Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Utilities · ·
$4.97
▼ $0.18 (-3.5%)
Market data updated: 09/30 10:01 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$92.42M
Day Range
$4.92 - $5.15
52-Week Range
$3.21 - $7.07
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$3.40
Resistance
$7.07
SLNG is a stock from the Utilities sector — Electricity, water, and residential gas — steady demand and heavy regulation, considered a defensive, dividend-paying sector.
+14.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/29 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
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.12
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $0.32 vs. price $4.97 (-93.6%)
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
38
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
55
Value
38
Momentum
33
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
40
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 Stabilis Solutions, Inc. (SLNG) has centered on its Q2 2026 financial performance, highlighting a widening net loss and missed earnings estimates. Despite revenue slightly exceeding expectations ($11.916M vs. $11.200M), the company reported a larger-than-anticipated per-share loss of $(0.25), a dramatic increase from prior quarters. Analysts noted concerns over profitability amid shifting market conditions, though no major strategic shifts or new initiatives were prominently discussed.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Stabilis Solutions, Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 2 vs. 2 out of the last 11 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
40
Technical
33
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+24%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
SLNG’s psychology is dominated by overconfidence (48), fueled by a disconnect between price momentum (+0.9%) and deteriorating fundamentals (EPS -1.3%). The extreme DCF overvaluation (+1678%) and euphoric narrative gap (+19) suggest traders are ignoring reality, a classic overconfidence trap. Confirmation bias (25) further amplifies this by reinforcing positive narratives despite weak revenue growth (-0.1%). The key question: *Will traders remain oblivious to deteriorating fundamentals, or will reality eventually break through?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 05:52 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Net loss widens, revenue falls"
"Q2 EPS $(0.25) misses $(0.05) estimate by 400%"
"Narrative around Stabilis Solutions shifting without new analyst guidance"
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 — 89/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on their documented principles, the model estimates that the higher scores from Nelson, Mackay and Marks‑cycle suggest a relatively favorable cycle position, whereas the mid‑range scores from Graham, Marks (overall) and the efficient‑market view reflect concerns about valuation and elevated expectations. In contrast, growth‑oriented frameworks such as Lynch, Fisher, Schwager and Veblen assign very low scores, indicating the stock fails to meet their growth‑at‑reasonable‑price or quality criteria. Trend‑following and risk‑focused investors like Livermore, Loeb, Smith and Housel also rate the stock poorly, highlighting negative momentum and volatility that would deter patient holders. Consequently, while cycle‑timing models appear mildly bullish, the majority of historically documented methodologies deem SLNG unattractive.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 89
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)
🟢 77
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)
🟢 77
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 53
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 45
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 45
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 40
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 40
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 38
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 37
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
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)
🔴 0
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 289 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 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
26.4%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
-2.0%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-2.0%
ROA
-1.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.07
Cash
$7.46M
Total Debt
$7.69M
Current Ratio
1.30
Debt/Equity
0.12
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$4.97
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$0.32
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-93.6%
🔴 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% | $438.90K | $402.66K |
| 2 | -3.1% | $425.18K | $357.87K |
| 3 | -1.2% | $419.87K | $324.22K |
| 4 | 0.6% | $422.49K | $299.31K |
| 5 | 2.5% | $433.06K | $281.46K |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$462.00K
Terminal Value
$6.83M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$4.44M
Enterprise Value
$6.10M
Net Debt
$227.00K
Equity Value
$5.88M
*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
$3.59
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.35
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 11 articles.
Motley Fool · 18.8.2026
MarketBeat · 12.8.2026
Moby · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
MT Newswires · 11.8.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 29.7.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 2.6.2026
MarketBeat · 8.5.2026
Stabilis Solutions, Inc. (SLNG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 38/100, 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.
SLNG currently scores 38/100 (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, SLNG's estimated fair value is $0.32, which is 93.6% below the current price of $4.97. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SLNG's technical score is 33/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.12; Price is above the 200-day average; +20.4% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $0.32 vs. price $4.97 (-93.6%); Net margin: -2.0% (negative); ATR: 7.5% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SLNG.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 14 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KUNTZ EDWARD L | Open Market Purchase | 9.9.2026 | 74,839 | +5,000 | $5.41 |
| KUNTZ EDWARD L | Open Market Purchase | 13.5.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | $3.89 |
| KUNTZ EDWARD L | Open Market Purchase | 13.5.2026 | 69,839 | +7,500 | $3.89 |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Open Market Purchase | 12.5.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $3.68 |
| KUNTZ EDWARD L | Open Market Purchase | 12.5.2026 | 167 | +167 | $3.60 |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Open Market Purchase | 12.5.2026 | 42,594 | +2,000 | $3.68 |
| KUNTZ EDWARD L | Open Market Purchase | 12.5.2026 | 62,339 | +167 | $3.60 |
| KUNTZ EDWARD L | Open Market Purchase | 28.2.2025 | 4,000 | +4,000 | $5.06 |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.2.2025 | 1,553 | +1,553 | — |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.2.2025 | 1,553 | -1,553 | — |
| Ballard Westervelt T. JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.1.2025 | 442,574 | +442,574 | — |
| Ballard Westervelt T. JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.1.2025 | 7,765 | +7,765 | — |
| Ballard Westervelt T. JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.1.2025 | 1,300,000 | +1,300,000 | — |
| Ballard Westervelt T. JR | Disposition to the Company | 31.1.2025 | 442,574 | -442,574 | — |
| Ballard Westervelt T. JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.1.2025 | 7,765 | -7,765 | — |
| Ballard Westervelt T. JR | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.1.2025 | 2,302 | -2,302 | — |
| Ballard Westervelt T. JR | Disposition to the Company | 31.1.2025 | 1,300,000 | -1,300,000 | — |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Open Market Purchase | 29.8.2024 | 3,000 | +3,000 | $4.05 |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Open Market Purchase | 21.8.2024 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $3.97 |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Open Market Purchase | 15.8.2024 | 423 | +423 | $4.28 |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Open Market Purchase | 7.6.2024 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $4.15 |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Open Market Purchase | 22.5.2024 | 1,138 | +1,138 | $3.99 |
| Mitchell Peter C. | Open Market Purchase | 15.5.2024 | 3,564 | +3,564 | $4.14 |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 19.2.2024 | 1,553 | -1,553 | — |
| Puhala Andrew Lewis | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 19.2.2024 | 1,553 | +1,553 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
15,666 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 24,600 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.6% 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