Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$1.21
▼ $0.02 (-1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/24 08:02 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/24/2026
News analyzed: 09/24/2026
Market Cap
$27.39M
Day Range
$1.19 - $1.23
52-Week Range
$0.97 - $4.04
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.11.2026
Support
$0.96
Resistance
$1.75
BEEM is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-53.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 1.74
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -97.5% (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
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
55
Momentum
19
Risk
40
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
27
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 Beam Global has centered on its exceptional Q2 2026 earnings, with revenue surging 174% sequentially and a 21% year-over-year increase, driven by expansion into drones, defense, and AI data centers. The company’s stock rallied on market momentum, though no company-specific news was announced. Analysts highlighted its strong balance sheet and potential for future large orders, particularly in Europe and defense sectors.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Beam Global. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
31
Psychology
53
Fundamentals
27
Technical
19
Valuation
55
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.
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-1%
Market Narrative
52
Fundamental Reality
31
Narrative Gap
+21
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
BEEM’s psychology is dominated by Confirmation Bias, as the narrative (83) vastly exceeds fundamental performance (31), with revenue stagnation and shrinking margins. Investors appear to selectively embrace positive signals while ignoring deteriorating fundamentals—a classic sign of selective attention. Overconfidence (44) further suggests traders may overvalue recent momentum (+16.5% ROC) over long-term sustainability. The key question is whether the gap between perception and reality will persist or if a catalyst forces a reassessment. Low panic (6) and herding (12) imply no immediate panic, but the narrative gap remains the most critical risk.
Updated: 09/04/2026, 08:33 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Revenue surged 174% sequentially as battery tech expands into drones and AI data centers."
"growth in drone, defense and AI"
"Beam Global shares are surging Wednesday despite no company-specific news"
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a stark divide between value-focused and growth-oriented methodologies. Benjamin Graham’s Enterprising Investor model sees it as a deep statistical discount—an undervalued opportunity ripe for aggressive capital allocation—while his Defensive Investor approach still finds it attractive but more cautiously. In contrast, growth-oriented investors like Peter Lynch and Philip Fisher dismiss it outright, scoring it poorly for lacking the stability or quality/growth synergy they demand. Meanwhile, market-neutral or risk-averse frameworks—such as those of Walter Bagehot, Gerald Loeb, and Morgan Housel—warn of liquidity risks, volatility, or speculative excesses, while mid-cycle analysts like Howard Marks and Samuel Nelson remain neutral, seeing neither a clear buy nor sell signal. The divergence underscores whether the stock’s valuation or market positioning aligns with patient, long-term value hunting or if it’s better suited for speculative or defensive strategies.
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 97
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 78
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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)
🟡 52
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 33
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 32
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)
🔴 30
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 17
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
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)
🔴 12
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 8
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
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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 uptrend 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
12.5%
Operating Margin
-97.5%
Net Margin
-95.6%
EBITDA Margin
-85.0%
ROE
-108.7%
ROA
-63.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.61
Cash
$969.00K
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.74
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.21
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$16,541.24
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-13.63M | $-12.50M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-16.26M | $-13.69M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-18.50M | $-14.29M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-20.00M | $-14.17M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-20.50M | $-13.33M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-10.90M
Terminal Value
$-323.34M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-210.15M
Enterprise Value
$-278.12M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-278.12M
*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
$1,477.64
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1,053.76
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Benzinga · 22.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
TMX Newsfile · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Motley Fool · 26.8.2026
ChartMill · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
ChartMill · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
ChartMill · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Beam Global (BEEM) 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.
BEEM 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.
BEEM's technical score is 19/100, 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: 1.74; NAV per share: $1,053.76; Current ratio: 1.74.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -97.5% (negative); Net margin: -95.6% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BEEM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potok Lisa A | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.1.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | $1.77 |
| Potok Lisa A | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.1.2026 | 175,000 | +100,000 | $1.77 |
| Syllantavos Georgios | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 71,577 | +71,577 | $1.75 |
| Posawatz Anthony L | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 71,577 | +71,577 | $1.75 |
| Krandel Judy | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 71,577 | +71,577 | $1.75 |
| Syllantavos Georgios | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 112,083 | +71,577 | $1.75 |
| Posawatz Anthony L | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 202,111 | +71,577 | $1.75 |
| Krandel Judy | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 133,019 | +71,577 | $1.75 |
| Syllantavos George | Open Market Sale | 12.9.2025 | 9,811 | -9,811 | $2.40 |
| Syllantavos George | Open Market Sale | 12.9.2025 | 40,506 | -9,811 | $2.40 |
| Syllantavos George | Open Market Sale | 11.9.2025 | 889 | -889 | $2.45 |
| Syllantavos George | Open Market Sale | 11.9.2025 | 50,317 | -889 | $2.45 |
| Syllantavos George | Open Market Sale | 10.9.2025 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $2.43 |
| Syllantavos George | Open Market Sale | 10.9.2025 | 51,206 | -10,000 | $2.43 |
| WHEATLEY DESMOND C | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2025 | 870,000 | +870,000 | $1.55 |
| WHEATLEY DESMOND C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.6.2025 | 533,745 | -533,745 | $1.55 |
| WHEATLEY DESMOND C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 28.2.2025 | 114,744 | -114,744 | — |
| WHEATLEY DESMOND C | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.2.2025 | 187,031 | +187,031 | — |
| WHEATLEY DESMOND C | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.2.2025 | 187,031 | +187,031 | — |
| WHEATLEY DESMOND C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.2.2025 | 21,856 | -21,856 | — |
| WHEATLEY DESMOND C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.2.2025 | 35,625 | +35,625 | — |
| WHEATLEY DESMOND C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.2.2025 | 35,625 | +35,625 | — |
| Posawatz Anthony L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2025 | 40,453 | +40,453 | $3.09 |
| Krandel Judy | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2025 | 40,453 | +40,453 | $3.09 |
| Syllantavos George | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2025 | 40,453 | +40,453 | $3.09 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,814,649 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,113,097 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.3% 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