Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$16.78
▲ $1.41 (+9.2%)
Market data updated: 09/21 10:39 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$2.23B
Day Range
$16.28 - $17.04
52-Week Range
$11.45 - $43.98
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$12.93
Resistance
$20.52
+3.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 2/23 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 10.17
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -3621.6% (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
39
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
38
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
18
Risk
40
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
27
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 media coverage of USA Rare Earth, Inc. has centered on its stock volatility, with a **60% drop** in September followed by a **19.2% surge** in August, sparking discussions about buying opportunities. Analysts highlight its **Stillwater facility’s potential growth** amid rising demand for rare earth metals due to geopolitical tensions and shifts away from traditional energy sources. The company also announced a **$1.25 billion securities offering**, including a secondary share sale, while investors anticipate an upcoming **earnings report** expected to boost revenue. The broader theme emphasizes rare earths’ critical role in defense, electric vehicles, and supply chain diversification.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about USA Rare Earth, Inc.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 9 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
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
27
Technical
18
Valuation
50
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.
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.
Price (3M)
-27%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
USAR’s psychology is fragmented but dominated by **loss aversion**, reflecting a 13.1% drop over three months. Overconfidence (26) hints at traders ignoring weak fundamentals (+3.2% price vs. -7.3% EPS), while euphoria (19) remains muted due to the stock’s 14.5% underperformance vs. its 200-day average. The narrative gap (18) suggests traders may be overestimating positive developments. The key question: Will traders hold despite underperformance, or will loss aversion trigger further caution?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:32 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Chinese rare earth suppliers are quietly refusing U.S. shipments, and one American producer just closed a deal that could position it to fill that gap at the worst possible moment for Beijing's leverage."
"USA Rare Earth's revenue is about to jump."
"USA Rare Earth Announces Secondary Offering Of 126,476,950 Shares Of Common Stock"
📈 12D Investor Psychology
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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for USAR reflects a clash between cyclical, defensive, and trend-following philosophies. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights the stock’s liquidity resilience, suggesting it could weather financial stress, while Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s favorable cycle positioning implies it may be undervalued relative to its historical range. In contrast, defensive investors like Benjamin Graham and Gerald Loeb reject it outright—Graham’s strict criteria fail, and Loeb’s risk aversion flags it as a capital threat. Meanwhile, trend followers like Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager dismiss it entirely, with Livermore’s negative trend rule and Schwager’s lack of setup reinforcing a bearish stance. Even the efficient-market camp sees no edge, while behavioral observers like Veblen and Housel warn of speculative or volatile tendencies, underscoring how USAR’s mixed signals split traditional value hunters from cyclical and trend-based strategists.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 74
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)
🟢 72
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
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 30
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 13
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 12
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
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: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 0
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 8 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 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
11.9%
Operating Margin
-3621.6%
Net Margin
-18110.7%
EBITDA Margin
-3575.2%
ROE
-60.2%
ROA
-42.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.31
Cash
$359.93M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
10.17
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
$5.04
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.97
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 10 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Motley Fool · 12.9.2026
USA Rare Earth, Inc. (USAR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 39/100, rated "Weak" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
USAR currently scores 39/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
USAR's technical score is 18/100, 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: Current ratio: 10.17; Current ratio: 10.17.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -3621.6% (negative); Net margin: -18110.7% (negative); ATR: 6.6% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for USAR.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Davis Michael Lawrence | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.9.2026 | 6,959 | +6,959 | — |
| Moraitis Thrasyvoulos | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.9.2026 | 216,541 | +216,541 | — |
| Moraitis Thrasyvoulos | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.9.2026 | 226,373 | +226,373 | — |
| Trabuco Carolyn | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 2,059 | +2,059 | — |
| BLITZER MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.7.2026 | 133,353 | +133,353 | — |
| BLITZER MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.7.2026 | 31,427 | +31,427 | — |
| BLITZER MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.7.2026 | 133,353 | +133,353 | — |
| BLITZER MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.7.2026 | 31,427 | +31,427 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.7.2026 | 271 | +271 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.7.2026 | 3,226 | +271 | — |
| Trabuco Carolyn | Open Market Sale | 8.6.2026 | 13,000 | -13,000 | $22.77 |
| Trabuco Carolyn | Open Market Sale | 8.6.2026 | 18,783 | -13,000 | $22.77 |
| Caulfield Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 6,438 | +6,438 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 2,548 | -2,548 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 407 | +407 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 2,548 | +2,548 | — |
| Senft Michael F | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 6,438 | +6,438 | — |
| SCHWETHELM OTTO C | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 6,438 | +6,438 | — |
| BLITZER MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 6,438 | +6,438 | — |
| Trabuco Carolyn | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 6,438 | +6,438 | — |
| SCHWETHELM OTTO C | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 6,438 | +6,438 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 407 | +407 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 2,955 | +2,548 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.6.2026 | 0 | -2,548 | — |
| Caulfield Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 6,438 | +6,438 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
30,782,851 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 29,053,314 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.0% 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