Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$1.81
▼ $0.13 (-6.7%)
Market data updated: 09/28 09:57 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/28/2026
News analyzed: 09/28/2026
Market Cap
$34.85M
Day Range
$1.78 - $1.94
52-Week Range
$1.47 - $6.75
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$1.47
Resistance
$2.47
-13.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/30 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 36.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -23.3% (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
47
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
55
Momentum
36
Risk
20
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
27
Institutional
94
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 Spruce Power Holding Corporation has primarily centered on its second-quarter 2026 earnings report, highlighting a significant turnaround with a $0.14 EPS profit—a 182% improvement over last year’s loss—despite a slight decline in revenue to $30.3 million. Analysts noted strategic cost reductions and growth in power purchase agreements (PPAs) and lease arrangements as key drivers. The company’s financial performance was briefly mentioned alongside other stocks in analyst blogs but lacked deeper industry-specific developments.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Spruce Power Holding Corporation. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 4 vs. 4 out of the last 14 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
9
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
45
Psychology
76
Fundamentals
27
Technical
36
Valuation
55
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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 (3M)
-30%
Market Narrative
52
Fundamental Reality
45
Narrative Gap
+7
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme loss aversion (93) reflects a defensive posture after a 31.3% drop over three months, where investors prioritize cutting losses over further downside. The absence of FOMO, euphoria, or herding suggests no urgency to chase or follow trends, while neutral sentiment and muted volume reinforce caution. The key question is whether this reluctance stems from fundamental concerns or purely technical exhaustion—both narratives remain ambiguous. Overconfidence is absent, as price underperformance contradicts EPS growth, leaving room for reassessment. The narrow narrative gap (-5) hints at a potential disconnect between investor perceptions and reality, but no clear catalyst is evident yet.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 04:24 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""Strategic Cost Cuts Drive...""
""EPS $0.14 Up From $(0.17) YoY""
""PPA-Lease Growth Aid""
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies that prioritize growth potential and those focused on defensive or cyclical caution. The highest-scoring investors—like Charles Mackay, Howard Marks (Market Cycle), and Samuel Armstrong Nelson—see it as a low-risk, cyclically favorable opportunity, with Nelson even suggesting it’s closer to oversold than overbought. Meanwhile, growth-oriented thinkers like Peter Lynch, Philip Fisher, and Thorstein Veblen lean bullish, arguing the stock’s price hasn’t yet reflected its underlying growth or quality. However, the split becomes stark when comparing these to value-focused or risk-averse frameworks: Graham’s defensive criteria, Loeb’s risk tolerance, and Bagehot’s liquidity concerns all flag it as a red flag, while Livermore’s trend-following rule and the efficient-market view dismiss it outright. The middle ground—represented by Marks (general), Schwager, and Smith—acknowledges merit but warns of mixed signals or limited long-term holding power, illustrating how even moderate growth or cyclical appeal can clash with strict valuation or risk thresholds.
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 95
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 94
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 79
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)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 74
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 63
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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
🟡 56
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 55
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 48
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 40
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 8
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 286 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 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
—
Operating Margin
16.0%
Net Margin
-23.3%
EBITDA Margin
43.0%
ROE
-21.5%
ROA
-3.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.44
Cash
$54.84M
Total Debt
$676.77M
Current Ratio
0.49
Debt/Equity
5.58
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.81
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$39.72
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
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% | $-4.69M | $-4.30M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-5.60M | $-4.71M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-6.37M | $-4.92M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-6.88M | $-4.88M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-7.06M | $-4.59M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-3.75M
Terminal Value
$-111.27M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-72.32M
Enterprise Value
$-95.71M
Net Debt
$621.93M
Equity Value
$-717.64M
*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
$6.71
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.28
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 6 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 14 articles.
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 19.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 13.8.2026
Business Wire · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Business Wire · 31.7.2026
Benzinga · 27.7.2026
Zacks · 10.7.2026
Business Wire · 24.6.2026
Motley Fool · 1.6.2026
Spruce Power Holding Corporation (SPRU) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
SPRU currently scores 47/100 (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.
SPRU's technical score is 36/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 36.2%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 62.3%; Free cash flow growth: 91.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -23.3% (negative); ATR: 9.6% of price; Current ratio: 0.49.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SPRU.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 15 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P. | Open Market Purchase | 21.9.2026 | 3,482,160 | +52,780 | $2.04 |
| Rosenzweig Benjamin L | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.9.2026 | 117,801 | +117,801 | $1.91 |
| Owens Bobby | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 42,918 | +42,918 | — |
| Owens Bobby | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 42,918 | +42,918 | — |
| HOWARD JACK L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.9.2026 | 155,140 | +105,140 | $2.14 |
| HOWARD JACK L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.9.2026 | 105,140 | +105,140 | $2.14 |
| Williams Jacqueline T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 2,650 | +2,650 | — |
| Williams Jacqueline T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 19,179 | +2,650 | — |
| Norling Jonathan McWhinnie | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | $2.84 |
| Norling Jonathan McWhinnie | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.5.2026 | 18,669 | -18,669 | $3.24 |
| Norling Jonathan McWhinnie | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.5.2026 | 399,583 | -18,669 | $3.24 |
| STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P. | Open Market Purchase | 20.4.2026 | 24,335 | +24,335 | $4.13 |
| Steel Excel Inc. | Open Market Purchase | 20.4.2026 | 3,429,380 | +24,335 | $4.13 |
| STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P. | Open Market Purchase | 17.4.2026 | 3,640 | +3,640 | $4.03 |
| Steel Excel Inc. | Open Market Purchase | 17.4.2026 | 3,405,045 | +3,640 | $4.03 |
| STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P. | Open Market Purchase | 16.4.2026 | 141 | +141 | $4.10 |
| Steel Excel Inc. | Open Market Purchase | 16.4.2026 | 3,401,405 | +141 | $4.10 |
| STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P. | Open Market Purchase | 15.4.2026 | 10,463 | +10,463 | $4.09 |
| Steel Excel Inc. | Open Market Purchase | 15.4.2026 | 3,401,264 | +10,463 | $4.09 |
| STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P. | Open Market Purchase | 14.4.2026 | 5,027 | +5,027 | $4.05 |
| Steel Excel Inc. | Open Market Purchase | 14.4.2026 | 3,390,801 | +5,027 | $4.05 |
| STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P. | Open Market Purchase | 13.4.2026 | 2,975 | +2,975 | $4.00 |
| Steel Excel Inc. | Open Market Purchase | 13.4.2026 | 3,385,774 | +2,975 | $4.00 |
| STEEL PARTNERS HOLDINGS L.P. | Open Market Purchase | 10.4.2026 | 1,700 | +1,700 | $4.00 |
| Steel Excel Inc. | Open Market Purchase | 10.4.2026 | 3,382,799 | +1,700 | $4.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
845,138 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 840,364 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 42.8% 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