Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$3.27
▲ $0.15 (+4.8%)
Market data updated: 09/18 10:57 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$15.01M
Day Range
$3.08 - $3.33
52-Week Range
$2.31 - $10.64
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
Support
$2.40
Resistance
$3.90
ANNA is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
-27.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/25 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 1663.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 6.7% of price
Risk
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (74/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (45/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
54
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
9d ago · $3.30
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 36 to 64 day-over-day
What happened after
17d ago · $3.10
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 20 to 49 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
74
Quality
58
Value
45
Momentum
47
Risk
40
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
54
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 AleAnna, Inc. has highlighted its strong financial performance and growth momentum. The company reported consecutive quarters of profitability, with a 500% year-over-year increase in earnings per share ($0.06) and a significant rise in sales ($10.215 million, up from $4.030 million). Additionally, analysts noted its strategic advantage amid Italy’s energy sector revival and Europe’s energy crisis, as the company exceeded early production expectations and maintained a robust cash position of $32.6 million.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about AleAnna, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 2 of the last 4 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
4
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
82
Psychology
20
Fundamentals
54
Technical
47
Valuation
45
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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)
+5%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
82
Narrative Gap
-35
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for ANNA strongly suggests **herding** as the dominant psychological state, driven by relative outperformance (+3.3% vs. peers +2.2%). FOMO metrics (momentum, volume, sentiment) support this, though panic selling and euphoria remain muted by low volatility and underperformance vs. long-term averages. The narrative gap (-26) hints at a disconnect where reality (strong momentum) exceeds investor expectations, but overconfidence in price gains over fundamentals may limit sustained conviction. The key question: *Will the herd sustain participation, or will lagging fundamentals (EPS growth) test this momentum?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:14 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"reported net income of $3.8 million and Adjusted EBITDA of $4.1 million"
"quarterly earnings of $0.06 per share... a 500 percent increase over earnings of $0.01 per share from the same period last year"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 13D 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
Charles Mackay — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into two starkly divergent camps: the growth-focused optimists and the cautious or outright bearish skeptics. Peter Lynch’s near-perfect score and Charles Mackay’s high approval suggest ANNA could be a compelling growth candidate, with Lynch seeing untapped upside and Mackay spotting no signs of speculative frenzy. Meanwhile, Fisher and Schwager offer more tempered but still positive views, with Schwager even calling it a disciplined setup, though neither would call it exceptional. However, the rest of the methodologies—particularly the Graham variants, Veblen, and Housel—paint a far grimmer picture, with Graham dismissing it outright as too risky even for his enterprising investors, Housel flagging extreme volatility, and Veblen warning of unchecked growth chasing. The divide hinges on whether ANNA’s potential growth justifies its risks: growth hunters see opportunity, while value and cycle-conscious investors see red flags.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 91
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 88
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 74
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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)
🟢 65
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 62
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
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)
🔴 35
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 28
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 24
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)
🔴 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)
🔴 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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 6 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.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
11.6%
Net Margin
11.5%
EBITDA Margin
23.3%
ROE
4.9%
ROA
2.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.04
Cash
$31.83M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.93
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$1.44
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 4 articles.
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.7.2026
AleAnna, Inc. (ANNA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
ANNA currently scores 54/100 (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.
ANNA's technical score is 47/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 1663.0%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 100.9%; Net income growth: 123.2%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 6.7% of price; Calmar: -0.39 (3y annualized return -33.8% / max drawdown 86.3%); Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ANNA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ronald Ivan Edward | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 16,377 | -16,377 | $2.44 |
| Ronald Ivan Edward | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 35,557 | +35,557 | — |
| Brun Marco | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.4.2026 | 98,646 | +98,646 | — |
| vant Hoff Graham | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 46,809 | +46,809 | — |
| HEBERT CURTIS L JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 38,549 | +38,549 | — |
| Palmer Duncan | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 38,549 | +38,549 | — |
| Ronald Ivan Edward | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 110,954 | +110,954 | — |
| Brun Marco | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.4.2026 | 98,646 | +98,646 | — |
| HEBERT CURTIS L JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 132,980 | +38,549 | — |
| Palmer Duncan | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 132,980 | +38,549 | — |
| vant Hoff Graham | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 148,504 | +46,809 | — |
| Ronald Ivan Edward | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 150,906 | +110,954 | — |
| Brun Marco | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.4.2026 | 218,578 | +98,646 | — |
| Brun Marco | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.4.2026 | 0 | +98,646 | — |
| Dirks William K. | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.3.2026 | 21,617 | +21,617 | — |
| Brun Marco | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.3.2026 | 119,932 | +119,932 | — |
| Dirks William K. | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.3.2026 | 21,617 | +21,617 | — |
| Brun Marco | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.3.2026 | 119,932 | +119,932 | — |
| WILDER C JOHN | Open Market Sale | 6.3.2026 | 4,672 | -4,672 | $4.86 |
| WILDER C JOHN | Open Market Sale | 6.3.2026 | 77,588 | -77,588 | $4.13 |
| WILDER C JOHN | Open Market Sale | 6.3.2026 | 30,157,612 | -77,588 | $4.13 |
| WILDER C JOHN | Open Market Sale | 6.3.2026 | 30,152,940 | -4,672 | $4.86 |
| WILDER C JOHN | Open Market Sale | 5.3.2026 | 62,156 | -62,156 | $3.71 |
| WILDER C JOHN | Open Market Sale | 5.3.2026 | 30,235,200 | -62,156 | $3.71 |
| WILDER C JOHN | Open Market Sale | 4.3.2026 | 34,595 | -34,595 | $3.34 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
236,275 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 195,089 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
37.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.0% 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