Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Miscellaneous · ·
$3.68
▼ $0.10 (-2.6%)
Market data updated: 09/19 04:10 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$83.51M
Day Range
$3.60 - $3.78
52-Week Range
$3.17 - $30.62
Beta
—
Next Earnings
08.10.2026
Support
$3.17
Resistance
$5.17
-82.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/31 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
🟡 Mixed
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): 37.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$9.72 vs. price $3.68 (-364.0%)
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
53
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
40
Quality
63
Value
43
Momentum
40
Risk
46
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
74
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 Byrna Technologies, Inc. has primarily focused on its strategic leadership changes and shifting investor sentiment. The company has appointed two new board members—a retired U.S. Army Brigadier General and another executive—while analyst downgrades and reduced fair value estimates (from $13.67 to $6.83 per share) highlight concerns over weaker Q2 2026 results and cautious demand forecasts. No direct operational or financial updates beyond these trends are available.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Byrna Technologies, 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
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
43
Psychology
90
Fundamentals
74
Technical
40
Valuation
43
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-38%
Market Narrative
63
Fundamental Reality
43
Narrative Gap
+20
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** state (70) reflects deep psychological resistance to further downside after a steep 3-month drop, despite modest volume spikes. Herding (29) suggests traders may be selectively avoiding the stock rather than blindly following peers. Overconfidence (7) hints at traders overvaluing recent momentum relative to fundamentals, but FOMO (11) remains muted. The key question is whether the narrative gap (16) will widen—if fundamentals improve, loss aversion could ease, but if sentiment stays detached from reality, traders may stay cautious. The narrative-reality divergence may amplify hesitation rather than trigger decisive action.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"fair value estimate cut from about US$13.67 to roughly US$6.83 per share"
"weaker Q2 2026 results, reduced fiscal 2026 outlook"
"stock price has taken a beating... shedding 78.5% of its value"
📈 10D 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
Benjamin Graham — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 31/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between value-oriented and defensive investors, who see strong fundamentals and resilience, and more cautious or trend-following methodologies, which flag red flags. Benjamin Graham’s *defensive* and *enterprising* models both rate it highly—94 and 72—because of its apparent statistical discount and liquidity, suggesting it fits his core principles of margin-of-safety investing. Meanwhile, Walter Bagehot’s high score (94) reinforces its stability in a credit crisis, while Jack Schwager and Howard Marks (cycle) also see it as a disciplined, early-cycle opportunity. However, Fisher, Lynch, and even Marks’ broader framework (58) question whether the stock’s growth or valuation justifies its price, hinting at overvaluation or diminishing returns. The extreme contrast—from Morgan Housel’s zero (volatile, patient-unfriendly) to Jesse Livermore’s 26 (trend-resistant)—shows how the stock’s momentum and risk profile clash with trend-following or volatility-averse strategies, while the efficient-market camp (39) simply dismisses it as unexceptional. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s defensive traits and statistical discounts outweigh its growth fatigue or overpriced expectations.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 96
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 90
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 82
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)
🟢 80
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 75
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 73
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 56
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 51
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 49
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 43
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 6 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.
High 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
60.5%
Operating Margin
10.0%
Net Margin
8.2%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
14.7%
ROA
11.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.43
Cash
$13.73M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.73
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$3.68
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$9.72
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-364.0%
🔴 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% | $-11.49M | $-10.54M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-13.72M | $-11.55M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-15.61M | $-12.05M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-16.88M | $-11.95M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-17.30M | $-11.24M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-9.20M
Terminal Value
$-272.76M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-177.28M
Enterprise Value
$-234.62M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-234.62M
*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
$2.90
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.76
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 10 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 12.8.2026
StockStory · 11.8.2026
Trefis · 10.8.2026
Trefis · 4.8.2026
StockStory · 28.7.2026
Benzinga · 27.7.2026
StockStory · 27.7.2026
Simply Wall St. · 25.7.2026
Yahoo · 25.7.2026
StockStory · 22.7.2026
Yahoo · 22.7.2026
StockStory · 20.7.2026
Yahoo · 20.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.7.2026
Yahoo · 20.7.2026
Byrna Technologies, Inc. (BYRN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, 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.
BYRN currently scores 53/100 (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, BYRN's estimated fair value is -$9.72, which is 364.0% below the current price of $3.68. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BYRN's technical score is 40/100, 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): 37.7%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$9.72 vs. price $3.68 (-364.0%); ATR: 5.7% of price; Calmar: 0.05 (3y annualized return 4.9% / max drawdown 90.7%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BYRN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keravuori Rose P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 561 | +561 | — |
| Keravuori Rose P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 561 | +561 | — |
| ELMORE LEONARD J | Open Market Purchase | 6.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $4.64 |
| ELMORE LEONARD J | Open Market Purchase | 6.8.2026 | 60,811 | +10,000 | $4.64 |
| Roth Adam L. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,379 | -4,379 | — |
| Hughes Herbert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,865 | +4,865 | — |
| ELMORE LEONARD J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,865 | -4,865 | — |
| Roth Adam L. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,379 | +4,379 | — |
| Kennedy TJ | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,379 | -4,379 | — |
| Rooney Emily | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,865 | +4,865 | — |
| Reed Chris Lavern | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,865 | -4,865 | — |
| Kennedy TJ | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,379 | +4,379 | — |
| Reed Chris Lavern | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,865 | +4,865 | — |
| Rooney Emily | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,865 | -4,865 | — |
| ELMORE LEONARD J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,865 | +4,865 | — |
| Hughes Herbert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,865 | -4,865 | — |
| ELMORE LEONARD J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 50,811 | +4,865 | — |
| ELMORE LEONARD J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 0 | -4,865 | — |
| Roth Adam L. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 4,379 | +4,379 | — |
| Roth Adam L. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 0 | -4,379 | — |
| Rooney Emily | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 53,957 | +4,865 | — |
| Rooney Emily | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 0 | -4,865 | — |
| Reed Chris Lavern | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 66,585 | +4,865 | — |
| Reed Chris Lavern | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 0 | -4,865 | — |
| Kennedy TJ | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 33,379 | +4,379 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,300,869 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,828,631 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 60.3% 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