Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$2.02
▼ $0.05 (-2.4%)
Market data updated: 09/18 04:14 AM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$148.35M
Day Range
$1.95 - $2.10
52-Week Range
$0.34 - $2.12
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
HLP is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+100.0% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 10/14 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 7.9% of price
Risk
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
as of 09/10/202671
This Week
64
7D Ago
↑ +7
Improving
Technical
85
7D Ago: 73
↑ +12
News
56
7D Ago: 56
→ 0
Risk
34
7D Ago: 34
→ 0
Biggest Improvements
📊 Score History
71
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
1d ago · $1.82
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 72)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
1d ago · $1.82
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 49 to 78 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
71 / 100
🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 10, 2026
Then
64
$1.29
Now
71
$2.02
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
85
Risk
34
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
No data available
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 Hongli Group Inc. has centered on its compliance status with Nasdaq listing requirements and strategic shifts in its business focus. The company regained Nasdaq compliance in August 2026 after addressing a bid price deficiency, following a non-compliance notice in July. Additionally, headlines highlight its expanding involvement in energy storage, including a proposed collaboration with Sidus Energy Storage and a strategic pivot toward solid-state lithium batteries, bolstered by the hiring of a battery technology expert.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Hongli Group Inc.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 1 of the last 9 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
79
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
86
Fundamentals
—
Technical
85
Valuation
—
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 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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price (3M)
+360%
Market Narrative
70
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+20
🔀 Weak-Conviction Rally
Price is moving, but not accompanied by a matching rise in news attention/sentiment.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here suggests a dominant FOMO-driven rally, with euphoric overconfidence in momentum and valuation extremes. The narrative-reality gap (17) hints at detached optimism, while anchoring near resistance could cap further gains. Herding remains muted, as underperformance relative to peers indicates selective participation. The key question: will momentum sustain or stall against resistance, or will volume fade as FOMO cools?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:12 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"received a notification letter from Nasdaq Listing Qualifications"
"Explore Potential Advanced Battery Manufacturing Collaboration"
"Updates Its Business Strategy, Focusing on Solid-State Lithium Batteries"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 6D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Jesse Livermore — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that Nelson and Mackay see a relatively favorable position because their scores are high and their verdicts note oversold conditions and lack of crowd mania. In contrast, Marks‑cycle and Marks give more moderate scores, reflecting an early‑to‑mid cycle but also concern that expectations may already be priced in. Livermore, Schwager, Graham, Fisher, Lynch and Bagehot hover around the midpoint, largely because insufficient balance‑sheet, valuation or growth data leaves them without a clear edge. The efficient‑market view of Malkiel/Bogle and the risk‑averse lenses of Loeb, Smith and Housel produce the lowest scores, flagging weak cases, capital risk, and volatility. Thus the divergence stems from each methodology’s data requirements and emphasis on cycle, valuation, risk or market efficiency.
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 93
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 66
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
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: 0%
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 35
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 25
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 0
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (10 bullish · 2 bearish · 0 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 uptrend 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.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 1 positive, 8 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 9 articles.
PR Newswire · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
MT Newswires · 9.7.2026
PR Newswire · 9.7.2026
PR Newswire · 7.7.2026
MT Newswires · 15.6.2026
PR Newswire · 15.6.2026
PR Newswire · 3.6.2026
PR Newswire · 28.5.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Hongli Group Inc. (HLP) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for HLP specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
HLP's technical score is 85/100, 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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 7.9% of price; Calmar: 0.12 (3y annualized return 11.4% / max drawdown 91.9%); RSI 76.8 — approaching overbought territory.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for HLP.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
405,817 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 487,146 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
24.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 24.5% 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