Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$10.90
▲ $0.48 (+4.6%)
Market data updated: 09/21 02:32 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$119.80M
Day Range
$10.45 - $10.90
52-Week Range
$8.42 - $16.38
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$10.09
Resistance
$11.99
AKA is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-0.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/33 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 94.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$9.34 vs. price $10.90 (-185.7%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
49
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
48
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
72
Risk
34
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
26
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 **a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp.** has centered on its **Q2 2026 financial performance**, highlighting mixed results with improved gross margins and EBITDA—marking the strongest in years—while also reporting a net loss and slightly missing revenue estimates. Analysts noted a fashion sector turnaround, though stock volatility and investor expectations remained focal points. The company also announced participation in an investor conference, signaling ongoing market engagement.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 4 of the last 10 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
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
22
Fundamentals
26
Technical
72
Valuation
38
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+20%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+20
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for AKA suggests a **FOMO-driven environment**, with positive momentum, moderate volume, and positive sentiment fueling speculative interest. The narrative gap (55 vs. 36) implies traders may be overestimating growth potential, while overconfidence (price vs. EPS growth) hints at optimism exceeding fundamentals. However, the lack of extreme volatility or panic signals suggests caution rather than recklessness. The key question is whether this momentum will sustain or if traders will reassess as the gap widens.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 05:34 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"a.k.a. Brands Q2 Earnings Call Highlights (MarketBeat, 2); Earnings To Watch: a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp (AKA) Q2 2026 (GuruFocus, 7)"
"a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. Reports Second Quarter 2026 Financial Results (Business Wire, 6); Reports Q2 Loss, Lags Revenue Estimates (Zacks, 4)"
"Gross Margin Improves as Fashion Turnaround Gains Momentum (Exec Edge, 5)"
"a.k.a. Brands (AKA) Surges 5.9%: Is This an Indication of Further Gains? (Zacks, 9)"
📈 4D 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
Charles Mackay — 77/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies diverge sharply on AKA, with Charles Mackay’s crowd psychology model standing out as the lone optimistic voice—his high score suggests no obvious speculative frenzy, contrasting sharply with the overwhelming caution of others. Most value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham (both defensive and enterprising) and Philip Fisher dismiss the stock outright, either because it lacks deep undervaluation or the signature quality/growth traits they prized. Meanwhile, market timing frameworks like Howard Marks (cycle) and Samuel Nelson’s mid-cycle stance imply neutral exposure, while technical/volatility-focused approaches—such as Morgan Housel’s or Gerald Loeb’s—warn of excessive risk or instability. Even the efficient-market camp leans skeptical, questioning whether active selection here beats passive indexing, leaving only a handful of methodologies (like Mackay’s) to cautiously suggest potential.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 77
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 54
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)
🟡 51
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 49
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 48
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 38
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 20
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)
🔴 18
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 16
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 10
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 2 bearish · 2 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
57.3%
Operating Margin
-3.0%
Net Margin
-5.2%
EBITDA Margin
-3.0%
ROE
-32.2%
ROA
-7.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.93
Cash
$20.27M
Total Debt
$111.07M
Current Ratio
1.23
Debt/Equity
1.14
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$10.90
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$9.34
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-185.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-0.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -0.4% | $-630.77K | $-578.68K |
| 2 | 0.4% | $-633.04K | $-532.82K |
| 3 | 1.1% | $-639.83K | $-494.07K |
| 4 | 1.8% | $-651.27K | $-461.37K |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-667.55K | $-433.86K |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-633.00K
Terminal Value
$-10.53M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-6.84M
Enterprise Value
$-9.34M
Net Debt
$90.80M
Equity Value
$-100.14M
*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
$9.12
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$3.67
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 5 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 10 articles.
Zacks · 10.8.2026
MarketBeat · 6.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 6.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
Exec Edge · 5.8.2026
Business Wire · 5.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 4.8.2026
Business Wire · 22.7.2026
Zacks · 19.6.2026
Business Wire · 10.6.2026
a.k.a. Brands Holding Corp. (AKA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
AKA currently scores 49/100 (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, AKA's estimated fair value is -$9.34, which is 185.7% below the current price of $10.90. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AKA's technical score is 72/100, 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: 94.2%; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$9.34 vs. price $10.90 (-185.7%); Operating margin: -3.0% (negative); Net margin: -5.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AKA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cassidy Carrie | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 2,778 | +2,778 | — |
| Cassidy Carrie | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 2,778 | +2,778 | — |
| Eskenazi Ilene | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 8,630 | +2,778 | — |
| Grant Kevin J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 87,010 | +6,250 | — |
| MCCORMICK MYLES B | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 31,048 | +2,778 | — |
| GHOSH SOURAV | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 23,029 | +2,778 | — |
| LONG CIARAN JOSEPH | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 98,600 | +8,750 | — |
| Thompson Kelly Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 23,029 | +2,778 | — |
| TREMBLEY MICHAEL FRANK | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 70,866 | +6,250 | — |
| LONG CIARAN JOSEPH | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 8,750 | +8,750 | — |
| WHITE KENNETH C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 6,250 | +6,250 | — |
| MCCORMICK MYLES B | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,778 | +2,778 | — |
| GHOSH SOURAV | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,778 | +2,778 | — |
| Eskenazi Ilene | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,778 | +2,778 | — |
| Grant Kevin J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 6,250 | +6,250 | — |
| Thompson Kelly Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 2,778 | +2,778 | — |
| TREMBLEY MICHAEL FRANK | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.7.2026 | 6,250 | +6,250 | — |
| Eskenazi Ilene | Open Market Sale | 12.11.2025 | 5,852 | -12,201 | $12.89 |
| Eskenazi Ilene | Open Market Sale | 12.11.2025 | 5,852 | -12,201 | $12.89 |
| Eskenazi Ilene | Open Market Sale | 12.11.2025 | 12,201 | -12,201 | $12.89 |
| Eskenazi Ilene | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2025 | 2,749 | -2,749 | $11.38 |
| MCCORMICK MYLES B | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2025 | 5,852 | +5,852 | — |
| GHOSH SOURAV | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2025 | 5,852 | +5,852 | — |
| Eskenazi Ilene | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2025 | 5,852 | +5,852 | — |
| Thompson Kelly Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2025 | 5,852 | +5,852 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
13,267 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,067 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 40.9% 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