Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Telecommunications · ·
$2.88
▼ $0.09 (-3.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:11 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$386.57M
Day Range
$2.87 - $2.98
52-Week Range
$2.78 - $5.88
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$2.80
Resistance
$4.48
-47.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/31 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 22.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $0.20 vs. price $2.88 (-93.2%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
47
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
82
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
23
Risk
40
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
40
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of **PowerFleet, Inc.** has centered on **leadership changes and investor sentiment**. The company saw **Paul Lalljie appointed as President and CFO** while **David Wilson was terminated**, sparking speculation about strategic shifts. Analysts like **Craig-Hallum** maintained a *Buy* rating but **lowered the price target**, while **Raymond James downgraded** the stock to *Market Perform*. Additionally, **Q1 2027 earnings discussions** and **comparisons with rival Acorn** dominated financial analyses, reflecting ongoing market scrutiny.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about PowerFleet, Inc.. 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
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
43
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
40
Technical
23
Valuation
38
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 price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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)
-28%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
43
Narrative Gap
+21
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** (76) reflects a market behavior consistent with investors clinging to positions despite a prolonged drawdown (-22.1% in three months), as evidenced by subdued trading volume (0.51x average). Overconfidence (45) emerges as a secondary bias, likely driven by the stock’s extreme valuation (+1412% above DCF) despite underperforming fundamentals. The narrative gap (29) suggests investors may be overestimating recovery potential relative to observable trends. The key open question is whether the muted volume signals hesitation or exhaustion—both could imply a near-term pause rather than a reversal. The absence of panic (score 9) or herding (score 15) suggests no broad panic or coordinated action, reinforcing a cautious, individualistic stance.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:07 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Powerfleet Names Paul Lalljie President, CFO; David Wilson Exits"
"Craig-Hallum analyst lowers PowerFleet price target from $9 to $6"
"Raymond James Downgrades PowerFleet to Market Perform From Outperform"
"Powerfleet Q1 2027 Earnings Call Transcript highlights key metrics vs. estimates"
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 31/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Peter Lynch’s near-perfect score (89) and verdict framing it as a high-growth opportunity where the price hasn’t yet reflected its potential, contrasting sharply with the outright rejections from Loeb (32) and Livermore (38). The middle ground is occupied by cyclical investors like Marks (cycle) and Nelson (79–80), who see it as favorably positioned but not yet overextended, while Fisher (72) and Schwager (71) acknowledge its merits but temper enthusiasm with concerns about quality or risk. Meanwhile, Graham’s two approaches split entirely—his defensive bar (44) dismisses it outright, while the enterprising investor (58) sees only a modest discount. The divide between growth hunters (Lynch, Veblen) and risk-averse traders (Loeb, Bagehot) highlights whether AIOT’s volatility and speculative traits are a feature or a bug, with even the efficient-market skeptics (Malkiel/Bogle, 52) questioning whether active selection adds value over passive indexing.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 96
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 89
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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)
🟢 73
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 72
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 65
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 59
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)
🟡 59
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)
🟡 53
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 51
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 44
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 37
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 32
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 31
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
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.
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
55.5%
Operating Margin
4.4%
Net Margin
-4.6%
EBITDA Margin
18.0%
ROE
-4.3%
ROA
-2.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.15
Cash
$36.50M
Total Debt
$235.95M
Current Ratio
1.13
Debt/Equity
0.50
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.88
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$0.20
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-93.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $11.05M | $10.14M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $13.20M | $11.11M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $15.01M | $11.59M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $16.23M | $11.50M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $16.64M | $10.81M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$8.84M
Terminal Value
$262.32M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$170.49M
Enterprise Value
$225.64M
Net Debt
$199.46M
Equity Value
$26.18M
*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
$3.55
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$1.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 10 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Motley Fool · 17.8.2026
MT Newswires · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
MT Newswires · 11.8.2026
ChartMill · 10.8.2026
ChartMill · 10.8.2026
MarketBeat · 10.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.8.2026
Zacks · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 10.8.2026
Associated Press · 10.8.2026
PR Newswire · 10.8.2026
PowerFleet, Inc. (AIOT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
AIOT currently scores 47/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, AIOT's estimated fair value is $0.20, which is 93.2% below the current price of $2.88. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AIOT'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: Revenue growth (last year): 22.4%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 65.1%; Free cash flow growth: 137.9%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $0.20 vs. price $2.88 (-93.2%); Net margin: -4.6% (negative); ATR: 4.5% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AIOT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CASEY MICHAEL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 3,050 | +3,050 | — |
| Lalljie Paul S | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Lalljie Paul S | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 450,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Lalljie Paul S | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Lalljie Paul S | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| WILSON DAVID | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 575,926 | -13,250 | $4.42 |
| Ingram Melissa Rose | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 505,135 | -12,018 | $4.42 |
| Towe Steven Mark | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 2,886,014 | -27,313 | $4.42 |
| Towe Steven Mark | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 2,837,055 | -48,959 | $4.42 |
| Ingram Melissa Rose | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 12,018 | -12,018 | $4.42 |
| WILSON DAVID | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 13,250 | -13,250 | $4.42 |
| Towe Steven Mark | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 48,959 | -48,959 | $4.42 |
| Towe Steven Mark | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 27,313 | -27,313 | $4.42 |
| McConnell Michael J | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 24,396 | +24,396 | — |
| JACOBS IAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 24,396 | +24,396 | — |
| McConnell Michael J | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 52,424 | +24,396 | — |
| JACOBS IAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.5.2026 | 73,142 | +24,396 | — |
| Ingram Melissa Rose | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.2.2026 | 170,319 | +170,319 | — |
| Ingram Melissa Rose | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.2.2026 | 85,160 | +85,160 | — |
| WILSON DAVID | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.2.2026 | 96,772 | +96,772 | — |
| Powell Michael Joseph | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.2.2026 | 77,418 | +77,418 | — |
| Towe Steven Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.2.2026 | 193,545 | +193,545 | — |
| WILSON DAVID | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.2.2026 | 193,545 | +193,545 | — |
| Powell Michael Joseph | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.2.2026 | 38,709 | +38,709 | — |
| Towe Steven Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.2.2026 | 387,090 | +387,090 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
15,154,789 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 12,279,548 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 69.5% 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