Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Utilities · ·
$3.56
▲ $0.19 (+5.6%)
Market data updated: 09/18 11:02 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$301.45M
Day Range
$3.36 - $3.60
52-Week Range
$2.87 - $6.96
Beta
—
Next Earnings
11.11.2026
Support
$2.87
Resistance
$4.90
CDZI is a stock from the Utilities sector — Electricity, water, and residential gas — steady demand and heavy regulation, considered a defensive, dividend-paying sector.
-16.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 2/30 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
🟢 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): 69.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -156.9% (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
33
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
58
Value
50
Momentum
13
Risk
28
Sentiment
38
Fundamental
19
Institutional
67
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 coverage of Cadiz, Inc. has centered on its Mojave groundwater‑bank initiative, highlighting the signing of guaranteed‑maximum‑price construction contracts for the Northern Pipeline Project and related engineering agreements. At the same time, analysts and news outlets note the company’s financial strain, with a Q2 2026 loss that missed revenue estimates, rising debt and execution risk, and a sell rating citing volatile ATEC revenue that could limit project upside.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cadiz, Inc.. News trend score: 38. Reason: 5 of the last 14 articles are negative, versus 3 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
46
Psychology
42
Fundamentals
19
Technical
13
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-17%
Market Narrative
28
Fundamental Reality
46
Narrative Gap
-18
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixated on the 2.1% gap below resistance, a common threshold for hesitation. Overconfidence (53) aligns with detached momentum—price gains outpacing fundamentals—while FOMO (57) hints at speculative urgency, though muted by neutral sentiment. The narrative gap (17) implies traders may overestimate growth potential relative to reality. The key question: will traders break resistance or retreat to test support, given the psychological tension between anchoring and overconfidence?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 10:40 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Cadiz (CDZI) Reports Q2 Loss, Lags Revenue Estimates"
"rising debt, execution risk, and volatile ATEC revenue threaten Mojave water project upside"
"Cadiz Executes Guaranteed Maximum Price Construction Contracts for Northern Pipeline Project"
"Cadiz (CDZI) May Report Negative Earnings: Know the Trend Ahead of Q2 Release"
📈 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with scores ranging from a near-total rejection (like Morgan Housel’s 0, flagging extreme volatility) to cautious optimism (e.g., Jesse Livermore’s 65, noting ‘no clear trend’ but not outright dismissing it). The middle-ground approaches—such as Peter Lynch’s (52) and Howard Marks’ (52)—suggest the stock shows *some* promise but may already be priced for growth or operating in a neutral market cycle, leaving little margin for error. Meanwhile, the most conservative voices (Graham, Loeb, Bagehot) paint a bleak picture, with scores below 15, warning of liquidity risks, stretched valuations, or outright failure to meet defensive criteria. Even the crowd-aware Mackay (64) sees speculative excitement building, while Fisher and Smith (both 48) acknowledge it’s not a standout long-term candidate. The contrast highlights a stock that’s neither a slam dunk nor a clear no—it’s a battleground where risk tolerance and methodology dictate wildly different verdicts.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 92
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
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
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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 48
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 42
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 39
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 29
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 14
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)
🔴 14
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)
🔴 11
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)
🔴 7
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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 (0 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.
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
31.6%
Operating Margin
-156.9%
Net Margin
-209.3%
EBITDA Margin
-156.9%
ROE
-146.8%
ROA
-24.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.48
Cash
$8.60M
Total Debt
$72.76M
Current Ratio
1.22
Debt/Equity
3.13
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 6 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 14 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
PR Newswire · 14.8.2026
Zacks · 13.8.2026
Associated Press · 13.8.2026
IPO-Edge.com · 7.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
Zacks · 5.8.2026
IPO-Edge.com · 4.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.7.2026
Benzinga · 28.7.2026
MT Newswires · 27.7.2026
PR Newswire · 27.7.2026
Benzinga · 22.7.2026
Benzinga · 15.7.2026
Cadiz, Inc. (CDZI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 33/100, 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.
CDZI currently scores 33/100 (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.
CDZI's technical score is 13/100, 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): 69.8%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -156.9% (negative); Net margin: -209.3% (negative); ATR: 7.2% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CDZI.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O'Hara David Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 4,464 | +4,464 | $4.20 |
| Dreyfus Maria S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 4,464 | +4,464 | $4.20 |
| Lloyd Barbara A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,116 | +1,116 | $4.20 |
| Lloyd Barbara A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 29,491 | +1,116 | $4.20 |
| Dreyfus Maria S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 196,570 | +4,464 | $4.20 |
| O'Hara David Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 125,357 | +4,464 | $4.20 |
| Echaveste Maria | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 6,103 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Lombard Kenneth T | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 6,103 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| COURTER STEPHEN E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 6,103 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Polanco Richard Garcia | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 6,103 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Lloyd Barbara A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 6,103 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Dreyfus Maria S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 6,103 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Hickox Winston H | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 6,103 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| O'Hara David Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 3,052 | +3,052 | $4.10 |
| COURTER STEPHEN E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 81,592 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Hickox Winston H | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 199,174 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Lombard Kenneth T | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 30,990 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Polanco Richard Garcia | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 28,155 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Lloyd Barbara A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 28,375 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Dreyfus Maria S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 192,106 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| Echaveste Maria | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 45,730 | +6,103 | $4.10 |
| O'Hara David Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 120,893 | +3,052 | $4.10 |
| O'Hara David Mark | Open Market Purchase | 26.5.2026 | 110,865 | +110,865 | $4.58 |
| O'Hara David Mark | Open Market Purchase | 26.5.2026 | 117,841 | +110,865 | $4.58 |
| Rivera Cathryn | Open Market Sale | 20.5.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $4.33 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,237,036 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 8,882,627 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.9% 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