Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$6.44
▲ $0.00 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/18 08:22 PM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$163.33M
Day Range
$6.30 - $7.01
52-Week Range
$6.30 - $46.50
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$0.26
Resistance
$7.01
+666.7% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 9/14 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
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: 8.1% 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.
EPOW’s overall investor score of 41, classified as **WEAK**, reflects a mixed but predominantly negative technical and risk profile, despite a strong news sentiment. The stock’s technical indicators—such as its position below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a negative MACD histogram signaling declining momentum, and an RSI of 32.3 indicating oversold conditions—suggest a weak near-term outlook. Meanwhile, the risk category highlights severe volatility (ATR at 14.5% of price) and extreme underperformance, with a **Calmar ratio of -0.49** (3-year annualized return of -40.7% and a max drawdown of 82.9%), underscoring long-term fragility. However, the news category scores perfectly (100) due to recent positive mentions in multiple pre-market and intraday sessions, suggesting short-term speculative interest or momentum-driven trading activity. The contrast between the technical/risk data and the news-driven hype creates a volatile dynamic where external factors may temporarily override intrinsic weaknesses.
The stock trades below both the 50-day (19) and 200-day (19) moving averages, with a negative MACD histogram (19) and RSI of 32.3 (oversold), while %K at 8.3 confirms extreme short-term weakness.
These indicators collectively signal a bearish short-term trend and potential exhaustion, which could limit upside unless momentum reverses.
All five news items are positive or neutral, with multiple references to pre-market/intraday momentum and unusual volume, indicating recent speculative activity.
This suggests short-term hype or trading activity may be driving price, independent of fundamental or technical strength.
The ATR (14.5% of price) and Calmar ratio (-0.49) reflect extreme volatility and chronic underperformance, with a 3-year annualized return of -40.7% and an 82.9% max drawdown.
Such metrics indicate high risk of further losses and poor risk-adjusted returns, making the stock inherently volatile and speculative.
StockIQ conclusion
EPOW’s **WEAK** rating stems from a combination of severe technical weaknesses—including prolonged bearish trends and extreme volatility—and chronic underperformance, despite a perfect news sentiment score. The stock appears to be driven more by speculative activity than fundamentals, with high risk metrics (Calmar ratio, ATR) signaling potential for further losses. While short-term momentum could temporarily improve, the long-term outlook remains fragile without a reversal in underlying trends or a catalyst to address its structural weaknesses.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
79
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
78
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
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 E-Power Inc. highlights its expansion in the battery anode sector, including a **$51 million turnkey contract** for advanced artificial graphite and silicon-carbon anode production lines. The company also secured a **government-backed AIoT and blockchain-driven smart manufacturing platform grant** in China and was recommended as a national-level "Little Giant" enterprise. Additionally, it closed a **$16 million private placement** and faced a **Nasdaq listing compliance notice** regarding bid price deficiencies.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about E-Power Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 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
89
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Investors appear highly excited (89), but evidence of strong fundamental conviction is comparatively weak (50).
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
—
Technical
78
Valuation
—
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+922%
Market Narrative
88
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+38
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for EPOW is overwhelmingly dominated by **loss aversion**, as the extreme 3-month drawdown (-44.0%) and subdued trading volume (0.11x average) indicate a reluctance to amplify losses or seize opportunities. While extreme sentiment (100/100) fuels FOMO and euphoria, the technical backdrop (RSI 32, negative ROC) dampens aggressive participation. The narrow narrative-reality gap (3 points) suggests no misalignment in expectations, reinforcing cautious positioning. The key question: *Will the lack of volume signal sustained capitulation, or does the extreme sentiment mask latent buying interest?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:49 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Wins $51.1 Million Turnkey Contract for Advanced Battery Anode Production Lines"
"Secures RMB 3 Million Government Grant for AIoT and Blockchain-Driven Smart Manufacturing Platform"
"Nasdaq Notification Regarding Minimum Bid Price Deficiency"
📈 5D 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
Jesse Livermore — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between bullish, neutral, and bearish views on EPOW, reflecting stark differences in their core principles. Samuel Armstrong Nelson, Charles Mackay, and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) all score near the top, seeing it as either oversold, free of crowd-driven euphoria, or early-to-mid cycle—aligning with their focus on market psychology and timing. Conversely, Morgan Housel and Jesse Livermore deliver the lowest scores, with Housel dismissing it as volatile enough to unsettle patient investors and Livermore flagging it as counter-trend, mirroring their risk-averse and trend-following approaches. Meanwhile, the middle ground—where Graham, Fisher, Lynch, and Veblen score mid-range—reflects a lack of sufficient data to apply their rigorous fundamental or behavioral frameworks, while Loeb and the Efficient Market proponents warn of either excessive risk or the simplicity of passive investing.
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 80
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 54
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 26
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 20
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 19
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 0
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 0
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 4 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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 9 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 31.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
ChartMill · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 26.5.2026
MT Newswires · 22.5.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.5.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for E-Power Inc. (EPOW) — 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 EPOW 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.
EPOW's technical score is 78/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 8.1% of price; RSI 97.2 — approaching overbought territory; %K 91.6 — overbought.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for EPOW.
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.
1,520,895 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 37,202 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
19.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 15.5% 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