Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$59.69
▼ $0.51 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/17 06:55 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$1.70B
Day Range
$59.67 - $61.23
52-Week Range
$41.15 - $77.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
AIN is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+5.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/31 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 2.10
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $34.78 vs. price $59.69 (-41.7%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
42
Value
38
Momentum
40
Risk
48
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
32
Institutional
No data available
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 Albany International Corporation has centered on two key developments: first, the extension of its agreement with Boeing to manufacture composite fuselage frames for the 787 Dreamliner, reinforcing its aerospace segment; second, the company’s decision to retain its Salt Lake City facility following an amended deal with Sikorsky for the CH-53K program, alongside a raised third-quarter earnings outlook. Analysts also noted a price target increase for the stock.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Albany International Corporation. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 9 vs. 9 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
20
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
58
Fundamentals
32
Technical
40
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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 (3M)
-16%
Market Narrative
66
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+31
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Overconfidence** (55) reflects a disconnect between price momentum (+5.9%) and stagnant fundamentals (EPS growth -1.7%), amplified by a 79% premium to DCF. **Confirmation Bias** (34) and **Euphoria** (21) further suggest investors prioritize narrative over reality, despite a 26-point gap. **FOMO** (17) may drive chasing behavior, but neutral RSI (50) and moderate sentiment (44/100) temper extreme euphoria. The key question: *Will traders recognize the misalignment between valuation and fundamentals, or will momentum sustain overconfidence?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:08 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Albany Engineered Composites announced agreement with Boeing to continue composite fuselage frame manufacturing for the 787 Dreamliner"
"Albany International will retain its Amelia Earhart Drive structures assembly facility in Salt Lake City after Sikorsky CH-53K deal"
"Albany raised its third-quarter 2026 adjusted earnings guidance"
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 79/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides methodologies sharply, with some models seeing disciplined opportunities while others flag red flags. The highest-scoring approaches—Charles Mackay’s crowd-behavior analysis, Howard Marks’ market-cycle assessment, and Jack Schwager’s structured setups—suggest it fits a rational, high-reward/risk profile, avoiding mania or overextension. Conversely, Fisher’s strict quality/growth criteria and Veblen’s skepticism of speculative growth leave it near the bottom, while Graham’s defensive standards and Nelson’s cycle warnings paint it as overvalued or volatile. The middle ground—where Marks (general), Livermore, or Smith see mixed signals—reflects a tug between decent fundamentals and speculative risks, while efficient-market theorists dismiss it as unproven alpha. The divergence highlights whether the stock’s appeal lies in technical or behavioral patterns (favored by the top scorers) or fundamental or cyclical flaws (rejected by the lowest).
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 79
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)
🟢 78
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 69
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 51
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 51
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 49
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 43
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 35
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 19
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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 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.
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.
Gross Margin
20.6%
Operating Margin
-3.1%
Net Margin
-4.8%
EBITDA Margin
4.4%
ROE
-7.9%
ROA
-3.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.94
Cash
$112.35M
Total Debt
$455.66M
Current Ratio
2.10
Debt/Equity
0.63
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 1.9.2026 | $0.280 |
| 5.6.2026 | $0.280 |
| 20.3.2026 | $0.280 |
| 16.12.2025 | $0.280 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.270 |
| 6.6.2025 | $0.270 |
| 21.3.2025 | $0.270 |
| 17.12.2024 | $0.270 |
| 3.9.2024 | $0.260 |
| 7.6.2024 | $0.260 |
| 14.3.2024 | $0.260 |
| 18.12.2023 | $0.260 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$59.69
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$34.78
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-41.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
4.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.7% | $86.57M | $79.42M |
| 2 | 4.2% | $90.19M | $75.91M |
| 3 | 3.6% | $93.46M | $72.17M |
| 4 | 3.1% | $96.32M | $68.24M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $98.73M | $64.17M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$82.64M
Terminal Value
$1.56B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.01B
Enterprise Value
$1.37B
Net Debt
$343.31M
Equity Value
$1.03B
*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
$24.56
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$18.34
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 2 neutral, 9 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Fintel · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Business Wire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
MarketBeat · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Albany International Corporation (AIN) 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.
AIN 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, AIN's estimated fair value is $34.78, which is 41.7% below the current price of $59.69. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AIN's technical score is 40/100, 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: Current ratio: 2.10; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $34.78 vs. price $59.69 (-41.7%); Operating margin: -3.1% (negative); Net margin: -4.8% (negative).
Yes — AIN has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Station Willard C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 10,599 | +10,599 | — |
| Station Willard C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 10,599 | +10,599 | — |
| Stone Christopher Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 6,905 | +6,905 | — |
| Stone Christopher Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 6,905 | +6,905 | — |
| Stone Christopher Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 16,608 | +6,905 | — |
| Stone Christopher Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 6,904 | +6,905 | — |
| Valashinas Sean C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 1,321 | +1,321 | — |
| Valashinas Sean C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 9.6.2026 | 315 | -315 | $69.52 |
| Valashinas Sean C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 1,321 | +1,321 | — |
| Valashinas Sean C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 1,320 | +1,321 | — |
| Valashinas Sean C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 1,519 | +1,321 | — |
| Valashinas Sean C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 9.6.2026 | 1,204 | -315 | $69.52 |
| PLOURDE KATHARINE | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 2,390 | +2,390 | — |
| LIND BONNIE CRUICKSHANK | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 2,390 | +2,390 | — |
| Murphy Mark J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 1,195 | +1,195 | — |
| Scannell John | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 2,390 | +2,390 | — |
| LIND BONNIE CRUICKSHANK | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 2,390 | +2,390 | — |
| KRUEGER KENNETH W | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 2,390 | +2,390 | — |
| Toney Russell | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 2,390 | +2,390 | — |
| Alvord Christina M | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 2,390 | +2,390 | — |
| McQuade John Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 3,792 | +3,792 | — |
| Murphy Mark J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 13,745 | +1,195 | — |
| PLOURDE KATHARINE | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 5,862 | +2,390 | — |
| LIND BONNIE CRUICKSHANK | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 5,682 | +2,390 | — |
| McQuade John Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 17,258 | +3,792 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,097,444 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 725,637 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.4% 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