 |
| McKechnie Mark | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 30,365 | -30,365 | $77.45 |
| McKechnie Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 30,199 | +30,199 | $19.49 |
| McKechnie Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $13.89 |
| Dun Haiping | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | — |
| Dun Haiping | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 400 | -400 | $82.17 |
| Dun Haiping | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 3,400 | -3,400 | $81.31 |
| Dun Haiping | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | $80.29 |
| Dun Haiping | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.8.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $5.60 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,970,966 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,603,818 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 64.6% 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