Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$40.98
▲ $0.79 (+2.0%)
Market data updated: 09/23 11:20 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/23/2026
Market Cap
$2.36B
Day Range
$39.80 - $41.52
52-Week Range
$27.79 - $86.95
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$37.33
Resistance
$80.10
+29.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/28 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 31.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $4.04 vs. price $40.98 (-90.1%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
41
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
82
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
30
Risk
48
Sentiment
20
Fundamental
32
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 nLIGHT, Inc. has primarily centered on its financial performance and insider activity. After reporting Q2 earnings, the company’s stock declined, prompting its CEO to sell over 360,000 shares worth $16.5 million. Analysts also compared nLIGHT’s performance to peers in the electronic components sector, with broader market volatility—including trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada—further pressuring its share price. The focus remains on its small-cap challenges and market stability.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about nLIGHT, Inc.. News trend score: 20. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 3 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
99
Fundamentals
32
Technical
30
Valuation
38
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Price (3M)
-34%
Market Narrative
43
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+6
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant Loss Aversion (score 48) aligns with a steep 3-month drawdown (-33.8%) and heightened volume, signaling hesitation to crystallize losses. Overconfidence (45) persists due to extreme valuation (+927% vs. DCF), decoupled from weak momentum, hinting at selective optimism. The narrative gap (6-point divergence) suggests traders may overestimate recovery potential despite technical weakness. The key question: *Will traders prioritize cutting losses or hold for a rebound?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:39 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"nLIGHT's CEO Sells Over 360,000 Shares for $16.5 Million as the Stock Drops Post-Earnings"
"nLight Diverge in Big Price Swings Today"
"5 Revealing Analyst Questions From nLIGHT’s Q2 Earnings Call"
"nLIGHT (NASDAQ:LASR) Vs Peers"
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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 25/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for LASR reflects a clash between cyclical optimism and fundamental caution. Investors like Walter Bagehot, Howard Marks (Market Cycle), and Samuel Armstrong Nelson—who prioritize liquidity, market positioning, and valuation extremes—see this stock as a resilient, early-cycle opportunity, scoring near perfection. Meanwhile, growth-focused strategists like Peter Lynch and Jack Schwager highlight its upside potential, though even they temper enthusiasm with risk considerations. In contrast, value-oriented methodologies—particularly Benjamin Graham’s strict criteria—reject the stock outright, calling it overpriced or lacking defensive traits, while efficient-market skeptics like Malkiel/Bogle question its alpha potential. The tension between cyclical bulls and value purists underscores whether LASR’s momentum or fundamentals justify its valuation.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 98
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)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 81
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 73
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 60
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 46
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 43
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 25
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 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.
Medium 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
29.8%
Operating Margin
-10.2%
Net Margin
-9.0%
EBITDA Margin
-10.2%
ROE
-10.3%
ROA
-7.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.47
Cash
$98.70M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.79
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$40.98
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$4.04
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-90.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
4.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.3% | $12.83M | $11.77M |
| 2 | 3.9% | $13.32M | $11.21M |
| 3 | 3.4% | $13.78M | $10.64M |
| 4 | 3.0% | $14.18M | $10.05M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $14.54M | $9.45M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$12.30M
Terminal Value
$229.24M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$148.99M
Enterprise Value
$202.11M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$202.11M
*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
$4.54
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.29
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 9 neutral, 8 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 28.8.2026
MT Newswires · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Motley Fool · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
StockStory · 24.8.2026
StockStory · 17.8.2026
StockStory · 15.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 14.8.2026
Motley Fool · 14.8.2026
StockStory · 11.8.2026
nLIGHT, Inc. (LASR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 41/100, 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.
LASR currently scores 41/100 (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, LASR's estimated fair value is $4.04, which is 90.1% below the current price of $40.98. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LASR's technical score is 30/100, 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): 31.6%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 63.0%; Free cash flow growth: 219.5%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $4.04 vs. price $40.98 (-90.1%); Operating margin: -10.2% (negative); Net margin: -9.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LASR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corso Joseph John | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 3,524 | -3,524 | $41.49 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 9,753 | -9,753 | $40.69 |
| Nias James | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 1,025 | -1,025 | $40.69 |
| Corso Joseph John | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 4,191 | -4,191 | $40.69 |
| Gossman William | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 0 | +0 | — |
| Gossman William | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | $44.36 |
| Gossman William | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $1.10 |
| Keeney Scott H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 2,366,789 | +181,750 | $1.45 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 2,186,742 | -25,039 | $44.79 |
| Keeney Scott H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 0 | +0 | — |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 2,185,039 | -1,703 | $45.92 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 2,211,781 | -155,008 | $44.03 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 155,008 | -155,008 | $44.03 |
| Keeney Scott H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 0 | +0 | — |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 1,703 | -1,703 | $45.92 |
| Keeney Scott H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 181,750 | +181,750 | $1.45 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 25,039 | -25,039 | $44.79 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,302,060 | -64,729 | $46.29 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,187,131 | -2,459 | $47.92 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,185,039 | -2,092 | $48.97 |
| Keeney Scott H | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,189,590 | -112,470 | $47.15 |
| Keeney Scott H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 2,284,745 | +99,706 | $1.45 |
| Keeney Scott H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 0 | +0 | — |
| Keeney Scott H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 181,750 | +0 | — |
| Keeney Scott H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 2,366,789 | +82,044 | $1.45 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,611,013 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,876,238 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 31.8% 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