Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Miscellaneous · ·
$7.85
▲ $0.39 (+5.2%)
Market data updated: 09/26 11:04 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/25/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$7.56 - $8.06
52-Week Range
$7.01 - $33.51
Beta
—
Next Earnings
23.11.2026
Support
$7.01
Resistance
$16.12
-34.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/29 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.00
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$26.11 vs. price $7.85 (-432.6%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
31
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
55
Value
38
Momentum
12
Risk
46
Sentiment
32
Fundamental
39
Institutional
15
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 Fluence Energy has centered on execution challenges amid strong demand, with the company reporting a $6.4 billion backlog in Q3 2026 while deferring roughly $400 million in project deliveries to fiscal 2027. Analyst downgrades—including Barclays’ move to Underweight with a $10 price target—highlight concerns over delivery timelines and stock valuation, despite its role in AI-powered energy storage. Additionally, Fluence has reshuffled its board, adding Siemens executive Stephan May, signaling strategic alignment with major shareholders while investors debate whether the stock’s recent decline reflects undervaluation.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Fluence Energy, Inc.. News trend score: 32. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 7 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
40
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
74
Fundamentals
39
Technical
12
Valuation
38
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.
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.
Price (3M)
-60%
Market Narrative
25
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
-14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
FLNC’s market behavior suggests investors are deeply anchored to past losses (-48.1% over three months), creating a reluctance to sell despite muted panic or herd-driven moves. The narrative gap (-6) hints at a disconnect between market sentiment and reality, but the dominant loss aversion implies caution rather than aggressive action. The key question is whether the stock’s recent outperformance (+8.3%) will lure some traders back in—or if the 3-month underperformance will keep loss aversion dominant. Overconfidence is minimal, and euphoria is absent, reinforcing a defensive stance.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:59 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Barclays analyst Christine Cho downgrades Fluence Energy to Underweight and lowers the price target from $16 to $10."
"Fluence Energy stock has been under pressure... leaves current holders and potential buyers focused on whether the reset in valuation has already priced in key risks."
"Fluence Energy has appointed Siemens Smart Infrastructure executive Stephan May to its board... maintains Siemens Industry's direct involvement in Fluence Energy's governance."
"Fluence Energy ended the fiscal third quarter with a $6.4 billion backlog, yet about $400 million of project deliveries moved into fiscal 2027."
📈 9D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies that prioritize macroeconomic positioning and those anchored in fundamental or defensive valuation. The top scorers—Mackay, Marks (cycle), and Nelson—all see it as favorably positioned within a broader market cycle, with Mackay noting no crowd mania and Nelson emphasizing an oversold, cyclical opportunity. In contrast, Fisher and Veblen dismiss it outright, with Fisher’s zero score reflecting a complete lack of the quality/growth traits he demanded, while Veblen flags it as a speculative growth play lacking substance. Meanwhile, Graham’s strict defensive criteria and Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price test both reject it, while Malkiel/Bogle and Livermore’s trend-following rule further undermine its appeal. The middle ground—where Schwager, Marks (risk), and Bagehot land—suggests a disciplined but cautious approach, balancing reward potential with liquidity and risk, while Housel and Smith warn of volatility and instability that could deter patient long-term holders.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 96
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 78
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 55
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 53
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 45
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 27
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 26
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 8
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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 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
13.1%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
-2.1%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-11.2%
ROA
-2.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.37
Cash
$690.77M
Total Debt
$0
Current Ratio
1.51
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$7.85
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$26.11
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-432.6%
🔴 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% | $-200.53M | $-183.97M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-239.38M | $-201.48M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-272.29M | $-210.26M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-294.42M | $-208.57M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-301.78M | $-196.14M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-160.42M
Terminal Value
$-4.76B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-3.09B
Enterprise Value
$-4.09B
Net Debt
$-690.77M
Equity Value
$-3.40B
*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
$3.30
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.59
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 3 neutral, 10 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Fluence Energy, Inc. (FLNC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 31/100, 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.
FLNC currently scores 31/100 (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, FLNC's estimated fair value is -$26.11, which is 432.6% below the current price of $7.85. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FLNC's technical score is 12/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.00; Current ratio: 1.51; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$26.11 vs. price $7.85 (-432.6%); Net margin: -2.1% (negative); ATR: 8.9% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FLNC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 11 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BULLS HERMAN E | Open Market Purchase | 21.9.2026 | 169,550 | +10,000 | $7.36 |
| von Heynitz Harald | Open Market Purchase | 21.9.2026 | 65,550 | +7,000 | $7.36 |
| Williams Peter Bennett | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 8,588 | -8,588 | — |
| Williams Peter Bennett | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 8,588 | +8,588 | — |
| Williams Peter Bennett | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 3,905 | -3,905 | $14.07 |
| Williams Peter Bennett | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 26,197 | +8,588 | — |
| Williams Peter Bennett | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 22,292 | -3,905 | $14.07 |
| Williams Peter Bennett | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 0 | -8,588 | — |
| SPT Holding Sarl | Other Transaction | 6.7.2026 | 20,462,735 | -20,462,735 | — |
| SPT Holding Sarl | Other Transaction | 6.7.2026 | 1,231,982 | -20,462,735 | — |
| Zahurancik John | Open Market Sale | 23.6.2026 | 15,974 | -15,974 | $22.03 |
| Zahurancik John | Open Market Sale | 23.6.2026 | 71,171 | -15,974 | $22.03 |
| Zahurancik John | Open Market Sale | 23.6.2026 | 71,171 | -15,974 | $22.03 |
| Zahurancik John | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 16,000 | -16,000 | $25.18 |
| Zahurancik John | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 87,145 | -16,000 | $25.18 |
| Zahurancik John | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 87,145 | -16,000 | $25.18 |
| von Heynitz Harald | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $25.00 |
| von Heynitz Harald | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 58,550 | -5,000 | $25.00 |
| Fessenden Elizabeth Anne | Gift | 2.6.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| Fessenden Elizabeth Anne | Gift | 2.6.2026 | 66,250 | -1,000 | — |
| Qatar Investment Authority | Open Market Sale | 15.5.2026 | 2,867,172 | -2,867,172 | $21.00 |
| SPT Holding Sarl | Open Market Sale | 15.5.2026 | 10,066,414 | -10,066,414 | $20.53 |
| AES CORP | Open Market Sale | 15.5.2026 | 10,066,414 | -10,066,414 | $21.00 |
| AES CORP | Conversion of Derivative Security | 15.5.2026 | 10,066,414 | +10,066,414 | — |
| AES CORP | Conversion of Derivative Security | 15.5.2026 | 10,066,414 | -10,066,414 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
27,877,537 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 25,949,630 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 52.3% 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