Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$1.22
▲ $0.02 (+1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/23 02:30 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/23/2026
Market Cap
$56.72M
Day Range
$1.18 - $1.23
52-Week Range
$1.01 - $4.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$1.01
Resistance
$1.64
-55.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/28 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 69.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -13618.5% (negative)
Fundamental
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
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
21d ago · $1.51
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -17 to 21 day-over-day
What happened after
21d ago · $1.51
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 0 to 83 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
42
Value
55
Momentum
13
Risk
40
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
27
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.
AEye, Inc. (NASDAQ: LIDR), a provider of software-defined lidar solutions, has recently gained attention for its expansion into space technology. The company secured a multi-million-dollar contract to supply its Apollo lidar for Lunar Outpost’s Pegasus Lunar Terrain Vehicle, marking its entry into lunar navigation. This milestone drove a 30% stock rally before a slight dip, while AEye’s CFO will present at the upcoming H.C. Wainwright Global Investment Conference.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about AEye, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
51
Psychology
65
Fundamentals
27
Technical
13
Valuation
55
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.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-16%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
51
Narrative Gap
-4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests traders are driven by FOMO, chasing momentum (+8.7% ROC) and elevated volume (3.79x avg) amid positive sentiment (86/100). Overconfidence in price gains over fundamentals (+8.7% vs. +0.7% EPS) and loss aversion from a 23.9% drop create tension. The narrative gap (18) hints at optimism outpacing reality, but resistance (19.7% below) may cap euphoria. Key question: Will momentum sustain or trigger profit-taking?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:22 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AEye’s Apollo long-range lidar for the Pegasus Lunar Terrain Vehicle"
"AEye (LIDR) stock dips post-30% rally after securing a Lunar Outpost contract"
📈 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for LIDR reflects deep methodological contrasts between value-driven and behavioral frameworks. Benjamin Graham and his enterprising variant all but unanimously rate it as a compelling opportunity—highlighting its statistical undervaluation and defensive resilience—while Walter Bagehot’s liquidity focus reinforces its survival potential in crises. In contrast, Fisher, Veblen, and Housel dismiss it outright, with Fisher rejecting its lack of signature quality/growth traits, Veblen flagging speculative excess, and Housel warning of volatility-induced panic selling. Middle-ground thinkers like Marks and Schwager acknowledge mixed signals—praising the business but questioning inflated expectations or a lack of clear edge—while Lynch’s growth optimism and Mackay’s crowd-signal caution sit between enthusiasm and skepticism. The spectrum underscores how value purists see opportunity where behavioralists spot risk, and cyclical analysts (like Marks’ market-cycle take) default to neutrality when signals are ambiguous.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 86
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 78
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)
🟢 76
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 70
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)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 52
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)
🟡 42
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 29
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 28
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)
🔴 23
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)
🔴 10
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 5
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
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 (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.
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
-137.8%
Operating Margin
-13618.5%
Net Margin
-14574.2%
EBITDA Margin
-13551.9%
ROE
-41.7%
ROA
-37.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.47
Cash
$43.36M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
10.46
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.22
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$15.93
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
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $-26.49M | $-24.30M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-25.66M | $-21.60M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-25.34M | $-19.57M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-25.50M | $-18.07M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-26.14M | $-16.99M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-27.89M
Terminal Value
$-412.19M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-267.90M
Enterprise Value
$-368.43M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-368.43M
*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
$3.52
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.52
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 10 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Business Wire · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Stocktwits · 1.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
InvestorsHub · 1.9.2026
Associated Press · 1.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
AEye, Inc. (LIDR) 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.
LIDR 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.
LIDR's technical score is 13/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 69.9%; Current ratio: 10.46; Revenue growth (last year): 15.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -13618.5% (negative); Net margin: -14574.2% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LIDR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tierney Conor B | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.9.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Fisch Matthew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 40,242 | -40,242 | $1.31 |
| Tierney Conor B | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 26,549 | -26,549 | $1.31 |
| Tierney Conor B | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 500,000 | +500,000 | — |
| Fisch Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 1,000,000 | +1,000,000 | — |
| Fisch Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 1,834,724 | +1,000,000 | — |
| Tierney Conor B | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 708,713 | +500,000 | — |
| Tierney Conor B | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 26,549 | -26,549 | $1.89 |
| Fisch Matthew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 40,242 | -40,242 | $1.89 |
| HUGHES ANDREW S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 15,421 | -15,421 | $1.89 |
| HUGHES ANDREW S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 170,022 | -15,421 | $1.89 |
| Fisch Matthew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 1,071,219 | -40,242 | $1.89 |
| Tierney Conor B | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 327,756 | -26,549 | $1.89 |
| Fisch Matthew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.2.2026 | 40,242 | -40,242 | $1.65 |
| HUGHES ANDREW S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.2.2026 | 16,482 | -16,482 | $1.65 |
| Tierney Conor B | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.2.2026 | 29,342 | -29,342 | $1.65 |
| HUGHES ANDREW S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.2.2026 | 185,443 | -16,482 | $1.65 |
| Fisch Matthew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.2.2026 | 1,111,461 | -40,242 | $1.65 |
| Tierney Conor B | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.2.2026 | 348,055 | -29,342 | $1.65 |
| Fisch Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.2.2026 | 834,724 | +834,724 | — |
| Fisch Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.2.2026 | 834,724 | +834,724 | — |
| Fisch Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.2.2026 | 1,151,703 | +834,724 | — |
| Fisch Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.2.2026 | 834,724 | +834,724 | — |
| HUGHES ANDREW S | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.2.2026 | 121,229 | +121,229 | — |
| Tierney Conor B | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.2.2026 | 208,713 | +208,713 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,886,991 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,001,543 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.2% 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