Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Miscellaneous · ·
$4.76
▲ $0.09 (+1.9%)
Market data updated: 09/30 02:13 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$45.82M
Day Range
$4.59 - $4.79
52-Week Range
$3.70 - $32.23
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$3.70
Resistance
$7.02
-72.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/26 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
🟡 Mixed
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: 91.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -35.6% (negative)
Fundamental
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
52
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
68
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
41
Risk
26
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
42
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Stem, Inc. has centered on mixed analyst sentiment and stock performance. Analysts have shown optimism, with a 32.8% upside price target, while others have lowered expectations, cutting the price target by 21.25% or maintaining a neutral stance. The company’s Q2 2026 earnings call was also discussed, though no major financial surprises were highlighted. No direct Stem-related news was found in the provided sources, as headlines instead focused on competitors like Eos Energy and Fluence Energy.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Stem, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
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)
56
Psychology
53
Fundamentals
42
Technical
41
Valuation
50
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-39%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
56
Narrative Gap
+4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant *Loss Aversion* (score 86) reflects a defensive stance after a pronounced drawdown, with traders prioritizing risk preservation over opportunistic entry. Herding (58) suggests passive alignment with peers rather than aggressive conviction, while muted FOMO (8) and Euphoria (13) confirm a cautious, risk-averse environment. The narrow narrative gap (-4) implies a modest disconnect between sentiment and fundamentals, but the key question remains whether the recent underperformance will trigger further defensive positioning or a shift toward selective buying as volatility stabilizes. Overconfidence and anchoring are absent, reinforcing a focus on avoiding further losses over speculative bets.
Updated: 09/05/2026, 09:54 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"UBS analyst Jon Windham lowers Stem’s price target from $10.5 to $7"
"Stem reports Q2 loss but beats revenue estimates"
"Project delivery delays hurt Fluence Energy (related to Stem’s sector)"
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
Peter Lynch — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some seeing strong growth potential while others flag serious risks. Peter Lynch and Charles Mackay both rate it highly—Lynch sees it as a growth candidate where the price hasn’t yet reflected its upside, while Mackay finds no signs of speculative mania, suggesting a rational opportunity. Meanwhile, cycle-focused investors like Howard Marks and Samuel Armstrong Nelson also lean positive, viewing the stock as undervalued relative to its long-term trajectory. However, value-oriented thinkers like Benjamin Graham and Howard Marks (in his broader analysis) are far more cautious, questioning whether the stock’s premium justifies its valuation or if expectations are already too high. At the opposite end, risk-averse investors like Jesse Livermore, Gerald Loeb, and Walter Bagehot dismiss it outright—Livermore sees it as counter-trend, Loeb flags excessive risk, and Bagehot warns of liquidity concerns, while Morgan Housel’s near-zero score suggests it’s volatile enough to test even the most patient investors. The contrast highlights a fundamental tension: is this a high-quality growth play (for Lynch, Marks-cycle, or Veblen) or a speculative gamble (for Loeb, Livermore, or Housel) that lacks the margin of safety preferred by traditional value investors?
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 85
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)
🟢 76
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 75
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)
🟢 75
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 68
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 65
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)
🟡 63
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 55
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: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 43
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 42
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 13
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)
🔴 12
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 288 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 6 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
38.4%
Operating Margin
-35.6%
Net Margin
88.2%
EBITDA Margin
-6.9%
ROE
-55.2%
ROA
44.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$16.52
Cash
$48.91M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.91
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
-$29.38
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$43.87
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 8 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 25.9.2026
Benzinga · 25.9.2026
Benzinga · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Motley Fool · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Zacks · 31.8.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
Moby · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
MarketBeat · 13.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 12.8.2026
Zacks · 12.8.2026
Business Wire · 12.8.2026
Business Wire · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
Stem, Inc. (STEM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 52/100, 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.
STEM currently scores 52/100 (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.
STEM's technical score is 41/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 91.3%; Net income growth: 116.1%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -35.6% (negative); ATR: 7.2% of price; Current ratio: 0.91.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for STEM.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shivram Krishna | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | +7,486 | — |
| BUZBY DAVID S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | -7,486 | — |
| Guruswamy Vasudevan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | +7,486 | — |
| Tammineedi Anil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | +7,486 | — |
| BUZBY DAVID S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | +7,486 | — |
| Daley Adam | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | +7,486 | — |
| Daley Adam | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | -7,486 | — |
| TYSON LAURA D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | -7,486 | — |
| Birns Ira M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | +7,486 | — |
| Guruswamy Vasudevan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | -7,486 | — |
| TYSON LAURA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | +7,486 | — |
| Tammineedi Anil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | -7,486 | — |
| Shivram Krishna | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | -7,486 | — |
| Birns Ira M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | -7,486 | — |
| TYSON LAURA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 15,473 | +7,486 | — |
| Birns Ira M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 0 | -7,486 | — |
| TYSON LAURA D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 0 | -7,486 | — |
| BUZBY DAVID S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 0 | -7,486 | — |
| Birns Ira M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 14,207 | +7,486 | — |
| BUZBY DAVID S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 7,486 | +7,486 | — |
| Shivram Krishna | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 10,597 | +7,486 | — |
| Shivram Krishna | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 0 | -7,486 | — |
| Daley Adam | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 0 | -7,486 | — |
| Daley Adam | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 19,535 | +7,486 | — |
| Tammineedi Anil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 15,473 | +7,486 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,182,878 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 1,076,747 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 42.2% 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