Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$2.02
▼ $0.03 (-1.5%)
Market data updated: 09/22 03:25 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/22/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$88.21M
Day Range
$2.01 - $2.16
52-Week Range
$1.54 - $7.70
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$1.89
Resistance
$2.43
ARQ is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-72.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/28 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
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -43.4% (negative)
Fundamental
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
43
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
Not enough data yet to generate this synthesis.
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
43
Quality
63
Value
55
Momentum
16
Risk
40
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
32
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.
Everyone's writing about Arq, Inc.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 7 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
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
54
Fundamentals
32
Technical
16
Valuation
55
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.
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)
-18%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+9
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
📈 3D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates Benjamin Graham’s defensive approach finds ARQ attractive, giving it a high score of 71 because the stock meets his safety‑net criteria, while his enterprising variant scores 64 as it offers a modest discount but falls short of the deep net‑net bargain he seeks. Meanwhile, Charles Mackay and Edgar Lawrence Smith both assign a middling 61, indicating some speculative excitement and reasonable fundamentals but not a clear long‑term hold, reflecting their focus on narrative dynamics and income stability. Investors such as Howard Marks, Morgan Housel and the efficient‑market duo rate ARQ far lower (mid‑40s to low 50s), suggesting the business is solid but expectations are already priced in or that the evidence for outperformance over an index is weak. Finally, more cautious analysts like Gerald Loeb, Walter Bagehot and Samuel Armstrong Nelson assign the lowest scores (35‑21), flagging liquidity concerns, capital risk, and an overbought cycle, which pulls the overall assessment down for risk‑averse frameworks.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 93
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
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)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 71
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 66
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 61
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
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
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 44
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 42
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 36
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 32
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 11
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 9 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.
Medium 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
27.9%
Operating Margin
-43.4%
Net Margin
-43.7%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-31.3%
ROA
-22.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.27
Cash
$6.57M
Total Debt
$28.46M
Current Ratio
1.04
Debt/Equity
0.17
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
$3.93
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.92
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 13 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
MT Newswires · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 24.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
PR Newswire · 24.8.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 23.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.8.2026
Motley Fool · 17.8.2026
Yahoo · 17.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.8.2026
Yahoo · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.8.2026
Moby · 11.8.2026
Yahoo · 11.8.2026
Arq, Inc. (ARQ) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 43/100, 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.
ARQ currently scores 43/100 (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.
ARQ's technical score is 16/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.17; Revenue growth (last year): 10.4%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -43.4% (negative); Net margin: -43.7% (negative); ATR: 6.0% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ARQ.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steinmetz Shimon | Open Market Purchase | 3.9.2026 | 8,770 | +8,770 | $2.23 |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Open Market Purchase | 3.9.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | $2.22 |
| Owino Peter Oluoch | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 61,047 | +61,047 | — |
| Owino Peter Oluoch | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Owino Peter Oluoch | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 61,047 | +61,047 | — |
| Wong Joseph M | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.8.2026 | 55,000 | +55,000 | — |
| Smith Claiborne Benson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 61,047 | +61,047 | — |
| Wong Joseph M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 61,047 | +61,047 | — |
| Smith Claiborne Benson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 61,047 | +61,047 | — |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 93,023 | +93,023 | — |
| Wong Joseph M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 61,047 | +61,047 | — |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 93,023 | +93,023 | — |
| Wong Joseph M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 451,648 | +61,047 | — |
| Wong Joseph M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 61,047 | +61,047 | — |
| Smith Claiborne Benson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 155,513 | +61,047 | — |
| Smith Claiborne Benson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 61,047 | +61,047 | — |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 343,023 | +93,023 | — |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 93,023 | +93,023 | — |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 150,000 | +150,000 | — |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| Steinmetz Shimon | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 150,000 | +150,000 | — |
| Rasmus Robert E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.7.2026 | 600,000 | +600,000 | — |
| Rasmus Robert E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.7.2026 | 600,000 | +600,000 | — |
| Rasmus Robert E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.7.2026 | 600,000 | +600,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
479,713 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 398,123 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 37.6% 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