Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$1.07
▲ $0.17 (+18.3%)
Market data updated: 09/21 05:20 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$206.91M
Day Range
$0.93 - $1.08
52-Week Range
$0.77 - $4.18
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$0.77
Resistance
$1.50
-61.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/29 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 20.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$6.45 vs. price $1.07 (-705.8%)
Fair Value
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
59
Quality
63
Value
43
Momentum
21
Risk
46
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
36
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.
Recent media coverage of **enCore Energy Corp.** has centered on financial and market challenges, particularly its **declining uranium sales profitability** and **lowered price targets** by analysts like B. Riley and HC Wainwright, which cut estimates from $4 to $3 and $3.75 to $3.5, respectively. The company also entered a **controlled equity offering** in August 2026, amid broader industry shifts, including rival IPOs like X-Energy and Standard Nuclear. While it was featured in a documentary, financial concerns remain dominant.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about enCore Energy Corp.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 5 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
37
Fundamentals
36
Technical
21
Valuation
43
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-28%
Market Narrative
35
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
-6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The stock’s psychology is dominated by **loss aversion**, as the 3-month decline and muted volume suggest traders are hesitant to lock in losses. Overconfidence (+37) persists due to price momentum outpacing fundamentals, while confirmation bias (+12) may reinforce narratives despite deteriorating fundamentals. The key question: *Will traders prioritize fundamental deterioration or cling to momentum-driven optimism?* The narrative gap (+9) hints at misalignment, but the absence of panic or herding suggests caution rather than panic-driven selling.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 08:06 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"HC Wainwright & Co. maintains Buy on enCore Energy, lowers price target to $3.5"
"enCore Energy Files Prospectus For ATM Stock Offering Of Up To $250M"
"enCore Energy’s Uranium Sales Are Costing More Than They Earn"
"X-Energy IPO Opens For Trade At $30.11/Share; Standard Nuclear TRISO Fuel Producer"
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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between value-focused and trend-sensitive methodologies. Benjamin Graham and Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect scores reflect deep undervaluation and robust liquidity, aligning with their core principles of defensive investing and credit resilience. Meanwhile, the contrast with Jack Schwager’s 32 and Jesse Livermore’s 27 highlights a stark divergence—Schwager’s rules reject it outright for lacking a clear technical setup, while Livermore’s negative trend verdict clashes with the value-driven optimism. Even within value schools, the gap between Graham’s 'Enterprising Investor' (81) and Philip Fisher’s 40 underscores whether the stock’s growth is *real* (Fisher’s concern) or merely priced in (Graham’s playbook). The middle-ground methodologies—like Howard Marks’ 76 or Morgan Housel’s 54—suggest it’s holdable but not a slam dunk, while the efficient-market camp (49) dismisses it as unexceptional, framing the debate as one of conviction versus pragmatism.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 98
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 98
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 93
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 91
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 75
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 74
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 62
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 57
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 48
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 40
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 20
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 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 7 bearish · 3 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
22.5%
Operating Margin
-152.4%
Net Margin
-131.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-21.5%
ROA
-15.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.30
Cash
$52.40M
Total Debt
$109.99M
Current Ratio
2.90
Debt/Equity
0.07
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.07
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$6.45
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-705.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
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% | $-56.24M | $-51.59M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-67.13M | $-56.50M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-76.36M | $-58.97M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-82.57M | $-58.49M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-84.63M | $-55.00M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-44.99M
Terminal Value
$-1.33B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-867.38M
Enterprise Value
$-1.15B
Net Debt
$57.58M
Equity Value
$-1.21B
*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
$1.54
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.54
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 11 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 6.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 6.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
PR Newswire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
CNW Group · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
Trefis · 24.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 18.8.2026
MT Newswires · 18.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
enCore Energy Corp. (EU) 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.
EU 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, EU's estimated fair value is -$6.45, which is 705.8% below the current price of $1.07. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
EU's technical score is 21/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 20.4%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.07.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$6.45 vs. price $1.07 (-705.8%); Operating margin: -152.4% (negative); Net margin: -131.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for EU.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 12 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McCoig Dain A | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 94,595 | +94,595 | — |
| Hudson Robert W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 51,081 | +51,081 | — |
| SHERIFF WILLIAM M | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 101,351 | +101,351 | — |
| SHERIFF WILLIAM M | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 101,351 | +101,351 | — |
| Hoxie-Key Susan | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 70,270 | +70,270 | — |
| McCoig Dain A | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 141,892 | +141,892 | — |
| Hudson Robert W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 76,622 | +76,622 | — |
| HEILI WAYNE W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 70,270 | +70,270 | — |
| PELIZZA MARK S | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 70,270 | +70,270 | — |
| Harris William B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 70,270 | +70,270 | — |
| Tewalt Nathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 70,270 | +70,270 | — |
| Kremke Kevin L | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 243,243 | +243,243 | — |
| Kremke Kevin L | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 162,162 | +162,162 | — |
| HEILI WAYNE W. | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 35,000 | +35,000 | $1.44 |
| PELIZZA MARK S | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 723 | +723 | $1.39 |
| PELIZZA MARK S | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 238,238 | +723 | $1.39 |
| HEILI WAYNE W. | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 35,000 | +35,000 | $1.44 |
| PELIZZA MARK S | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 99,182 | +99,182 | $1.37 |
| PELIZZA MARK S | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 237,515 | +99,182 | $1.37 |
| Little Richard H | Open Market Purchase | 9.6.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | $1.28 |
| Little Richard H | Open Market Purchase | 9.6.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | $1.28 |
| SHERIFF WILLIAM M | Open Market Purchase | 19.5.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $1.39 |
| SHERIFF WILLIAM M | Open Market Purchase | 19.5.2026 | 1,412,169 | +25,000 | $1.39 |
| SHERIFF WILLIAM M | Open Market Purchase | 18.5.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $1.47 |
| SHERIFF WILLIAM M | Open Market Purchase | 18.5.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | $1.49 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
38,332,367 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 35,363,825 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
63.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.3% 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