Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$181.23
▲ $1.50 (+0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 06:01 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$5.54B
Day Range
$180.37 - $183.34
52-Week Range
$87.36 - $247.06
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$124.49
Resistance
$185.00
PI is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-6.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/33 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
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $22.80 vs. price $181.23 (-87.4%)
Fair Value
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
54
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
26
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
85
Risk
48
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
30
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 Impinj, Inc. has primarily centered on its performance within the broader semiconductor sector, particularly in analog semiconductors. The company was noted alongside peers during Q2 earnings comparisons, with analysts discussing its small-cap status and market positioning amid industry volatility. Impinj’s stock briefly surged alongside other semiconductor firms like Broadcom following Nvidia’s strong Q2 earnings, reflecting broader market sentiment in the tech sector. No company-specific developments beyond these general trends were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Impinj, Inc.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 9 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
45
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
30
Technical
85
Valuation
38
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+40%
Market Narrative
77
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+37
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence—backed by detached price momentum and extreme valuation—suggests traders prioritize recent gains over fundamentals. The narrative gap and stagnant earnings contrast with euphoric pricing, indicating confirmation bias may amplify overconfidence. Key uncertainty lies in whether momentum can sustain itself against weak fundamentals. A break in positive momentum or earnings miss could test this fragile equilibrium.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:08 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"these businesses (and their stock prices) often stay small because their subscale operations make it harder to expand their competitive moats"
"small-cap stocks... more vulnerable to economic downturns"
"shares across the semiconductor industry surged following the chipmaker's strong second-quarter beats on both revenue and profit"
"While strong cash flow is a key indicator of stability, it doesn’t always translate to superior returns"
📈 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
Jesse Livermore — 61/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of each methodology, the model estimates that the efficient‑market view of Burton Malkiel & John Bogle yields the strongest case (score 68) and even suggests a justified deviation from a broad index, whereas Jesse Livermore and Walter Bagehot assign moderate scores (~53) reflecting a neutral trend and adequate liquidity but no compelling buying signal. In contrast, most other frameworks—from Graham’s defensive and enterprising screens to Marks’s cycle and risk gauges, Fisher’s growth quality, and Lynch’s GARP bar—register low scores (often below 45 and many in the 20s) and issue cautionary verdicts about valuation, risk, or overbought conditions. This divergence stems from each investor’s distinct criteria: market efficiency and index‑relative merit versus strict safety margins, quality growth, and cycle positioning. Consequently, the debate splits between a modest endorsement for selective exposure and a broader consensus of prudence, driven by the varying emphasis each methodology places on liquidity, valuation, risk, and growth characteristics.
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟢 68
A real, well-supported case — deviating from a broad index may be justified here
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 61
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 53
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
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
🟡 44
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 35
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 34
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)
🔴 34
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)
🔴 23
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 21
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 21
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 20
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 19
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 11
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?
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 an uptrend (9 bullish · 1 bearish · 2 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.
Low 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
52.5%
Operating Margin
-0.2%
Net Margin
-3.0%
EBITDA Margin
4.0%
ROE
-5.2%
ROA
-2.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.37
Cash
$48.21M
Total Debt
$280.89M
Current Ratio
2.68
Debt/Equity
1.34
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$181.23
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$22.80
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-87.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
12.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.3% | $51.54M | $47.28M |
| 2 | 9.9% | $56.62M | $47.66M |
| 3 | 7.4% | $60.82M | $46.96M |
| 4 | 5.0% | $63.83M | $45.22M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $65.43M | $42.52M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$45.88M
Terminal Value
$1.03B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$670.57M
Enterprise Value
$900.22M
Net Debt
$232.68M
Equity Value
$667.54M
*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
$7.15
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.11
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 9 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
StockStory · 12.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
StockStory · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Zacks · 24.8.2026
Impinj, Inc. (PI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
PI currently scores 54/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, PI's estimated fair value is $22.80, which is 87.4% below the current price of $181.23. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PI'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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 2.68; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $22.80 vs. price $181.23 (-87.4%); Operating margin: -0.2% (negative); Net margin: -3.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for PI.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baker Cary | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 685 | -685 | $159.73 |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 3,753 | +3,753 | — |
| Baker Cary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 1,739 | -1,739 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 1,477 | -1,477 | $159.73 |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 3,753 | -3,753 | — |
| Baker Cary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 1,739 | +1,739 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Gift | 17.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | — |
| Baker Cary | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 1,429 | -1,429 | $185.00 |
| Baker Cary | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 88,226 | -1,429 | $185.00 |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Gift | 13.7.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Gift | 13.7.2026 | 372,145 | -10,000 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 1,817 | -1,817 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 1,223 | -1,223 | — |
| Baker Cary | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.6.2026 | 424 | -424 | $125.22 |
| Baker Cary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 479 | +479 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.6.2026 | 1,197 | -1,197 | $125.22 |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 1,817 | +1,817 | — |
| Baker Cary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 479 | -479 | — |
| Baker Cary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 597 | +597 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 1,223 | +1,223 | — |
| Baker Cary | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 597 | -597 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 381,525 | +1,223 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 383,342 | +1,817 | — |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.6.2026 | 382,145 | -1,197 | $125.22 |
| DIORIO CHRIS PH.D. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 3,672 | -1,223 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,735,738 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,001,563 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
70.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 60.0% 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