Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$0.88
▲ $0.28 (+47.2%)
Market data updated: 09/22 08:31 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/22/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$74.46M
Day Range
$0.70 - $0.93
52-Week Range
$0.59 - $7.86
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$0.59
Resistance
$4.96
-86.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/31 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 84.1%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Death Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200
Technical
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
40
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
46
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
28
Risk
40
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
27
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 Innventure, Inc. has centered on internal leadership transitions and financial shifts. The company announced board changes, including Bruce Brown as Chairman and Dr. William Grieco’s appointment as CEO, while also searching for a new CFO. Q2 earnings revealed revenue doubling, though Accelsius faced delays. Insider share purchases and cost-cutting measures, including a review of AeroFlexx, were also noted. The focus remains on restructuring and operational adjustments amid growth challenges.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Innventure, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
52
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
23
Psychology
61
Fundamentals
27
Technical
28
Valuation
50
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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)
-85%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
23
Narrative Gap
+14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme loss aversion (score 100) reflects a deep, observable aversion to further downside after an 81% drawdown, with subdued volume reinforcing risk aversion. Confirmation bias (score 14) may amplify selective focus on positive narratives despite deteriorating fundamentals, while herding (score 43) suggests passive alignment with sector weakness. The key open question is whether the narrative gap (+14) can sustain investor attention amid collapsing margins and oversold conditions. The absence of panic (score 47) or euphoria (score 4) suggests a cautious, defensive stance rather than extreme behavior.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:17 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Announces ongoing search for new Chief Financial Officer"
"Deployment of its commercial IR150... marks the next milestone in the commercial rollout"
"Innventure cuts costs and reviews AeroFlexx options following second quarter"
📈 8D 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
Jack Schwager — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 30/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with the highest-scoring approaches—Charles Mackay, Samuel Armstrong Nelson, and Howard Marks (Market Cycle)—all emphasizing its relative calm and cyclical positioning. Their near-perfect scores suggest a consensus that the stock isn’t caught up in speculative frenzy or overbought extremes, making it a safer bet for those focused on avoiding crowd-driven bubbles. In contrast, the lower-scoring frameworks—like Jesse Livermore, Thorstein Veblen, and Philip Fisher—reject it outright, flagging either a negative trend, lack of quality/growth, or speculative overreach. Meanwhile, the middle tier (e.g., Graham, Lynch, Schwager) sees it as a *conditional* opportunity—attractive but not a slam dunk—highlighting how even similar valuation-based methods differ on whether the stock’s fundamentals justify the risk.
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 96
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
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)
🟢 94
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)
🟢 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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 74
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 72
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 70
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 68
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 49
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
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)
🟡 47
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 45
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 37
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 8 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
-815.9%
Operating Margin
-22602.1%
Net Margin
-14266.4%
EBITDA Margin
-21507.4%
ROE
-143.6%
ROA
-49.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$5.39
Cash
$60.45M
Total Debt
$8.33M
Current Ratio
1.09
Debt/Equity
0.04
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$0.88
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$37.54
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
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% | $-102.63M | $-94.15M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-122.51M | $-103.11M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-139.35M | $-107.61M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-150.68M | $-106.74M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-154.44M | $-100.38M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-82.10M
Terminal Value
$-2.44B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.58B
Enterprise Value
$-2.09B
Net Debt
$-52.12M
Equity Value
$-2.04B
*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
$3.75
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$5.14
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 8 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 21.9.2026
ChartMill · 21.9.2026
ChartMill · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Business Wire · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 21.8.2026
Motley Fool · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 19.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 19.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 19.8.2026
ChartMill · 14.8.2026
Stocktwits · 14.8.2026
The Wall Street Journal · 14.8.2026
ChartMill · 14.8.2026
Innventure, Inc. (INV) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 40/100, 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.
INV currently scores 40/100 (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.
INV's technical score is 28/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 84.1%; Debt/equity: 0.04; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Operating margin: -22602.1% (negative); Net margin: -14266.4% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for INV.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 4 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haskell Gregory W | Other Transaction | 9.9.2026 | 46,460 | -46,460 | — |
| Yablunosky David | Other Transaction | 8.9.2026 | 1,236 | -1,236 | — |
| Donnally James O | Other Transaction | 8.9.2026 | 2,227 | -2,227 | — |
| Otworth Michael | Other Transaction | 8.9.2026 | 154,829 | -154,829 | — |
| Brown Bruce | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | $1.51 |
| Donnally James O | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | $1.50 |
| Haskell Gregory W | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | $1.51 |
| Otworth Michael | Open Market Purchase | 20.8.2026 | 231,000 | +231,000 | $1.51 |
| Williams Elizabeth Suzanne | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 2,466 | +2,466 | — |
| Donnally James O | Gift | 30.6.2026 | 5,425 | +5,425 | — |
| Donnally James O | Gift | 30.6.2026 | 5,425 | -5,425 | — |
| Donnally James O | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 5,425 | +5,425 | — |
| Brown Bruce | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 7,083 | +7,083 | — |
| Brown Bruce | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 76,905 | +7,083 | — |
| Donnally James O | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 23,662 | +5,425 | — |
| Donnally James O | Gift | 30.6.2026 | 18,237 | -5,425 | — |
| Donnally James O | Gift | 30.6.2026 | 1,635,349 | +5,425 | — |
| Williams Elizabeth Suzanne | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 53,582 | +2,466 | — |
| Fallon Catriona M | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 18,237 | +18,237 | — |
| Hewitt John D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 18,237 | +18,237 | — |
| Donnally James O | Gift | 17.6.2026 | 22,305 | -22,305 | — |
| Donnally James O | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 18,237 | +18,237 | — |
| Donnally James O | Gift | 17.6.2026 | 22,305 | +22,305 | — |
| Williams Elizabeth Suzanne | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 18,237 | +18,237 | — |
| Amalfitano Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 18,237 | +18,237 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,936,367 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 8,768,703 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.5% 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