Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Utilities · ·
$2.46
▼ $0.30 (-10.9%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:26 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$16.02M
Day Range
$2.45 - $2.76
52-Week Range
$0.68 - $9.45
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.11.2026
Support
$2.05
Resistance
$4.87
SUNE is a stock from the Utilities sector — Electricity, water, and residential gas — steady demand and heavy regulation, considered a defensive, dividend-paying sector.
+72.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/28 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
🟡 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): 26.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -2.3% (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
52
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
8d ago · $3.37
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 81)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
8d ago · $3.37
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 42 to 84 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
12d ago · $2.36
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 0 to 32 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
74
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
33
Risk
40
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
32
Institutional
78
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 SUNation Energy, Inc. has centered on its financial challenges and strategic shifts amid declining demand. The company celebrated the installation of its 800th residential battery, highlighting its focus on energy storage solutions, but reported a **year-over-year revenue drop in Q2 2026** due to weaker residential solar demand, partly attributed to the loss of federal tax incentives. Despite narrowing losses, SUNation emphasized cost-cutting, balance sheet strengthening, and pursuing a potential merger with Suniva, Inc., as it navigates a tougher industry environment.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about SUNation Energy, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
41
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
43
Psychology
49
Fundamentals
32
Technical
33
Valuation
50
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-4%
Market Narrative
68
Fundamental Reality
43
Narrative Gap
+25
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for SUNE suggests a **FOMO-driven speculative push**, as elevated volume and momentum align with neutral technicals, avoiding extreme overbought conditions. The narrative gap (9 points) hints at a disconnect between investor expectations and reality, possibly fueling speculative interest. Overconfidence may be subtly active, given price momentum outpacing fundamentals, but no clear panic or anchoring signals are present. The key question remains: *Will momentum sustain, or will traders exit before fundamentals catch up?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 08:17 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"weak residential solar demand squeezes gross profit"
"management pursues cost cuts and diversification"
"quarterly losses of $(0.52) per share"
"pursuing a strategic transaction in a more challenging industry backdrop"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 11D Investor Psychology
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 — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep contrasts in methodology priorities. Peter Lynch’s near-perfect score and bullish ‘growth candidate’ label suggest he sees untapped upside in the stock’s price lagging behind its earnings potential, while Edgar Lawrence Smith’s high score and ‘buy-and-hold’ framing imply he views it as a long-term, value-aligned opportunity. Meanwhile, value-focused investors like Benjamin Graham (both Defensive and Enterprising) and Howard Marks temper enthusiasm, noting modest discounts or elevated expectations, while Fisher and Veblen’s mid-range scores hint at solid fundamentals without exceptional quality. The divergence sharpens when contrasting speculative-leaning approaches—Livermore’s neutral stance and Loeb’s risk warning—against cyclical or market-neutral perspectives, like Marks’ cycle assessment or Bagehot’s liquidity concerns, which flag operational or macro risks. The efficient-market camp’s lukewarm verdict underscores the lack of clear alpha signals, leaving the stock’s appeal contingent on the investor’s core philosophy.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 94
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 79
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
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)
🟢 78
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
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 71
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 68
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 65
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 57
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
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)
🟡 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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 42
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 42
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 39
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 35
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 32
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 21
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 7 bearish · 0 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
38.3%
Operating Margin
-2.3%
Net Margin
-15.1%
EBITDA Margin
1.2%
ROE
-44.7%
ROA
-22.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$4.38
Cash
$7.18M
Total Debt
$6.64M
Current Ratio
1.07
Debt/Equity
0.27
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.10.2021 | $2,100,000.000 |
| 17.10.2021 | $2,100,000.000 |
| 29.9.2021 | $3.500 |
| 28.9.2021 | $3.500 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$9.78
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$1.24
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 5 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
ChartMill · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
Associated Press · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 8.9.2026
SUNation Energy, Inc. (SUNE) 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.
SUNE 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.
SUNE'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: Revenue growth (last year): 26.5%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 100.0%; Net income growth: 31.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -2.3% (negative); Net margin: -15.1% (negative); ATR: 15.8% of price.
Yes — SUNE has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 14 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 20 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maskin Scott | Open Market Purchase | 14.4.2026 | 554,712 | +554,712 | $1.77 |
| Brennan James Robert | Open Market Purchase | 14.4.2026 | 123,254 | +123,254 | $1.77 |
| Maskin Scott | Open Market Purchase | 14.4.2026 | 554,736 | +554,712 | $1.77 |
| Brennan James Robert | Open Market Purchase | 14.4.2026 | 123,269 | +123,254 | $1.77 |
| Lacey Roger HD | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2024 | 480 | +480 | $2.80 |
| Maskin Scott | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2024 | 3,500 | +3,500 | $2.81 |
| Brennan James Robert | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2024 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $2.81 |
| Lacey Roger HD | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2024 | 1,200 | +1,200 | $2.85 |
| Conroy Jeffrey J. | Open Market Purchase | 10.10.2024 | 350,704 | +350,704 | $0.12 |
| Conroy Jeffrey J. | Open Market Sale | 10.10.2024 | 16,014 | -16,014 | $0.11 |
| Conroy Jeffrey J. | Open Market Purchase | 9.10.2024 | 333,921 | +333,921 | $0.11 |
| Conroy Jeffrey J. | Open Market Sale | 9.10.2024 | 29,010 | -29,010 | $0.11 |
| Ingvaldson Eric | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2024 | 2,663 | -2,663 | $0.87 |
| Holland Tom | Open Market Purchase | 14.6.2024 | 3,000 | +3,000 | $1.31 |
| SAMPSON RANDALL D | Open Market Purchase | 13.6.2024 | 6,700 | +6,700 | $1.45 |
| Maskin Scott | Open Market Purchase | 13.6.2024 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $1.43 |
| Lacey Roger HD | Open Market Purchase | 13.6.2024 | 12,250 | +12,250 | $1.65 |
| Honour Scott | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2024 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $0.21 |
| Ingvaldson Eric | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2024 | 8,839 | -8,839 | $0.09 |
| Hlavka Kristin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2024 | 7,906 | -7,906 | $0.09 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
130,112 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 341,209 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.9% 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