Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$4.09
▼ $0.19 (-4.4%)
Market data updated: 09/20 06:58 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$1.61B
Day Range
$4.06 - $4.31
52-Week Range
$2.37 - $25.23
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$2.37
Resistance
$8.50
LCID is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-80.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/31 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
🔴 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): 67.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -258.7% (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
44
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
56
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
27
Risk
28
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
19
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 Lucid Group, Inc. has centered on financial and operational challenges, including a **34% stock drop in August** tied to weak second-quarter results, highlighting **rising revenue but severe cash burn** and investor uncertainty. The company also faced its **largest-ever recall of 27,185 Air sedans** due to fire risks, exceeding last year’s total U.S. sales. Amid industry comparisons, Lucid’s **talent exodus** was noted, contrasting with rival stability. A positive note emerged with its **partnership with Emil Frey for a French market entry**, expanding its vehicle range.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lucid Group, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
47
Psychology
37
Fundamentals
19
Technical
27
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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.
Price (3M)
-24%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
47
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests **herding** as traders align LCID’s -1.1% drop with peer declines (-1.7%), despite weak momentum and neutral sentiment. Anchoring (4.1% above support) hints at cautious positioning, while low FOMO/Panic scores indicate no extreme urgency. The narrative gap (-5) implies minor disconnect between perception and fundamentals. The key question: *Will traders break from the herd if LCID diverges further from peers?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:37 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Lucid Group, Inc. is recalling 27,185 of its Air luxury sedans in the U.S. because an exterior lighting circuit could overheat and raise the risk of fire"
"Lucid stock has cratered while rivals like Tesla and Rivian held their ground"
"surging revenue and an alarming cash burn that puts every investor's next move under pressure"
📈 13D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with some models seeing it as a compelling opportunity while others dismiss it outright. The highest-scoring approaches—like Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s cycle analysis (97) and Charles Mackay’s crowd psychology (86)—suggest the stock may be undervalued or free from speculative frenzy, positioning it favorably for a rebound or sustained move. Similarly, Howard Marks (cycle) and Jack Schwager’s disciplined trading framework both rate it positively, emphasizing structural advantages or risk-reward balance. Yet, the opposite end of the spectrum—where Morgan Housel (0) and Gerald Loeb (14) flag it as volatile or high-risk—reflects a stark contrast, warning that the stock’s price swings or fragility could erode patient investors’ discipline. Meanwhile, Fisher, Lynch, and even Graham’s core framework all score it mid-to-low, signaling either a lack of intrinsic quality, overpriced growth, or failure to meet traditional valuation benchmarks. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s technical or cyclical signals outweigh its fundamental or behavioral red flags.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 84
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 45
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 40
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 29
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 28
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 12
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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 (2 bullish · 9 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 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
-92.8%
Operating Margin
-258.7%
Net Margin
-199.3%
EBITDA Margin
-225.3%
ROE
-376.1%
ROA
-32.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$11.81
Cash
$997.83M
Total Debt
$2.72B
Current Ratio
1.25
Debt/Equity
3.79
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$4.09
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$314.88
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
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% | $-4.75B | $-4.36B |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-5.67B | $-4.77B |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-6.45B | $-4.98B |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-6.97B | $-4.94B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-7.15B | $-4.65B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-3.80B
Terminal Value
$-112.73B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-73.26B
Enterprise Value
$-96.96B
Net Debt
$1.72B
Equity Value
$-98.68B
*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
$2.29
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.29
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Lucid Group, Inc. (LCID) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 44/100, 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.
LCID currently scores 44/100 (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.
LCID's technical score is 27/100, 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): 67.6%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -258.7% (negative); Net margin: -199.3% (negative); ATR: 9.1% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LCID.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winitzer Ori | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $4.80 |
| DE BOCK ALEXANDER | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 501,622 | +501,622 | — |
| DE BOCK ALEXANDER | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 501,622 | +501,622 | — |
| Winitzer Ori | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $7.46 |
| Winitzer Ori | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 67,263 | -1,000 | $7.46 |
| Boussaid Taoufiq | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.6.2026 | 8,393 | -8,393 | $5.68 |
| Winterhoff Marc | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.6.2026 | 15,263 | -15,263 | $5.68 |
| Dhingra Gagan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.6.2026 | 6,801 | -6,801 | $5.68 |
| Dhingra Gagan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.6.2026 | 145,749 | -6,801 | $5.68 |
| Boussaid Taoufiq | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.6.2026 | 117,829 | -8,393 | $5.68 |
| Winterhoff Marc | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.6.2026 | 339,802 | -15,263 | $5.68 |
| Lambert Lisa Marie | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 2,924 | +2,924 | — |
| Nouri Chabi | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.6.2026 | 1,556 | -1,556 | $5.72 |
| Lambert Lisa Marie | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 43,870 | +43,870 | — |
| Grimm Douglas J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 43,870 | +43,870 | — |
| Maynard-Elliott Nichelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 43,870 | +43,870 | — |
| Alnowaiser Turqi A. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.6.2026 | 1,248 | -1,248 | $5.72 |
| Nouri Chabi | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 43,870 | +43,870 | — |
| LIVERIS ANDREW N | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 43,870 | +43,870 | — |
| Alnowaiser Turqi A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 43,870 | +43,870 | — |
| Wong Janet S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 2,924 | +2,924 | — |
| Alnowaiser Turqi A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 1,299 | +1,299 | — |
| LIVERIS ANDREW N | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 2,599 | +2,599 | — |
| Winitzer Ori | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 43,870 | +43,870 | — |
| LIVERIS ANDREW N | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 123,765 | +43,870 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
75,654,235 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 58,809,493 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
63.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.1% 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