Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$1.57
▼ $0.01 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/26 12:43 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$1.57 - $1.62
52-Week Range
⚠️ Data anomaly
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$1.55
Resistance
$2.80
DRCT is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-98.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/29 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
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 269.8% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -42.5% (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
42
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
43
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
15
Risk
32
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
39
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 Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. (DRCT) has primarily focused on its Q2 2026 earnings call, highlighting a strategic shift in its business direction, financial performance, and operational adjustments. Analysts noted upgrades to a "Buy" rating, while the company reported results and discussed growth initiatives. Additionally, there were updates on board appointments, including Ohad Harlev, and a case study showcasing its performance marketing success for the Tucson Festival of Books. No major controversies or major financial setbacks were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Direct Digital Holdings, Inc.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 8 of the last 19 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
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
39
Technical
15
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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 (3M)
-41%
Market Narrative
52
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+17
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant Loss Aversion reflects a defensive posture after steep losses, with traders reluctant to lock in further declines despite neutral volatility. The Confirmation Bias (narrative gap vs. fundamentals) suggests selective attention to positive narratives, while Panic Selling remains muted due to stable volatility. The key tension lies between defensive holding (Loss Aversion) and cautious underperformance (Herding), leaving open whether volume spikes signal exhaustion or a delayed reaction to deteriorating fundamentals. The absence of euphoria or overconfidence underscores a risk-averse, fact-checking environment.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:04 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Strategic Shift Drives Performance Marketing Success"
"Navigating Challenges with Strategic Adjustments"
"Ohad Harlev Appointed to the Board of Directors"
📈 5D 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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 9/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s stark divide in methodology verdicts reveals a clash between cyclical momentum strategies and fundamental or contrarian approaches. The highest-scoring models—Samuel Armstrong Nelson, Jack Schwager, and Howard Marks (Market Cycle)—all see DRCT as positioned favorably within a broader market or sector cycle, with Nelson’s near-oversold reading and Schwager’s disciplined reward/risk setup suggesting a tactical, trend-following appeal. Meanwhile, the lowest scores, particularly from Philip Fisher and Benjamin Graham’s Enterprising Investor framework, stem from a lack of clear qualitative growth or valuation tailwinds, while Veblen’s and Livermore’s warnings highlight concerns about speculative overreach or trend defiance. The middle ground—where Marks, Lynch, or Housel offer cautious ‘holdable’ or ‘mixed’ views—reflects a tension between moderate conviction and lingering doubts about valuation or market positioning.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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)
🟢 80
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 76
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
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)
🟡 53
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 44
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 37
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)
🔴 33
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)
🔴 31
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 27
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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 9
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 286 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 10 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
30.0%
Operating Margin
-42.5%
Net Margin
-54.6%
EBITDA Margin
-41.8%
ROE
269.8%
ROA
-94.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$75.79
Cash
$728.00K
Total Debt
$12.15M
Current Ratio
0.18
Debt/Equity
-1.73
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
-$22.80
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$69.46
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 11 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 19 articles.
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Motley Fool · 19.8.2026
Moby · 14.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 13.8.2026
PR Newswire · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.7.2026
Zacks · 25.6.2026
PR Newswire · 4.6.2026
Motley Fool · 1.6.2026
GuruFocus.com · 12.5.2026
Moby · 11.5.2026
Motley Fool · 11.5.2026
PR Newswire · 11.5.2026
PR Newswire · 7.5.2026
PR Newswire · 6.5.2026
Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. (DRCT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, 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.
DRCT currently scores 42/100 (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.
DRCT's technical score is 15/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 269.8% — strong; Debt/equity: -1.73; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 17.0%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -42.5% (negative); Net margin: -54.6% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for DRCT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 11 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walker Mark D | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 7,864 | -500 | $1.90 |
| Walker Mark D | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $1.90 |
| Walker Mark D | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 8,364 | -1,636 | $2.06 |
| Walker Mark D | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,636 | -1,636 | $2.06 |
| Walker Mark D | Conversion of Derivative Security | 27.8.2026 | 11,279 | -10,000 | — |
| Walker Mark D | Conversion of Derivative Security | 27.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Walker Mark D | Conversion of Derivative Security | 27.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Walker Mark D | Conversion of Derivative Security | 27.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | — |
| Locke Mistelle | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 25 | -25 | $2.91 |
| Locke Mistelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 37 | -37 | — |
| Locke Mistelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 37 | +37 | — |
| Walker Mark D | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 1,363 | -1,363 | $2.80 |
| Leatherberry Antoinette Renee | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 37 | +37 | — |
| Leatherberry Antoinette Renee | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 23 | -23 | $2.91 |
| Cohen Richard | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 37 | +37 | — |
| Cohen Richard | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 37 | -37 | — |
| Cohen Richard | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 25 | -25 | $2.91 |
| Leatherberry Antoinette Renee | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 37 | -37 | — |
| Locke Mistelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 159 | -159 | — |
| Locke Mistelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 159 | +159 | — |
| Locke Mistelle | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 76 | -76 | $2.96 |
| Cohen Richard | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 159 | +159 | — |
| Cohen Richard | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.6.2026 | 159 | -159 | — |
| Leatherberry Antoinette Renee | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 67 | -67 | $2.96 |
| Cohen Richard | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 76 | -76 | $2.96 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
133,240 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 8,318 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
26.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 33.4% 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