Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$5.05
▼ $0.04 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/18 01:18 PM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$152.36M
Day Range
$4.93 - $5.11
52-Week Range
$4.00 - $5.64
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
CAAS is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+9.8% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 5/13 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.5% of price
Risk
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.
China Automotive Systems (CAAS) exhibits a balanced yet nuanced profile, with its **investorScore of 77** and **STRONG rating** driven primarily by robust technical indicators and neutral news sentiment. The **technical category (85)** stands out due to clear bullish momentum—prices remain above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, the MACD histogram signals upward momentum, and the RSI (65.3) confirms healthy positive momentum, despite being slightly overbought (%K 83.9). However, this strength is tempered by **risk factors (34)**, particularly the **high short-term volatility (ATR 4.6%)** and the **Kalmár indicator (0.33)**, which suggests a 32.9% potential maximum drawdown over three years despite a 10.9% annualized return. The **news category (80)** reflects a neutral tone, with no major positive or negative catalysts emerging from recent updates, including manufacturing expansions and earnings call summaries that do not deviate from baseline expectations. The decline in trading volume alongside the price rise further introduces caution, hinting at potential weakening institutional or retail interest.
Prices are firmly above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, the MACD histogram confirms upward momentum, and the RSI (65.3) indicates healthy positive momentum, though the stock is technically overbought (%K 83.9).
This suggests a strong short-to-medium-term bullish trend, but overbought conditions may signal impending consolidation or reversal.
Recent news—including manufacturing expansions and earnings call summaries—remains neutral, with no material positive or negative developments altering the baseline narrative.
Lack of catalysts means the stock’s trajectory depends entirely on technical performance and macroeconomic conditions rather than company-specific news.
The ATR (4.6%) indicates high short-term volatility, and the Kalmár indicator (0.33) suggests a 32.9% potential maximum drawdown despite a 10.9% annualized return over three years.
This volatility and drawdown risk could lead to sharp corrections, particularly if momentum stalls or external factors disrupt the sector.
StockIQ conclusion
China Automotive Systems (CAAS) presents a mixed but cautiously optimistic profile, with its technical strength and neutral news sentiment supporting a **STRONG rating (77)**. However, elevated volatility, overbought conditions, and inherent risk factors—particularly the potential for significant drawdowns—introduce caution. The stock’s performance hinges on sustaining momentum while navigating sector-specific and macroeconomic challenges. Investors should monitor volume trends, earnings execution, and broader automotive sector dynamics to assess whether the current technical setup can endure or if a correction is imminent.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
as of 09/11/202657
This Week
77
7D Ago
↓ -20
Weakening
Technical
53
7D Ago: 85
↓ -32
News
80
7D Ago: 80
→ 0
Risk
34
7D Ago: 34
→ 0
Biggest Declines
📊 Score History
57
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
3d ago · $5.41
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
3d ago · $5.41
Evidence: 10 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
17d ago · $5.51
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 55)
What happened after
21d ago · $5.03
Evidence: -4.2pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
21d ago · $5.03
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
21d ago · $5.03
Evidence: 1.9x recent average volume
What happened after
21d ago · $5.03
Evidence: 11 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
57 / 100
🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 27, 2026
Then
76
$5.28
Now
57
$5.05
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
53
Risk
34
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of **China Automotive Systems, Inc.** highlights its strong financial performance and sustainability initiatives. The company reported record first-half 2026 earnings, with a **98% year-over-year increase in EPS** ($0.97) and **20% revenue growth** ($412.47M), driven by electric power steering demand and operational gains. Additionally, it announced the expansion of its **"Green Factory"** program, reinforcing its commitment to eco-friendly manufacturing. Management also raised its full-year revenue guidance to **$850 million**.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about China Automotive Systems, Inc. - Ordinary Share. News trend score: 80. Reason: 5 of the last 12 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
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
36
Fundamentals
—
Technical
53
Valuation
—
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.
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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+13%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant **FOMO-driven rally**, reinforced by strong momentum, elevated volume, and positive sentiment. The narrative-reality gap (21 points) hints at potential overestimation of fundamentals, while euphoria (score 43) reflects optimism despite modest RSI readings. Herding appears muted due to underperformance relative to peers, and anchoring near resistance may limit upside. The key question: *Will momentum sustain, or will traders reassess after hitting resistance?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 03:44 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"record first-half sales, gross profit and operating income for 2026"
"growth in electric power steering products"
"raises FY2026 sales outlook from $810.000 million to $850.000 million"
"EPS $0.97 Up From $0.49 YoY, a 97.96% increase"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 16D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a stark divide between technical and fundamental approaches, with Jesse Livermore’s high score (78) standing out as the lone outlier. Livermore’s model detects a positive trend in price action, suggesting momentum-driven opportunities, while the majority of methodologies—including Graham, Fisher, Lynch, and even the efficient-market view—struggle due to insufficient data to apply their core principles. Meanwhile, cautionary voices like Howard Marks (34), Gerald Loeb (21), and Morgan Housel (0) flag red flags around valuation, risk, and volatility, framing it as a speculative or late-cycle bet. The contrast highlights how Livermore’s rules prioritize short-term trends, while others demand deeper fundamental or cyclical clarity, leaving the stock in a limbo of mixed signals.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 80
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 66
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 52
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 39
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 39
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 14
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 6 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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 30.7.2024 | $0.800 |
| 29.7.2024 | $0.800 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 7 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 12 articles.
Yahoo · 17.8.2026
PR Newswire · 17.8.2026
Yahoo · 14.8.2026
Moby · 14.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
MarketBeat · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
PR Newswire · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
PR Newswire · 5.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for China Automotive Systems, Inc. - Ordinary Share (CAAS) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for CAAS specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
CAAS's technical score is 53/100, 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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; +9.8% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.5% of price; Calmar: 0.30 (3y annualized return 10.0% / max drawdown 32.9%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — CAAS 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 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
38,812 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 41,182 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
43.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.2% 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