Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$14.75
▼ $0.09 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/20 05:18 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$132.89M
Day Range
$14.75 - $14.86
52-Week Range
$11.86 - $17.92
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$14.57
Resistance
$16.39
ACNT is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+17.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 106.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$2.83 vs. price $14.75 (-119.2%)
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
42
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
33
Momentum
23
Risk
56
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
42
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 **Ascent Industries Co.** (NASDAQ: ACNT) has centered on its strategic shift to a **pure-play specialty chemicals company**, highlighting strong financial performance and growth ambitions. The company reported a **37.6% year-over-year revenue increase** in Q2 2026, alongside improved adjusted EBITDA, while setting a **$120 million revenue target** through organic growth, product diversification, and selective acquisitions. Executives also participated in investor conferences, emphasizing its transformation and future expansion plans.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Ascent Industries Co.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 3 of the last 13 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
7
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
76
Fundamentals
42
Technical
23
Valuation
33
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
+6%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** state reflects ACNT’s synchronized decline with peers, suggesting traders are following broader sector cues rather than idiosyncratic signals. Confirmation bias and anchoring may reinforce this, as the narrative-reality gap (+8) and distance from support (4.5%) create mental anchors for continued alignment. The lack of extreme momentum or volatility rules out panic or euphoria, leaving a cautious, consensus-driven environment. The key question is whether this herd behavior persists or if a divergence from peers could disrupt the pattern.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:46 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Net sales increase 37.6% year-over-year"
"EPS $0.07 up from $(0.25) YoY, 128% increase"
"Completed transition to pure-play specialty chemicals company"
"Pursuing organic growth and selective acquisitions"
📈 16D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for **ACNT** reflects deep philosophical divides among the methodologies. **Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score** suggests the stock’s liquidity and resilience in crises would align with his credit-focused principles, while **Philip Fisher’s low score** highlights a stark mismatch—Fisher’s emphasis on long-term quality and growth simply isn’t reflected in the stock’s profile. Meanwhile, **Howard Marks’ mixed but slightly higher score** (63) implies the business may be sound, but the market’s valuation could already price in risks, echoing **Peter Lynch’s caution** (51) that growth is already baked into the price. **Jesse Livermore’s neutral stance** (53) and **Jack Schwager’s outright avoidance** (38) underscore a lack of clear directional momentum or technical setup, while **Edgar Lawrence Smith’s low score** (30) dismisses it as too volatile for his patient, long-term framework. Even **Benjamin Graham’s dual verdicts** (47 and 39) reveal tension—it’s not a slam-dunk value, but not entirely off-limits for disciplined investors. The divide between **Bagehot’s liquidity focus** and **Fisher’s quality obsession** encapsulates why some see stability while others see no compelling edge.
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)
🟢 92
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)
🟢 89
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 68
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟢 67
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 52
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 48
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 40
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
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 33
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 30
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 24
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)
🔴 21
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 (1 bullish · 9 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$14.57
Range Bottom
$16.39
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
23.0%
Operating Margin
-9.4%
Net Margin
1.2%
EBITDA Margin
-7.9%
ROE
1.0%
ROA
0.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.09
Cash
$57.61M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
6.72
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$14.75
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$2.83
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-119.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $-1.96M | $-1.80M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-1.90M | $-1.60M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-1.87M | $-1.45M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-1.89M | $-1.34M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-1.93M | $-1.26M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-2.06M
Terminal Value
$-30.49M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-19.82M
Enterprise Value
$-27.26M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-27.26M
*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
$9.02
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$8.73
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 9 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 13 articles.
Yahoo · 30.8.2026
MarketBeat · 30.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.8.2026
Business Wire · 19.8.2026
Motley Fool · 12.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 5.8.2026
MarketBeat · 4.8.2026
Associated Press · 4.8.2026
Business Wire · 4.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.8.2026
Benzinga · 4.8.2026
Business Wire · 27.7.2026
MarketBeat · 11.6.2026
Ascent Industries Co. (ACNT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, 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.
ACNT currently scores 42/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, ACNT's estimated fair value is -$2.83, which is 119.2% below the current price of $14.75. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ACNT'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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 106.7%; Net income growth: 106.4%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$2.83 vs. price $14.75 (-119.2%); Operating margin: -9.4% (negative); Revenue growth (last year): -7.2%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACNT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mazzaferro Aldo John Jr | Open Market Sale | 26.6.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $14.10 |
| Giannantonio Carmen Joseph | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 5,519 | +5,519 | $13.59 |
| Rosenzweig Benjamin L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 4,415 | +4,415 | $13.59 |
| Mazzaferro Aldo John Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 4,231 | +4,231 | $13.59 |
| Guy Henry L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 4,783 | +4,783 | $13.59 |
| Hutter Christopher Gerald | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 4,231 | +4,231 | $13.59 |
| Rohen Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 4,783 | +4,783 | $13.59 |
| Rosenzweig Benjamin L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 7,213 | +4,415 | $13.59 |
| Guy Henry L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 76,093 | +4,783 | $13.59 |
| Hutter Christopher Gerald | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 215,846 | +4,231 | $13.59 |
| Rohen Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 6,942 | +4,783 | $13.59 |
| Mazzaferro Aldo John Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 19,862 | +4,231 | $13.59 |
| Giannantonio Carmen Joseph | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 6,495 | +5,519 | $13.59 |
| Giannantonio Carmen Joseph | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 976 | +976 | $13.32 |
| Rohen Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 2,159 | +2,159 | $13.32 |
| Rohen Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 2,159 | +2,159 | $13.32 |
| Giannantonio Carmen Joseph | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 976 | +976 | $13.32 |
| Pan Anthony X | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.3.2026 | 1,733 | -1,733 | $12.85 |
| Shah Harshil Vipul | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.3.2026 | 2,096 | -2,096 | $12.85 |
| Portnoy Kimberly | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.3.2026 | 1,735 | -1,735 | $12.85 |
| Herring Kenneth Wayne Jr | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.3.2026 | 1,350 | -1,350 | $12.85 |
| Srinivas Ravi Ramesh | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.3.2026 | 1,551 | -1,551 | $12.85 |
| Pan Anthony X | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.3.2026 | 23,946 | -1,733 | $12.85 |
| Srinivas Ravi Ramesh | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.3.2026 | 21,518 | -1,551 | $12.85 |
| Portnoy Kimberly | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.3.2026 | 7,321 | -1,735 | $12.85 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
180,387 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 157,944 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
31.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.8% 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