Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$3.11
▼ $0.36 (-10.4%)
Market data updated: 09/18 05:11 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$15.49M
Day Range
$3.07 - $3.29
52-Week Range
$2.40 - $14.99
Beta
—
Next Earnings
11.11.2026
WVVIP is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
-2.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 15/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 56.1%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -3.9% (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
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
46
Quality
47
Value
55
Momentum
71
Risk
46
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
39
Institutional
100
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 Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. has centered on its financial and investor-focused initiatives. The company announced a $1.75 million preferred stock offering, allowing wine enthusiasts to become shareholders with exclusive benefits, while also reporting Q2 2026 losses per share after preferred dividends. Additionally, it was recognized as the #1 Best Tasting Room in the nation for the third consecutive year, though broader market activity—such as unusual trading volume and price gaps—has occasionally highlighted its stock as a notable performer.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. Series A Redeemable Preferred Stock. News trend score: 68. Reason: 5 of the last 15 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
12
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
26
Fundamentals
39
Technical
71
Valuation
55
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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)
+24%
Market Narrative
57
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+20
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests **confirmation bias** is the dominant psychological force, as the narrative gap (+14) contrasts sharply with weakening fundamentals (revenue decline, shrinking margins). Traders may be selectively ignoring deteriorating metrics while clinging to optimistic narratives. Elevated volatility (1.94x ATR) and underperformance relative to peers further imply defensive positioning, though not panic. The key open question is whether the narrative gap will persist or if fundamentals will force a reassessment of valuations.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:21 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"$1.75 million Preferred Stock Offering (WVVIP) to support continued growth"
"#1 Best Tasting Room in the Nation for third consecutive year"
📈 7D 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 30/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between value-oriented and momentum-driven methodologies. Benjamin Graham’s defensive framework sees it as an outright ‘attractive’ opportunity due to its valuation metrics, while his enterprising counterpart lacks sufficient data for a confident call. Meanwhile, cycle-focused investors like Samuel Nelson and Howard Marks (cycle) view it as moderately favorable, with Nelson leaning toward oversold conditions and Marks seeing it as mid-cycle. Contrastingly, growth-focused thinkers like Peter Lynch and Philip Fisher dismiss it outright, with Fisher calling it lacking in quality and Lynch failing to see reasonable growth. Technical traders like Jack Schwager find it disciplined with a decent risk/reward, but trend-followers like Jesse Livermore reject it entirely, flagging it as counter-trend. The divide highlights a tension between valuation-driven, cycle-sensitive, and trend-aware approaches versus those prioritizing growth or quality.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
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
🟢 100
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 73
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 73
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)
🟡 62
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 61
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 60
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 60
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 59
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 52
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 49
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 48
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 36
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: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 4 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 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
60.5%
Operating Margin
-3.9%
Net Margin
-2.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-1.4%
ROA
-0.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$410.89K
Total Debt
$15.03M
Current Ratio
2.70
Debt/Equity
0.29
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 5.12.2025 | $0.220 |
| 4.12.2025 | $0.220 |
| 6.12.2024 | $0.220 |
| 5.12.2024 | $0.220 |
| 6.12.2023 | $0.220 |
| 5.12.2023 | $0.220 |
| 6.12.2022 | $0.220 |
| 5.12.2022 | $0.220 |
| 6.12.2021 | $0.220 |
| 5.12.2021 | $0.220 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$13.29
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$11.56
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 15 articles.
ChartMill · 27.8.2026
ChartMill · 27.8.2026
ChartMill · 26.8.2026
ChartMill · 26.8.2026
ChartMill · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 4.8.2026
PR Newswire · 4.8.2026
Benzinga · 4.8.2026
PR Newswire · 29.7.2026
Yahoo · 29.7.2026
Trefis · 9.7.2026
Zacks · 9.7.2026
PR Newswire · 21.5.2026
PR Newswire · 13.5.2026
Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. Series A Redeemable Preferred Stock (WVVIP) 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.
WVVIP 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.
WVVIP's technical score is 71/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: 56.1%; Debt/equity: 0.29; Current ratio: 2.70.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -3.9% (negative); Net margin: -2.5% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
Yes — WVVIP 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 — 18 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FERRY JOHN ALPHONSUS | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.5.2026 | 8,000 | +8,000 | — |
| FERRY JOHN ALPHONSUS | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.5.2026 | 5,500 | +5,500 | — |
| Smith Craig Alan | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.5.2026 | 11,500 | +11,500 | — |
| TUREL STANLEY G | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.5.2026 | 11,500 | +11,500 | — |
| CARY SEAN M | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.5.2026 | 11,500 | +11,500 | — |
| ROSE SARAH ALICE | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.5.2026 | 4,500 | +4,500 | — |
| Ellis James L | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.5.2026 | 11,500 | +11,500 | — |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2025 | 9 | +9 | $2.91 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2025 | 893 | +893 | $2.91 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2025 | 89 | +89 | $2.95 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2025 | 500 | +500 | $2.91 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2025 | 9 | +9 | $2.98 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2025 | 500 | +500 | $2.96 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 10.12.2025 | 500 | +500 | $2.93 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 10.12.2025 | 500 | +500 | $2.95 |
| TUREL STANLEY G | Open Market Purchase | 24.11.2025 | 1,900 | +1,900 | $2.59 |
| TUREL STANLEY G | Open Market Purchase | 24.11.2025 | 100 | +100 | $2.61 |
| BERNAU JAMES W | Open Market Purchase | 21.11.2025 | 621 | +621 | $2.54 |
| BERNAU JAMES W | Open Market Purchase | 21.11.2025 | 3,000 | +3,000 | $2.60 |
| BERNAU JAMES W | Open Market Purchase | 21.11.2025 | 500 | +500 | $2.59 |
| TUREL STANLEY G | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2025 | 250 | +250 | $4.35 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 22.8.2025 | 500 | +500 | $4.15 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 22.8.2025 | 500 | +500 | $4.14 |
| TUREL STANLEY G | Open Market Purchase | 22.8.2025 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $4.10 |
| Osborn Michael Jordan | Open Market Purchase | 21.8.2025 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $4.42 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
143,728 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,681 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 35.6% 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