Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$22.90
▲ $0.10 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 10/01 04:32 PM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$121.45M
Day Range
$22.90 - $23.70
52-Week Range
$22.25 - $42.15
Beta
—
Next Earnings
11.11.2026
Support
$22.25
Resistance
$32.00
SMID is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-38.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/29 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 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: 62.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.3% of price
Risk
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
50
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
79
Quality
58
Value
55
Momentum
10
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
73
Institutional
15
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 Smith-Midland Corporation highlights financial challenges alongside strategic growth in infrastructure and construction projects. The company reported a Q2 earnings decline due to tough year-over-year comparisons, while also securing major contracts—including a $10 million Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) deal for I-81 improvements and a $2.2 million Coast Guard project for precast wall systems. Growth in barrier rentals and data centers was noted, with a target of $100 million in backlog. The company also participated in industry conferences, reinforcing its focus on precast concrete solutions for transportation and building sectors.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Smith-Midland Corporation. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 2 vs. 2 out of the last 13 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)
41
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
73
Technical
10
Valuation
55
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-23%
Market Narrative
34
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
-7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
SMID’s market behavior suggests dominant loss aversion, as the 13% three-month decline and muted volume align with risk-averse positioning. The narrative gap (-4) hints at a slight disconnect between investor perceptions and fundamentals, but the data-driven focus remains on protecting capital rather than chasing gains. Overconfidence (12) and panic selling (17) are secondary, reflecting cautious underperformance against fundamentals and peers. The key open question: *Will traders exit to lock in losses, or will fundamentals (EPS growth) eventually rebalance sentiment?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 02:02 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"$10 million Virginia Transportation Contract (article 8/9/10)"
"$1.7 million Louisiana Data Center Project (article 11/12)"
"Q2 Earnings Drop Y/Y (article 1/6/7)"
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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between cyclical bullishness and contrarian caution. The unanimous top-tier scores from Mackay, Bagehot, Nelson, and Marks (cycle) suggest a consensus that SMID sits in a favorable market phase—free from mania, liquidity-strong, and neither overbought nor overextended. Meanwhile, Lynch’s high score and Fisher’s qualified approval highlight its growth potential and quality, though Fisher’s lower score hints at a nuanced view of its competitive edge. On the other hand, Graham’s mixed verdict and Livermore’s sharp rejection underscore deep skepticism: Livermore’s low score flags a trend-defying setup, while Graham’s enterprising investor bar remains unmet. The middle ground—from Schwager’s disciplined setup to Housel’s moderate holdability—shows a spectrum of pragmatic acceptance, where risk/reward is seen as fair but not transformative.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 92
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 77
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 76
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 66
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 66
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 62
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 58
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
🟡 53
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?
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 41
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)
🔴 20
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
Based on the last 290 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
27.9%
Operating Margin
18.2%
Net Margin
13.4%
EBITDA Margin
21.3%
ROE
23.0%
ROA
14.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.36
Cash
$11.88M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.40
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$22.90
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$23.03
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+0.6%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
23.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 23.2% | $6.12M | $5.61M |
| 2 | 18.0% | $7.22M | $6.08M |
| 3 | 12.9% | $8.15M | $6.29M |
| 4 | 7.7% | $8.77M | $6.21M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $8.99M | $5.84M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$4.96M
Terminal Value
$141.78M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$92.15M
Enterprise Value
$122.18M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$122.18M
*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
$10.24
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$10.24
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 9 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 13 articles.
Zacks · 1.9.2026
MarketBeat · 29.8.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 20.8.2026
MT Newswires · 14.8.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 14.8.2026
MT Newswires · 6.8.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 6.8.2026
Benzinga · 6.8.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 30.7.2026
Benzinga · 30.7.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 20.7.2026
Smith-Midland Corporation (SMID) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
SMID currently scores 50/100 (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, SMID's estimated fair value is $23.03, which is 0.6% above the current price of $22.90. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SMID's technical score is 10/100, 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: 62.8%; Free cash flow growth: 574.9%; Net income growth: 62.9%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.3% of price; Calmar: 0.12 (3y annualized return 6.3% / max drawdown 54.4%); Price is below the 50-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SMID.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 11 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smith Matthew I | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.9.2026 | 12,205 | +2,000 | $27.15 |
| Smith Matthew I | Open Market Purchase | 2.9.2026 | 12,205 | +2,000 | $27.15 |
| Smith Matthew I | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.9.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $27.15 |
| SMITH ASHLEY B | Open Market Purchase | 1.9.2026 | 180,539 | +2,000 | $26.87 |
| SMITH ASHLEY B | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 180,539 | +2,000 | $26.87 |
| Hunter Dominic L | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.1.2026 | 408 | +408 | — |
| Hunter Dominic L | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.1.2026 | 408 | +408 | — |
| Van de Water Read | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.12.2025 | 414 | +414 | — |
| Bruner James Russell | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.12.2025 | 414 | +414 | — |
| Gerhardt Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.12.2025 | 414 | +414 | — |
| Gerhardt Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.12.2025 | 7,206 | +414 | — |
| Van de Water Read | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.12.2025 | 414 | +414 | — |
| Bruner James Russell | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.12.2025 | 7,008 | +414 | — |
| Gerhardt Richard | Open Market Sale | 24.11.2025 | 666 | -666 | $33.26 |
| Gerhardt Richard | Open Market Sale | 24.11.2025 | 5,137 | -666 | $33.26 |
| SMITH RODNEY I | Open Market Sale | 22.8.2025 | 13,656 | -13,656 | $41.36 |
| SMITH RODNEY I | Open Market Sale | 22.8.2025 | 534,499 | -13,656 | $41.36 |
| SMITH RODNEY I | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2025 | 1,290 | -1,290 | $40.00 |
| SMITH RODNEY I | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2025 | 548,155 | -1,290 | $40.00 |
| Bruner James Russell | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2025 | 6,000 | -6,000 | $39.06 |
| Bruner James Russell | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2025 | 6,594 | -6,000 | $39.06 |
| SMITH RODNEY I | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2025 | 54 | -54 | $42.76 |
| SMITH RODNEY I | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2025 | 549,445 | -54 | $42.76 |
| SMITH ASHLEY B | Gift | 10.12.2024 | 10,000 | -10,000 | — |
| Gerhardt Richard | Open Market Sale | 14.6.2024 | 1,334 | -1,334 | $36.50 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
202,889 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 187,571 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.8% 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