Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$8.41
▼ $3.88 (-31.6%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:25 PM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$38.52M
Day Range
$8.33 - $11.87
52-Week Range
$2.98 - $418.56
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
Support
$2.98
Resistance
$16.79
AEHL is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-97.7% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 7/14 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: 30.2% 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.
🗓️ 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
69
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
2d ago · $14.87
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 12 to 60 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
63
Risk
34
Sentiment
100
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.
Recent media coverage of **Antelope Enterprise Holdings Limited** is limited, as none of the provided English-language sources explicitly mention the company. The available headlines focus instead on broader market trends—such as **pre-market, intraday, and after-hours stock movements**, particularly in sectors like **Communication Services** (e.g., Reading Intl, FreeCast) and **shipping/transportation** (e.g., Pyxis Tankers). No specific details about Antelope Enterprise Holdings’ performance, news, or developments are included.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Antelope Enterprise Holdings Limited. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 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
45
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
—
Technical
63
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)
-47%
Market Narrative
88
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+38
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a **FOMO-driven rally** fueled by rapid price gains, outsized volume, and euphoric sentiment—despite the stock remaining far below its 200-day average. The **narrative-reality gap (38 points)** implies traders may be overestimating fundamentals or growth potential. Loss aversion hints at latecomers entering to avoid further losses, but the absence of panic or herding signals stability in the current momentum. The key question: *Is this rally self-sustaining, or will profit-taking reveal deeper weakness?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:03 AM
What could change this?
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 6D 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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 71/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Howard Marks’ *Market Cycle* approach standing out as the most bullish (70 score), suggesting it’s in an early-to-mid phase of the cycle and not yet overextended. In contrast, Morgan Housel’s cautionary stance (0 score) flags the stock as volatile enough to unsettle patient investors, while Samuel Nelson’s low score (13) warns of an overbought cycle. The middle ground is crowded with methodologies like Schwager (53) and Mackay (52), which detect *some* crowd excitement or uncertainty but lack decisive signals, while Graham, Fisher, and Lynch all hit the floor at 50 due to insufficient data. Even Marks’ more conservative take (46) and Loeb’s stark warning (21) highlight conflicting views on risk and valuation, illustrating how the stock’s ambiguous fundamentals and speculative undertones split traditional value investors from cyclical and behavioral analysts.
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)
🟡 54
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)
🟡 54
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 51
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 50
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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)
🟡 41
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
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
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 275 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 4 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.
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) — 15 positive, 5 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Antelope Enterprise Holdings Limited (AEHL) — 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 AEHL 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.
AEHL's technical score is 63/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; RSI 52.4 — healthy positive momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 30.2% of price; Calmar: -0.91 (3y annualized return -91.1% / max drawdown 100.0%); Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AEHL.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
423,952 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 95,552 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. 49.0% 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