Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$13.92
▼ $0.87 (-5.9%)
Market data updated: 09/19 05:28 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$13.79 - $14.94
52-Week Range
$7.78 - $46.75
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$11.29
Resistance
$20.84
+45.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/25 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 84.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$10.23 vs. price $13.92 (-173.5%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (65/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
65
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
21
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
33
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 Intuitive Machines has centered on its strong market performance and optimistic financial outlook. The company saw a 5% stock climb amid broader space sector gains, driven by analyst optimism and reiterated fiscal 2026 guidance, which suggests significant upside potential. Comparisons with Boeing highlighted Intuitive Machines’ high forward valuation despite cash burn, reflecting investor confidence in its growth trajectory and NASA-backed contracts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Intuitive Machines, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
54
Fundamentals
33
Technical
21
Valuation
38
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-39%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+23
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme loss aversion (score 100) reflects deep psychological resistance to further declines after a 40.9% drop over three months, despite muted volume. Confirmation bias (score 13) may amplify this as investors selectively focus on narrative positives (+10 gap) while ignoring stagnant fundamentals. The absence of panic selling (score 19) suggests hesitation rather than outright capitulation. The key open question is whether the narrative gap can sustain attention long enough to prevent a deeper correction, given the stark divergence between price action and fundamentals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:42 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"reshuffling billions in defense contracts toward a handful of space companies already sitting on record backlogs"
"Moeller’s stance is based on the company’s second quarter announcement... almost 165% upside potential"
"Boeing vs. Intuitive Machines: Which Aerospace Stock Is a Better Buy in 2026?"
📈 15D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Edgar Lawrence Smith — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some frameworks dismissing it outright while others see cautious opportunity. The **Graham-based approaches** (core and Enterprising Investor) fail due to insufficient balance-sheet or valuation data, leaving no clear margin-of-safety calculation. Meanwhile, **Bagehot’s liquidity lens** sees strength, suggesting resilience in a downturn, while **Nelson’s cycle analysis** flags a favorable oversold position—both pointing to defensive or contrarian appeal. On the other end, **Livermore’s trend-following rule** and **Fisher’s quality-growth mandate** reject it outright, with the latter citing a lack of signature traits and the former warning against counter-trend bets. The middle ground—**Marks, Lynch, and Veblen**—acknowledges growth but questions whether the price already embeds those gains, while **Malkiel/Bogle’s efficiency view** and **Schwager’s disciplined wizards** treat it as a non-starter, either due to weak active-picking logic or lack of a clear edge. The contrast highlights whether the stock’s risks are outweighed by cyclical timing (Nelson, Bagehot) or if its flaws (Livermore, Fisher) make it a speculative gamble.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
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: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 79
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 55
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 54
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 43
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 22
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 18
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 17
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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
4.3%
Operating Margin
-41.5%
Net Margin
-39.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
—
ROA
-11.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.73
Cash
$582.61M
Total Debt
$335.33M
Current Ratio
4.96
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$13.92
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$10.23
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-173.5%
🔴 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% | $-69.94M | $-64.17M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-83.49M | $-70.27M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-94.97M | $-73.33M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-102.69M | $-72.75M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-105.25M | $-68.41M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-55.95M
Terminal Value
$-1.66B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.08B
Enterprise Value
$-1.43B
Net Debt
$-247.27M
Equity Value
$-1.18B
*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
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 5 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
TipRanks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Intuitive Machines, Inc. (LUNR) 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.
LUNR 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, LUNR's estimated fair value is -$10.23, which is 173.5% below the current price of $13.92. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LUNR's technical score is 21/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 84.2%; Net income growth: 70.6%; Current ratio: 4.96.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$10.23 vs. price $13.92 (-173.5%); Operating margin: -41.5% (negative); Net margin: -39.6% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LUNR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 11 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Disposition to the Company | 9.9.2026 | 1,698 | -1,698 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.9.2026 | 1,698 | -1,698 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 1,698 | -1,698 | $16.00 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.9.2026 | 1,698 | +1,698 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 94,606 | -94,606 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 93,105 | -93,105 | $15.39 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 1,501 | -1,501 | $15.76 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 94,606 | +94,606 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Disposition to the Company | 8.9.2026 | 94,606 | -94,606 | — |
| Vontur Steven | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 113,997 | -3,050 | $16.13 |
| Vontur Steven | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 3,050 | -3,050 | $16.13 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Disposition to the Company | 24.8.2026 | 34,220,540 | -141,909 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 3,496,905 | -139,772 | $16.86 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 3,494,768 | -2,137 | $17.68 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 34,220,540 | -141,909 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 3,636,677 | +141,909 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Disposition to the Company | 24.8.2026 | 141,909 | -141,909 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 141,909 | +141,909 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 141,909 | -141,909 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 2,137 | -2,137 | $17.68 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 139,772 | -139,772 | $16.86 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Disposition to the Company | 10.8.2026 | 34,362,449 | -267,448 | — |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 3,513,432 | -248,784 | $16.13 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 3,494,768 | -18,664 | $16.68 |
| Ghaffarian Kamal Seyed | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 34,362,449 | -267,448 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
35,522,092 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 35,589,013 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.4% 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