Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$2.90
▲ $0.01 (+0.3%)
Market data updated: 10/01 08:43 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$51.38M
Day Range
$2.86 - $2.93
52-Week Range
$1.75 - $10.90
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
Support
$1.96
Resistance
$3.50
SCWO is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+0.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/28 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$14.07 vs. price $2.90 (-585.3%)
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
35
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
42
Value
38
Momentum
43
Risk
34
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
23
Institutional
11
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 374Water Inc. has centered on its upcoming presentation at WEFTEC 2026 in New Orleans, where the company will showcase new data on the efficiency of its AirSCWO supercritical water oxidation technology in destroying PFAS and other emerging pollutants. The event includes a 30-minute talk by Technical Solutions Manager David Garb, highlighting its potential for treating contaminated wastes, alongside a company booth showcasing leadership.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about 374Water Inc.. News trend score: 44. Reason: 1 of the last 2 articles are negative, versus 0 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
11
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
20
Psychology
18
Fundamentals
23
Technical
43
Valuation
38
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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)
+46%
Market Narrative
34
Fundamental Reality
20
Narrative Gap
+14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
👥 What the crowd believes
"presentation on 'using supercritical water oxidation for treating wastes contaminated with PFAS'"
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 86/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing potential while others flag it as risky or overvalued. Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Charles Mackay both rate it highly—Nelson’s cycle analysis suggests it’s oversold, while Mackay sees no crowd-driven mania, implying a more rational valuation. In contrast, Howard Marks’ mixed verdict splits his approach: his market-cycle lens finds it early-to-mid cycle, but his fundamental view warns expectations may be too high. Meanwhile, the efficient-market camp (Malkiel/Bogle) dismisses it outright, arguing there’s no clear edge over passive investing, while technical traders like Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager reject it entirely, citing trend resistance or poor setup. On the conservative end, Graham, Loeb, and Housel all warn of stability, risk, or volatility issues, while Fisher and Lynch dismiss it for lacking growth or quality. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s cyclical or crowd dynamics justify its valuation—or if its risks outweigh any perceived opportunities.
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)
🟢 84
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)
🟢 74
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 41
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 30
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 27
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
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
🔴 27
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)
🔴 23
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 17
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 11
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
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)
🔴 0
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 288 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 7 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 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
-1093.5%
Operating Margin
-9834.2%
Net Margin
-9754.2%
EBITDA Margin
-9484.4%
ROE
-311.9%
ROA
-183.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$3.20M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.40
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.90
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$14.07
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-585.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
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% | $-15.41M | $-14.14M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-14.93M | $-12.57M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-14.74M | $-11.39M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-14.84M | $-10.51M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-15.21M | $-9.88M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-16.22M
Terminal Value
$-239.82M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-155.87M
Enterprise Value
$-214.35M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-214.35M
*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
$0.44
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.38
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 1 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 2 articles.
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
374Water Inc. (SCWO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 35/100, 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.
SCWO currently scores 35/100 (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, SCWO's estimated fair value is -$14.07, which is 585.3% below the current price of $2.90. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SCWO's technical score is 43/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; +32.0% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$14.07 vs. price $2.90 (-585.3%); Operating margin: -9834.2% (negative); Net margin: -9754.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SCWO.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weiser Charles Maurice | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 150,000 | +150,000 | — |
| Weiser Charles Maurice | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 125,000 | +125,000 | — |
| Meyers Brad Ian | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 30,169 | -9,831 | $2.33 |
| Meyers Brad Ian | Open Market Sale | 11.6.2026 | 40,000 | -9,000 | $2.46 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Gift | 30.4.2026 | 1,771,263 | -1,440,000 | $2.48 |
| Jones Stephen J | Open Market Purchase | 16.12.2025 | 1,055,723 | +450,000 | $0.23 |
| Russell Kline | Open Market Purchase | 16.12.2025 | 668,642 | +20,000 | $0.22 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 23.10.2025 | 32,112,632 | -473,211 | $0.43 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 22.10.2025 | 32,646,843 | -32,791 | $0.42 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 22.10.2025 | 32,585,843 | -61,000 | $0.42 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 21.10.2025 | 32,679,634 | -284,394 | $0.42 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 20.10.2025 | 32,964,028 | -13,330 | $0.42 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 17.10.2025 | 32,977,358 | -131,680 | $0.42 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 16.10.2025 | 33,109,038 | -85,419 | $0.51 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 15.10.2025 | 33,194,457 | -363,868 | $0.52 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 14.10.2025 | 33,558,325 | -700,000 | $0.52 |
| Meyers Brad Ian | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.10.2025 | 731,000 | +500,000 | — |
| Russell Kline | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.10.2025 | 808,642 | +500,000 | — |
| Melkote Rajesh Ramaswamy | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.10.2025 | 500,000 | +500,000 | — |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 8.10.2025 | 34,258,325 | -1,499,000 | $0.46 |
| Jones Stephen J | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.10.2025 | 4,500,000 | +4,500,000 | — |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 7.10.2025 | 35,757,325 | -1,000 | $0.39 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2025 | 35,758,325 | -54,850 | $0.40 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 5.9.2025 | 35,813,175 | -122,439 | $0.39 |
| Nagar Yaacov | Open Market Sale | 29.8.2025 | 35,935,614 | -22,711 | $0.39 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
222,263 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 162,893 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
18.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 38.7% 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