Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · OTC
$0.25
▼ $0.01 (-2.7%)
Market data updated: 09/18 09:37 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$10.63M
Day Range
$0.25 - $0.25
52-Week Range
$0.12 - $0.60
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+28.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/27 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 405.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Death Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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
36
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
71
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
4
Risk
26
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
26
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 AppTech Payments Corp. has primarily centered on its financial disclosures, with two recent GlobeNewswire announcements highlighting its upcoming **second-quarter 2026 earnings report** and an associated **investor conference call**. The focus remains on quarterly performance updates, though no substantive details about operations, challenges, or major developments have been publicly revealed beyond these scheduled releases.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about AppTech Payments Corp.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 0 vs. 0 out of the last 2 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
62
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
26
Technical
4
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-38%
Market Narrative
33
Fundamental Reality
62
Narrative Gap
-29
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **Loss Aversion** (76) reflects a pronounced reluctance to sell further after a 36.7% drop, despite muted volume activity. This suggests traders are holding positions to avoid locking in losses, even as negative momentum persists. The **narrative gap** (reality 62 vs. narrative 33) hints at a disconnect where fundamentals may not fully justify the pessimism. The key question remains whether this hesitation will sustain or if a catalyst—like a rebound in sentiment or volume—could shift the dynamic. **Panic Selling** (30) is secondary, indicating cautious selling rather than outright capitulation.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:57 PM
What could change this?
📈 7D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: the bullish growth-oriented models and the bearish, risk-averse frameworks. Investors like Charles Mackay, Howard Marks (Market Cycle), and Peter Lynch—who prioritize early-cycle opportunities, favorable valuations, or undervalued growth—all rate it highly, seeing potential in its price-to-growth disconnect or cyclical positioning. Meanwhile, the more conservative voices, including Benjamin Graham, Walter Bagehot, and Gerald Loeb, dismiss it outright, flagging liquidity risks, defensive criteria failures, or outright negative trends that would violate their core principles. Even the 'Enterprising Investor' variant of Graham’s approach rejects it, while volatility-focused thinkers like Morgan Housel and trend-followers like Jesse Livermore see it as a high-risk or counter-trend bet. The divide underscores whether the stock’s perceived growth appeal outweighs its structural vulnerabilities in the eyes of each methodology.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 93
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 65
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 22
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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)
🔴 13
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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
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 263 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 11 bearish · 0 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
55.3%
Operating Margin
-543.3%
Net Margin
-567.7%
EBITDA Margin
-543.3%
ROE
-418.4%
ROA
-84.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.23
Cash
$244.00K
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.14
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
$0.05
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.15
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 2 articles.
GlobeNewswire · 29.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.7.2026
AppTech Payments Corp. (APCX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 36/100, 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.
APCX currently scores 36/100 (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.
APCX's technical score is 4/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 405.4%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 34.3%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Operating margin: -543.3% (negative); Net margin: -567.7% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for APCX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 25 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 3.9.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 2.9.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 1.9.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.35 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2026 | 1,400,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 28.8.2026 | 1,380,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 28.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| Corrado Felipe Amilcar IV | Open Market Purchase | 27.8.2026 | 712,177 | +10,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 27.8.2026 | 1,360,000 | +20,000 | $0.34 |
| Corrado Felipe Amilcar IV | Open Market Purchase | 27.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 27.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.34 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 26.8.2026 | 1,340,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 26.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 1,320,000 | +20,000 | $0.35 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.35 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 1,300,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| Corrado Felipe Amilcar IV | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 702,177 | +5,000 | $0.38 |
| Corrado Felipe Amilcar IV | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 697,177 | +5,000 | $0.37 |
| Corrado Felipe Amilcar IV | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $0.37 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.36 |
| Corrado Felipe Amilcar IV | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $0.38 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 19.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.37 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 18.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.35 |
| LORD ALBERT L | Open Market Purchase | 17.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $0.39 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
46,618 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 35,323 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
36.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 17.2% 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