Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Basic Materials · ·
$44.06
▼ $0.38 (-0.9%)
Market data updated: 09/30 04:05 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/29/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$4.49B
Day Range
$43.39 - $45.02
52-Week Range
$29.77 - $54.30
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$41.70
Resistance
$50.96
TREX is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
-15.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/27 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 252.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $19.60 vs. price $44.06 (-55.5%)
Fair Value
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
55
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
48
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
46
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
69
Institutional
0
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 coverage of Trex Company highlights a strategic push into broader outdoor‑living markets: the firm announced a new distribution partnership with BlueLinx to widen decking and railing reach across key U.S. growth areas, launched a premium lighting and finishing collection, celebrated its 30‑year anniversary with a vision to “own the backyard” and double its size, and appointed its first Chief Commercial Officer to drive commercial growth.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Trex Company, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
69
Technical
46
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
73
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+38
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
TREX’s dominant overconfidence (score 45) reflects a disconnect between price action and fundamentals, with traders ignoring weak momentum (-5.5% ROC) while valuing the stock 133% above DCF. The extreme narrative gap (70 vs. 35) suggests investors are prioritizing sentiment (100/100) over reality. Key uncertainty: whether traders will adjust expectations as valuation strains under modest growth. The absence of panic or herding implies complacency, not urgency. A break below 200-day average (+5.9%) could test this confidence.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 09:47 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Trex Expands Outdoor Living Portfolio with Premium Lighting and Finishing Solutions"
"BlueLinx Partners With Trex to Expand Decking, Railing Distribution in the US"
"Trex is expanding beyond its category-leading decking business with a vision to become the defining brand in outdoor living"
"Trex Company Appoints Brian J. Taylor as Chief Commercial Officer"
📈 3D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 61/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 3/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for TREX split sharply between bullish and bearish camps, reflecting starkly different priorities. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests the stock’s cycle position is near oversold, aligning with his contrarian, momentum-driven approach. In contrast, the majority of value-oriented and risk-averse frameworks—like Graham’s defensive criteria, Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price rule, or Bagehot’s liquidity concerns—score it poorly, flagging valuation, stability, or risk as red flags. Meanwhile, Fisher and Schwager’s neutral stance hints at neither clear quality nor edge, while Marks’ valuation-based caution and Veblen’s growth-chasing critique underscore concerns about speculative overreach. The divide underscores whether one prioritizes cyclical timing (Nelson) or fundamental safety (Graham) in evaluating the stock.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 61
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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)
🟡 59
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 54
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 52
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 49
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 48
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 47
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 33
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)
🔴 30
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 25
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 20
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 13
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 10
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 6
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 3
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 287 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 5 bearish · 2 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.
Low 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
39.2%
Operating Margin
22.0%
Net Margin
16.2%
EBITDA Margin
27.3%
ROE
18.4%
ROA
13.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.78
Cash
$3.81M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.24
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$44.06
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$19.60
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-55.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.0% | $137.27M | $125.94M |
| 2 | 2.2% | $140.24M | $118.04M |
| 3 | 2.3% | $143.43M | $110.75M |
| 4 | 2.4% | $146.85M | $104.03M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $150.52M | $97.83M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$134.52M
Terminal Value
$2.37B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.54B
Enterprise Value
$2.10B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$2.10B
*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
$9.66
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$9.36
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 3 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Benzinga · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Business Wire · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Business Wire · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Trex Company, Inc. (TREX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 55/100, 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.
TREX currently scores 55/100 (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, TREX's estimated fair value is $19.60, which is 55.5% below the current price of $44.06. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TREX's technical score is 46/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 252.2%; Price is above the 200-day average; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $19.60 vs. price $44.06 (-55.5%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: -0.16 (3y annualized return -10.9% / max drawdown 69.9%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for TREX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taylor Brian J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 9,520 | +9,520 | $47.27 |
| Taylor Brian J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 9,520 | +9,520 | $47.27 |
| Fernandez Amy M. | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 1,050 | -1,050 | $50.07 |
| Fernandez Amy M. | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 67,794 | -1,050 | $50.07 |
| Cline James E | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,831 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| ROBINSON PATRICIA B | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,831 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| GRATZ JAY M | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,831 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| Keffer David Christian | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,831 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| Lovett Gena C | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,831 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| JUSTER KRISTINE L | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,831 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| ROSE B ANDREW | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 1,629 | +1,629 | $42.39 |
| Volas Gerald | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,831 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| Tasi Irene | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 1,101 | +1,101 | $42.39 |
| Cline James E | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 45,807 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| GRATZ JAY M | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 33,705 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| JUSTER KRISTINE L | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 15,729 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| Keffer David Christian | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 6,386 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| Lovett Gena C | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 10,903 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| ROBINSON PATRICIA B | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 73,162 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| ROSE B ANDREW | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 17,038 | +1,629 | $42.39 |
| Tasi Irene | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,357 | +1,101 | $42.39 |
| Volas Gerald | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 44,405 | +2,831 | $42.39 |
| ROSE B ANDREW | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 526 | +526 | $48.69 |
| Keffer David Christian | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 131 | +131 | $48.69 |
| Keffer David Christian | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 3,555 | +131 | $48.69 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
10,148,200 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 10,501,459 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
37.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 42.6% 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