Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$2.31
▼ $0.08 (-3.3%)
Market data updated: 09/23 05:38 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/22/2026
News analyzed: 09/23/2026
Market Cap
$19.11M
Day Range
$2.31 - $2.45
52-Week Range
$1.01 - $3.62
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$1.58
Resistance
$3.62
LEDS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+11.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/33 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $5.54 vs. price $2.31 (+140.0%)
Fair Value
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
58
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
58
Value
62
Momentum
82
Risk
26
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
18
Institutional
No data available
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 SemiLEDs Corporation is limited to a single financial report, with no broader industry or operational updates. On July 14, 2026, the company released its third-quarter fiscal year 2026 financial results via Business Wire, marking its only recent mention in English-language sources. No recurring themes or additional developments—such as product launches, partnerships, or market trends—have been reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about SemiLEDS Corporation. News trend score: 56. Reason: 1 of the last 3 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
55
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
55
Psychology
70
Fundamentals
18
Technical
82
Valuation
62
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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 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.
Price (3M)
+36%
Market Narrative
57
Fundamental Reality
55
Narrative Gap
+2
🔀 Weak-Conviction Rally
Price is moving, but not accompanied by a matching rise in news attention/sentiment.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for LEDS suggests a neutral-to-cautious stance rather than extreme bias, with panic selling as the only notable state (score: 20). The negative 12-month momentum (-12.1%), modest volume (0.38x average), and neutral sentiment (50/100) align with a measured, risk-averse approach. The absence of euphoria or overconfidence—despite trading 64% below fair value—implies investors are neither overly optimistic nor dismissive of risk. The dominant narrative gap (-35) hints at a disconnect where reality (e.g., fundamentals) may not fully align with market pricing, but this doesn’t yet drive extreme behavior. The key question: *Will the moderate volatility (0.70x ATR) sustain, or will external catalysts (e.g., earnings, sector shifts) amplify caution?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:44 PM
What could change this?
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
Peter Lynch — 90/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 9/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for LEDS reflects deep methodological disagreements about valuation, timing, and risk. Mackay and Lynch’s high scores suggest a fundamentally sound opportunity—Mackay sees no crowd-driven hype, while Lynch spots undervalued growth potential. Meanwhile, cycle-focused investors like Marks and Nelson lean positive, viewing the stock as favorably positioned within its market phase. Fisher’s moderate approval highlights quality, but Graham’s low scores reveal tension: the stock fails his strict margin-of-safety tests yet might pass as a speculative play for his enterprising investor. At the other extreme, Veblen, Bagehot, and Loeb flag red flags—growth without substance, liquidity risks, or excessive risk—while Livermore’s negative verdict aligns with a broader trend-based skepticism. The efficient-market camp dismisses the stock entirely, while Housel’s neutral stance suggests it’s holdable but not a slam dunk, illustrating how even cautious investors can’t agree on whether the trade is worth the effort.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 90
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 78
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 64
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 64
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 57
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 54
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 51
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 50
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 46
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 39
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 23
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 22
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 12
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 9
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
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (10 bullish · 1 bearish · 2 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.
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
5.7%
Operating Margin
-3.7%
Net Margin
-2.6%
EBITDA Margin
-2.0%
ROE
-40.6%
ROA
-7.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.15
Cash
$2.59M
Total Debt
$1.71M
Current Ratio
0.99
Debt/Equity
0.61
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.31
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$5.54
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+140.0%
🟢 Appears cheap 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% | $2.05M | $1.88M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $2.45M | $2.06M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $2.79M | $2.15M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $3.02M | $2.14M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.09M | $2.01M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.64M
Terminal Value
$48.74M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$31.68M
Enterprise Value
$41.92M
Net Debt
$-885.00K
Equity Value
$42.81M
*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
$0.36
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.35
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 1 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 3 articles.
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 30.7.2026
Business Wire · 14.7.2026
SemiLEDS Corporation (LEDS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
LEDS currently scores 58/100 (Moderate) 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, LEDS's estimated fair value is $5.54, which is 140.0% above the current price of $2.31. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LEDS's technical score is 82/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $5.54 vs. price $2.31 (+140.0%); Revenue growth (last year): 729.8%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 53.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Operating margin: -3.7% (negative); Net margin: -2.6% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LEDS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 21 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yu Chris Chang | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2025 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Gough Walter Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2025 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Hsieh Edward Kuan Hsiung | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2025 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Hsieh Edward Kuan Hsiung | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2025 | 53,571 | +5,000 | — |
| Gough Walter Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2025 | 41,068 | +5,000 | — |
| Yu Chris Chang | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2025 | 10,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Lee Hsin-Liang Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2025 | 8,000 | +8,000 | — |
| DOAN TRUNG T | Other Transaction | 28.2.2025 | 240,963 | +240,963 | $1.66 |
| J.R. Simplot Co | Other Transaction | 28.2.2025 | 722,891 | +722,891 | $1.66 |
| Simplot Scott R. | Other Transaction | 28.2.2025 | 722,891 | +722,891 | $1.66 |
| Simplot Taiwan Inc. | Other Transaction | 28.2.2025 | 722,891 | +722,891 | $1.66 |
| Hsieh Edward Kuan Hsiung | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2024 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Yu Chris Chang | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2024 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Gough Walter Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.11.2024 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| DOAN TRUNG T | Conversion of Derivative Security | 9.2.2024 | 629,921 | +629,921 | $1.27 |
| Simplot Scott R. | Conversion of Derivative Security | 8.1.2024 | 1,050,022 | +1,050,022 | $1.31 |
| Simplot Taiwan Inc. | Other Transaction | 8.1.2024 | 305,343 | +305,343 | $1.31 |
| Simplot Taiwan Inc. | Conversion of Derivative Security | 8.1.2024 | 1,050,022 | +1,050,022 | $1.31 |
| Simplot Scott R. | Other Transaction | 8.1.2024 | 305,343 | +305,343 | $1.31 |
| J.R. Simplot Co | Conversion of Derivative Security | 8.1.2024 | 1,050,022 | +1,050,022 | $1.31 |
| J.R. Simplot Co | Other Transaction | 8.1.2024 | 305,343 | +305,343 | $1.31 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
137,582 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 125,325 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 40.3% 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