Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Basic Materials · ·
$2.18
▼ $0.06 (-2.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 06:02 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$310.82M
Day Range
$2.13 - $2.26
52-Week Range
$2.00 - $11.49
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$2.00
Resistance
$2.88
ABAT is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
-27.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/26 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
🟢 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): 406.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -343.6% (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
54
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
13
Risk
40
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
27
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 **American Battery Technology Company** highlights its progress in advancing U.S. critical minerals and battery supply chains. Key themes include the **Bureau of Land Management’s approval of its Nevada lithium project**, strong **Q4 FY2026 financial results** with record gross profit and reinstated DOE funding, and a **DOE-led tour of its lithium-ion battery recycling and demonstration plants**. Analysts note stock potential amid federal critical minerals investments, though export restrictions pose risks.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about American Battery Technology Company. News trend score: 74. Reason: 6 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)
62
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
27
Technical
13
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-30%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
62
Narrative Gap
-20
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ABAT’s psychology is dominated by anchoring (72), where traders appear fixated on the 1.4% resistance gap, potentially limiting aggressive moves. FOMO (62) and overconfidence (54) coexist, driven by strong momentum (+22.1% ROC) and positive sentiment (92/100), but the narrative gap (9 points) hints at a disconnect between optimism and fundamentals. The key question: will traders break free from resistance or double down on anchoring? The absence of panic or loss aversion suggests no urgency to exit, reinforcing cautious momentum-driven behavior.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:06 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"U.S. Department of Energy Leaders Tour American Battery Technology Company's Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Plant and Tonopah Flats Lithium Project Demonstration Plant"
"American Battery Technology Company Announces Highest Ever Gross Profit and Successful Appeal for Reinstatement of $57 Million US Department of Energy Grant"
"Bureau of Land Management Accepts Operations Plan for Nevada Lithium Project"
"Trump's $500 million critical minerals push could reshape the battery supply chain"
📈 15D 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?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented methodologies and more cautious or contrarian frameworks. Peter Lynch and Edgar Lawrence Smith see it as a high-potential 'buy and hold' candidate, with Lynch emphasizing underpriced growth and Smith endorsing its long-term fundamentals—both signaling optimism about sustained earnings expansion. Meanwhile, Walter Bagehot’s high liquidity score suggests resilience in downturns, reinforcing its defensive appeal, while Philip Fisher’s moderate score hints at solid but unexceptional quality. However, the chorus of skepticism from the bottom half—particularly Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-zero score and the consensus of market efficiency proponents—warns of overvaluation or speculative hype, with Marks (both versions) flagging late-cycle risks and Veblen’s critique of growth-chasing. The contrast reveals a stock that excites value-growth believers but alarms those wary of crowd behavior or cyclical exhaustion.
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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)
🟢 87
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 86
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 66
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 65
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 48
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 39
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
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)
🔴 34
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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 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
-14.2%
Operating Margin
-343.6%
Net Margin
-337.5%
EBITDA Margin
-320.6%
ROE
-58.1%
ROA
-55.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.58
Cash
$49.52M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
9.53
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$0.99
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.95
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 12 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 31.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 5.8.2026
Benzinga · 4.8.2026
American Battery Technology Company (ABAT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 39/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ABAT currently scores 39/100 (Weak) 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.
ABAT's technical score is 13/100, 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): 406.8%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 9.53.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -343.6% (negative); Net margin: -337.5% (negative); ATR: 7.2% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ABAT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 4 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.9.2026 | 866 | -866 | $2.70 |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.9.2026 | 33,383 | +33,383 | — |
| Wu Steven | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 291,540 | +291,540 | $1.07 |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 631,375 | +631,375 | $0.99 |
| Wu Steven | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 291,540 | +291,540 | $1.07 |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 631,375 | +631,375 | $0.99 |
| Wu Steven | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.8.2026 | 421,642 | -31,344 | $2.40 |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.8.2026 | 3,376,952 | -39,397 | $2.40 |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.8.2026 | 39,397 | -39,397 | $2.40 |
| Wu Steven | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.8.2026 | 31,344 | -31,344 | $2.40 |
| Wu Steven | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.8.2026 | 452,986 | +63,373 | — |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.8.2026 | 3,416,349 | +102,997 | — |
| Wu Steven | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.8.2026 | 63,373 | +63,373 | — |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.8.2026 | 102,997 | +102,997 | — |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.7.2026 | 7,780 | -7,780 | $2.50 |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.7.2026 | 3,313,352 | -7,780 | $2.50 |
| JOLCOVER SCOTT | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 8,334 | +8,334 | — |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 20,834 | +20,834 | — |
| JOLCOVER SCOTT | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 429,542 | +8,334 | — |
| Melsert Ryan Mitchell | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 3,321,132 | +20,834 | — |
| Lee Susan Y | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 10,949 | +10,949 | — |
| Fezell Donald Richard JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 22,629 | +22,629 | — |
| Lowery Elizabeth Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 10,949 | +10,949 | — |
| Lee Susan Y | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 192,200 | +10,949 | — |
| Fezell Donald Richard JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 382,621 | +22,629 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
21,611,858 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 22,582,163 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
70.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 65.3% 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