Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$64.57
▼ $3.25 (-4.8%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:20 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$38.64B
Day Range
$63.79 - $68.60
52-Week Range
$37.57 - $151.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$58.20
Resistance
$86.83
RKLB is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+36.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/30 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
🔴 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): 38.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$13.92 vs. price $64.57 (-121.6%)
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
47
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
48
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
42
Risk
62
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
36
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 Rocket Lab Corporation has centered on its technological advancements and strategic investments. The company has introduced a germanium-free solar cell for space applications, aiming to reduce reliance on supply-constrained minerals—a move analysts note could address supply chain challenges. Additionally, Cathie Wood’s ARK Invest increased its stake in Rocket Lab, citing its focus on space solar energy. The company’s Neutron rocket program remains in focus, with upcoming milestones like pad delivery, though no launches are imminent. Defense contracts and stock market speculation also feature prominently.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Rocket Lab Corporation. News trend score: 74. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
13
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
43
Psychology
58
Fundamentals
36
Technical
42
Valuation
38
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-40%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
43
Narrative Gap
+15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant loss aversion (80) reflects a deep-rooted reluctance to accept further declines after a 41.6% drop over three months, despite muted volume and subdued volatility. The absence of panic (32) or FOMO (10) suggests traders are cautious rather than frantic, possibly waiting for confirmation of a bottom. The narrative gap (10) hints at a disconnect between optimistic sentiment and technical weakness. The key question is whether the stock’s proximity to support (9.4%) will trigger defensive buying or if traders remain anchored to past losses.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:20 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Rocket Lab Introduces Germanium-Free Solar Cell For Space Applications"
"Rocket Lab Introduces High-Efficiency Solar Cell to Reduce Reliance on Supply-Constrained Critical Minerals"
"Cathie Wood’s ARK Adds To Rocket Lab Stake On New Space Solar Catalyst"
"Rocket Lab Keeps Landing Defense Deals. Here’s Why Analysts Aren’t Getting More Bullish"
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for RKLB reflects a clash between defensive, cyclical, and contrarian perspectives versus more fundamental or market-efficiency critiques. Methodologies like Walter Bagehot’s focus on liquidity and Samuel Nelson’s cycle analysis score high, suggesting resilience and a favorable market position—likely because they prioritize structural stability and timing. In contrast, value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher score poorly, as the stock doesn’t meet their strict criteria for undervaluation or quality growth, implying it may lack the deep discounts or competitive advantages they seek. Meanwhile, behavioral economists like Morgan Housel and Thorstein Veblen flag volatility and speculative tendencies, while trend-followers like Jesse Livermore reject it outright, highlighting a disconnect between momentum-driven and patient, long-term strategies.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 84
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 84
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 73
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 60
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 60
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 59
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 59
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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 (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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 34
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
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
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 (3 bullish · 5 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 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
34.4%
Operating Margin
-38.0%
Net Margin
-32.9%
EBITDA Margin
-30.7%
ROE
-11.5%
ROA
-8.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.37
Cash
$828.66M
Total Debt
$1.72M
Current Ratio
4.08
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$64.57
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$13.92
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-121.6%
🔴 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% | $-402.26M | $-369.04M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-480.19M | $-404.17M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-546.22M | $-421.78M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-590.60M | $-418.40M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-605.37M | $-393.45M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-321.81M
Terminal Value
$-9.55B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-6.20B
Enterprise Value
$-8.21B
Net Debt
$-826.94M
Equity Value
$-7.38B
*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
$3.24
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.43
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 6 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 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
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Rocket Lab Corporation (RKLB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
RKLB currently scores 47/100 (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, RKLB's estimated fair value is -$13.92, which is 121.6% below the current price of $64.57. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
RKLB's technical score is 42/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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): 38.0%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Calmar: 2.30 (3y annualized return 140.3% / max drawdown 61.0%).
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$13.92 vs. price $64.57 (-121.6%); Operating margin: -38.0% (negative); Net margin: -32.9% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RKLB.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 21 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spice Adam C. | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 67,257 | -67,257 | $62.26 |
| Spice Adam C. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 140,157 | -140,157 | — |
| Spice Adam C. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 140,157 | +140,157 | $1.09 |
| Spice Adam C. | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 72,900 | -72,900 | $62.97 |
| Saintil Merline | Gift | 31.8.2026 | 261,903 | +261,903 | — |
| Saintil Merline | Gift | 31.8.2026 | 261,903 | -261,903 | — |
| Klein Frank | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 945,995 | -15,300 | $66.25 |
| Klein Frank | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 926,195 | -19,800 | $66.86 |
| Klein Frank | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 925,737 | -458 | $67.54 |
| Kampani Arjun | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 252,351 | -4,600 | $66.50 |
| Kampani Arjun | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 250,917 | -1,434 | $67.16 |
| Klein Frank | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 15,300 | -15,300 | $66.25 |
| Kampani Arjun | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 1,434 | -1,434 | $67.16 |
| Kampani Arjun | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 4,600 | -4,600 | $66.50 |
| Klein Frank | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 19,800 | -19,800 | $66.86 |
| Klein Frank | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 458 | -458 | $67.54 |
| Kampani Arjun | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 349 | -349 | $71.17 |
| Spice Adam C. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 435 | -435 | $71.17 |
| Clevenger Marvin Bradford | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 450 | -450 | $70.20 |
| Spice Adam C. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 8,952 | -8,952 | $69.53 |
| Kampani Arjun | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 232 | -232 | $70.20 |
| Spice Adam C. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 290 | -290 | $70.20 |
| Klein Frank | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 42,270 | -42,270 | $69.53 |
| Clevenger Marvin Bradford | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 13,924 | -13,924 | $69.53 |
| Ricupati Agostino | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 20 | -20 | $70.20 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
45,378,891 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 45,819,240 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.4% 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