Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$39.44
▲ $1.38 (+3.6%)
Market data updated: 09/20 06:19 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$37.85 - $39.93
52-Week Range
$25.95 - $66.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$27.99
Resistance
$46.40
FPS is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+36.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/27 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 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): 88.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 6.5% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
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
67
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
2d ago · $38.06
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 63)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
3d ago · $34.84
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 3 to 39 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
3d ago · $34.84
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 9 to 67 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
74
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
73
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
61
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 **Forgent Power Solutions, Inc.** has focused on its upcoming **fiscal fourth-quarter and full-year 2026 earnings report**, scheduled for **September 15, 2026**, amid a **declining stock price**—down **42.15% over 90 days** and **5.22% in the past week**, despite a **9.03% year-to-date gain**. Analysts highlight the company’s valuation as **appealing on sales metrics**, though **cash flow performance remains critical**. Additionally, institutional interest is noted, with **Sandhill Investment Management** citing its potential for **faster customer outcomes** in energy infrastructure. Market attention centers on whether Forgent can sustain revenue growth and improve profitability.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Forgent Power Solutions, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
76
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Investors appear highly excited (76), but evidence of strong fundamental conviction is comparatively weak (42).
Psychology
85
Fundamentals
61
Technical
73
Valuation
50
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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 (3M)
-38%
Market Narrative
88
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+46
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers rather than acting on independent signals. Loss aversion is active but muted by low volatility, while FOMO and panic are dampened by weak momentum and neutral sentiment. The key question is whether the peer-driven rally reflects genuine conviction or a temporary momentum trade. Narrative-reality misalignment (-7 gap) hints at potential disconnect between market pricing and fundamentals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:20 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Forgent Power Solutions heads into this earnings release after a 42.15% decline in its 90 day share price return"
"the valuation checks still lean supportive... share price still being above levels from one month ago"
"Forgent Power Solutions (FPS) Positioned for Faster Customer Outcomes"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 14D 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
Philip Fisher — 75/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into starkly contrasting camps: the cyclical and contrarian investors see it as a compelling opportunity, while the fundamentalists and risk-averse strategists largely dismiss it. Howard Marks (Market Cycle) and Charles Mackay both rate it highly (87 and 86, respectively), viewing it as positioned favorably within an early-to-mid market cycle and free from crowd-driven mania. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-80 score further reinforces this cyclical optimism, suggesting the stock is closer to oversold than overbought. However, the fundamentalists—Graham, Fisher, Lynch, and Bagehot—all score it at 50, citing insufficient data to apply their rigorous valuation or growth frameworks. Meanwhile, the risk-averse and trend-following schools (Loeb, Livermore, Veblen, and Housel) deliver the lowest scores (20 or below), flagging volatility, poor reward/risk dynamics, or a trend that runs counter to their core principles. The divide underscores a tension between cyclical momentum and the lack of concrete fundamentals to justify a deeper buy-in.
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 75
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 75
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 74
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)
🟢 66
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 52
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 41
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 37
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 33
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 30
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)
🔴 29
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 27
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 18
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
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)
🔴 7
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 156 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 2 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
35.0%
Operating Margin
12.9%
Net Margin
5.8%
EBITDA Margin
17.6%
ROE
14.5%
ROA
3.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$97.48M
Total Debt
$582.17M
Current Ratio
1.54
Debt/Equity
1.03
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
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 7 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Forgent Power Solutions, Inc. (FPS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 67/100, 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.
FPS currently scores 67/100 (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.
FPS's technical score is 73/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 88.5%; Free cash flow growth: 82.5%; Net income growth: 438.6%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 6.5% of price; -39.8% over the last 3 months relative to the index; %K 95.8 — overbought.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FPS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lund Inez | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 7,043 | +7,043 | — |
| Hottinger Tyson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 25,721 | +25,721 | — |
| Lund Inez | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 17,147 | +17,147 | — |
| Fiedler Ryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 2,817 | +2,817 | — |
| Fiedler Ryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 6,859 | +6,859 | — |
| Niederpruem Gary John | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 214,335 | +214,335 | — |
| Niederpruem Gary John | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 88,029 | +88,029 | — |
| Hottinger Tyson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 10,564 | +10,564 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 43,650,000 | -43,650,000 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 43,650,000 | -43,650,000 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Disposition to the Company | 6.7.2026 | 14,555,925 | -14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 14,555,925 | +14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 14,555,925 | +14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Disposition to the Company | 6.7.2026 | 14,555,925 | -14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Disposition to the Company | 6.7.2026 | 14,555,925 | -14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 43,650,000 | -43,650,000 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 14,555,925 | +14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 127,005,094 | +14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 83,355,094 | -43,650,000 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Disposition to the Company | 6.7.2026 | 29,901,795 | -14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 127,005,094 | +14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 83,355,094 | -43,650,000 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Disposition to the Company | 6.7.2026 | 29,901,795 | -14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 127,005,094 | +14,555,925 | — |
| Neos Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 83,355,094 | -43,650,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,457,837 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,263,596 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 40.3% 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