Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$17.58
▼ $0.89 (-4.8%)
Market data updated: 09/18 06:54 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$1.36B
Day Range
$17.52 - $18.28
52-Week Range
$17.52 - $27.32
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
ADNT is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-30.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/28 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
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -1.9% (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
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
32
Quality
55
Value
50
Momentum
21
Risk
40
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
35
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 Adient plc has centered on its financial performance and strategic outlook, with analysts and executives highlighting expectations for fiscal 2027. The company’s stock has seen modest gains since its last earnings report, though it was recently downgraded to *Strong Sell* by Zacks and had its price target reduced by Morgan Stanley. Positive notes include anticipated margin growth driven by onshoring wins in the Americas, China expansion, and automation investments. Additionally, Adient recognized an executive as a *Rising Star* in the automotive industry.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Adient plc. News trend score: 74. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 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)
39
Psychology
93
Fundamentals
35
Technical
21
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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 (3M)
-15%
Market Narrative
49
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ADNT’s dominant **Loss Aversion** (56) reflects a defensive posture after a -13.2% three-month drop, with traders clinging to positions despite muted volume. The **narrative gap** (+13) and **confirmation bias** (17) suggest some investors selectively justify holding, while **anchoring** (28) may keep sellers at bay near support. The absence of panic (8) or herding (0) implies caution rather than desperation. The key question: *Will traders accept further losses, or will a break below support trigger liquidation?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:49 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Morgan Stanley analyst lowers Adient’s price target from $22 to $21"
"expects margin expansion in 2027 via onshoring wins, China growth, and automation"
"China growth and automation investments offset Middle East headwinds"
"added to Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell) List"
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s divergent verdicts reflect stark contrasts between methodologies prioritizing fundamental value and those wary of speculative or cyclical risks. Benjamin Graham’s defensive and enterprising frameworks both find *some* appeal—his scores suggest a decent margin of safety, though not a deep bargain—while Howard Marks’ cautious mixed verdict hints at a business that may already be priced for optimism. Meanwhile, the sharp divide between Fisher (0), Veblen (8), and Livermore (32) underscores a stock that either lacks Fisher’s signature quality or Veblen’s predatory growth traits, or is outright trending against Livermore’s trend-following discipline. The lower scores from Bagehot, Loeb, and Schwager highlight liquidity, risk, and structural flaws that would deter systematic or disciplined traders, while the middle-ground scores from Housel and Marks-cycle imply it’s a ‘holdable’ but not compelling bet. The extreme lows from Nelson and Lynch further imply it may be overbought or lacking the growth justification Lynch demands, leaving the debate centered on whether its fundamentals (Graham’s view) outweigh its speculative or cyclical risks (Marks, Loeb, or Fisher).
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 79
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 72
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 64
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
🟡 58
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
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)
🟡 54
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 43
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 38
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)
🔴 31
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 15
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 8
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
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 · 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
6.6%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
-1.9%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-15.9%
ROA
-3.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.39
Cash
$958.00M
Total Debt
$2.00M
Current Ratio
1.12
Debt/Equity
0.00
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
$21.28
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$4.34
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 10 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Zacks · 24.8.2026
Yahoo · 20.8.2026
MarketBeat · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 18.8.2026
Yahoo · 17.8.2026
PR Newswire · 17.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
Motley Fool · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Yahoo · 10.8.2026
Zacks · 10.8.2026
Adient plc (ADNT) 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.
ADNT 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.
ADNT's technical score is 21/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Debt/equity: 0.00; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -1.9% (negative); ATR: 5.0% of price; Calmar: -0.31 (3y annualized return -22.2% / max drawdown 72.7%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ADNT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carlin Peter | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 7,843 | -7,843 | $19.25 |
| Marianos Stephanie S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 327 | -327 | $21.00 |
| Marianos Stephanie S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 72,894 | -327 | $21.00 |
| Herberg David | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2026 | 699 | -699 | $22.58 |
| Tiltmann Heather M | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2026 | 22,000 | -22,000 | $22.71 |
| Herberg David | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2026 | 40,122 | -699 | $22.58 |
| Tiltmann Heather M | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2026 | 110,886 | -22,000 | $22.71 |
| Conklin James | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 22,872 | +22,872 | — |
| Conklin James | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 119,429 | +22,872 | — |
| Herberg David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 6.5.2026 | 634 | -634 | $22.32 |
| Herberg David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 6.5.2026 | 40,821 | -634 | $22.32 |
| SAMARDZICH BARB J | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 8,208 | +8,208 | — |
| Goodman Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 8,208 | +8,208 | — |
| Eddy Jodi Euerle | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 8,208 | +8,208 | — |
| GUTIERREZ JOSE M | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 8,208 | +8,208 | — |
| Carlin Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 8,208 | +8,208 | — |
| Bushman Julie L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 8,208 | +8,208 | — |
| Henderson Frederick A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 12,429 | +12,429 | — |
| Henderson Frederick A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 104,614 | +12,429 | — |
| Bushman Julie L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 59,666 | +8,208 | — |
| Eddy Jodi Euerle | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 24,551 | +8,208 | — |
| Carlin Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 46,678 | +8,208 | — |
| SAMARDZICH BARB J | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 58,596 | +8,208 | — |
| GUTIERREZ JOSE M | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 55,349 | +8,208 | — |
| Goodman Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 58,985 | +8,208 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,373,126 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,930,322 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 45.9% 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