Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$25.08
▲ $0.00 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 10/02 01:34 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/02/2026
News analyzed: 10/02/2026
Market Cap
$2.37B
Day Range
$25.04 - $25.08
52-Week Range
$24.47 - $25.66
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$24.47
Resistance
$25.50
-0.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/22 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 0.4% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.06 (3y annualized return 0.2% / max drawdown 3.6%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
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.
Trenz (TRNZ) earns a Moderate rating with an Investor Score of 46, reflecting a balanced but cautious outlook driven by mixed signals across key metrics. The stock demonstrates moderate fundamental strength, particularly in profitability (ROE of 12.4% and ROA of 5.5%), though its growth trajectory is hindered by a -6.7% EPS decline, offsetting the 17.3% net income growth. Valuation appears reasonable with a P/E of 12.8 and a NAV per share of $15.79, suggesting potential undervaluation relative to fundamentals. However, technical indicators are weak, with the price lagging below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a negative MACD histogram, and an RSI of 39.4—all signaling short-term bearish momentum. Risk factors like a high debt-to-equity ratio (1.19) and a Calmar ratio of 0.06 (indicating low risk-adjusted returns) further temper optimism, while the neutral news sentiment lacks directional clarity. The stock’s strengths—such as low volatility (ATR 0.5%) and a positive uptrend signal (price above SAR)—provide some stability, but they are outweighed by the technical and growth headwinds.
The stock is trading below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a negative MACD histogram and an RSI of 39.4, indicating weak momentum and a short-term downtrend.
Technical weakness often signals potential downward pressure, especially when combined with oversold conditions.
The company shows reasonable profitability (ROE 12.4%, ROA 5.5%) but carries a debt-to-equity ratio of 1.19, suggesting moderate leverage.
Fundamentals provide a foundation for long-term stability, though leverage introduces financial risk.
While net income growth is strong at 17.3%, earnings per share (EPS) have declined by -6.7%, indicating diluted profitability per share.
EPS growth is a critical driver of investor confidence and stock performance.
The P/E ratio of 12.8 is relatively low, and the NAV per share of $15.79 suggests potential undervaluation relative to intrinsic value.
Valuation metrics help determine if the stock is priced fairly or offers a margin of safety.
The stock is categorized as 'Undercovered Dozen' with neutral sentiment, lacking positive or negative catalysts in recent news.
News sentiment can influence market perception and trading activity.
The debt-to-equity ratio of 1.19 indicates moderate financial risk, though profitability metrics remain reasonable.
Quality metrics assess a company’s ability to manage debt and sustain operations.
The ATR (0.5% of price) suggests low volatility, but the Calmar ratio of 0.06 (low risk-adjusted return) and high debt-to-equity ratio (1.19) highlight potential downside risk.
Risk metrics help gauge the stability and resilience of the investment.
StockIQ conclusion
Trenz (TRNZ) presents a Moderate investment profile with contrasting strengths and weaknesses. While its fundamentals and valuation metrics are relatively favorable, the stock faces technical headwinds and growth challenges, including declining EPS and weak momentum indicators. The low volatility and moderate leverage provide some stability, but the negative short-term trends and risk factors warrant caution. Investors should monitor EPS recovery and technical breakouts as key catalysts for potential shifts in outlook.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
45
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
49
Quality
50
Value
55
Momentum
23
Risk
50
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
55
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.
The available sources provide minimal information about Trinity Capital Inc.’s 7.875% Notes due 2029, with no direct coverage. Instead, the single reference from *SeekingAlpha* (September 2026) highlights unrelated companies—Vicor, Rayonier, and Accenture—under its "Undercovered Dozen" list, offering no details about Trinity Capital’s debt or financial developments. Thus, no recent media focus on the company’s notes or operations can be summarized.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Trinity Capital Inc. 7.875% Notes due 2029. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 0 vs. 0 out of the last 1 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
6
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
67
Fundamentals
55
Technical
23
Valuation
55
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-1%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-6
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
TRNZ’s psychology is dominated by anchoring, as traders appear fixated on a near-term resistance level (1.7% away), despite neutral momentum and sentiment. The narrative gap (-8) hints at a disconnect between market perception (42) and reality (50), possibly reinforcing reliance on past price levels. Low FOMO and no euphoria suggest limited speculative enthusiasm, while mild panic selling (11) indicates cautious, not distressed, behavior. The key question: *Will traders break free from resistance, or will anchoring persist as a self-fulfilling anchor?*
Updated: 10/01/2026, 12:41 AM
What could change this?
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for TRNZ reflects a clash between cautious, cycle-aware methodologies and more fundamental or growth-oriented frameworks. Charles Mackay and Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high scores suggest the stock avoids crowd-driven mania and sits in a favorable market cycle position, aligning with their focus on avoiding speculative bubbles and identifying oversold conditions. In contrast, Peter Lynch’s near-zero score and the low ratings from Graham’s Enterprising Investor or efficient-market theorists indicate a lack of compelling growth or value justification—these approaches prioritize statistical cheapness, defensible margins, or long-term earnings power, which TRNZ fails to demonstrate. Meanwhile, Fisher, Veblen, and Smith’s middling scores highlight uncertainty about whether the company’s growth translates into sustainable profits, while Livermore’s low score and Schwager’s outright dismissal point to a lack of clear directional momentum or technical setup. The debate thus hinges on whether TRNZ’s perceived market positioning (favored by Mackay and Nelson) outweighs its fundamental or growth shortcomings (rejected by Lynch, Graham, or the efficient-market camp).
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 97
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 86
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)
🟢 69
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 58
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 45
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 38
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 37
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 35
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 24
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 7
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 252 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 9 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$24.47
Range Bottom
$25.50
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
12.4%
ROA
5.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.96
Cash
$19.11M
Total Debt
$1.31B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
1.19
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.9.2026 | $0.492 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.492 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.492 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.492 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.492 |
| 13.6.2025 | $0.492 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.492 |
| 13.12.2024 | $0.492 |
| 13.9.2024 | $0.492 |
| 14.6.2024 | $0.492 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$15.79
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.79
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 1 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 1 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 30.9.2026
Trinity Capital Inc. 7.875% Notes due 2029 (TRNZ) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, 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.
TRNZ currently scores 45/100 (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.
TRNZ's technical score is 23/100, 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: ATR: 0.4% of price; Net income growth: 17.3%; P/E: 12.8.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.06 (3y annualized return 0.2% / max drawdown 3.6%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -6.7%; Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — TRNZ 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 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,060 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 1,447 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 70.2% 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