Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$21.19
▲ $0.43 (+2.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 10:23 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$2.11B
Day Range
$20.68 - $21.42
52-Week Range
$5.97 - $21.42
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$14.08
Resistance
$21.42
TH is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+146.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/27 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
🟡 Mixed
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
Operating margin
Operating margin: -10.8% (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
53
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 · $20.76
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 63)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
1d ago · $20.76
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 29 to 54 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
32
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
88
Risk
26
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
18
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 **Target Hospitality Corp.** highlights its strategic expansion into the data center sector, particularly through a multi-year contract with a major hyperscaler in West Texas. Analysts like Oppenheimer have praised its "solid potential" for new contract wins, while the company raised its 2026 revenue outlook to $435–$445 million, suggesting undervaluation (up to 19%) despite stretched sales multiples. Additionally, Target announced a secondary stock offering and stock repurchase program, signaling confidence in growth amid mixed valuation debates.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Target Hospitality Corp.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
64
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
33
Investors appear highly excited (64), but evidence of strong fundamental conviction is comparatively weak (33).
Psychology
78
Fundamentals
18
Technical
88
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Price (3M)
+5%
Market Narrative
81
Fundamental Reality
33
Narrative Gap
+48
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme anchoring (98) near resistance suggests traders are fixating on a near-term price target, while confirmation bias (65) may reinforce narratives over deteriorating fundamentals. FOMO (63) and euphoria (58) indicate speculative enthusiasm, though overconfidence (43) hints at detached valuation. The key question is whether traders will sustain anchoring or pivot if momentum stalls—especially given the widening narrative gap. Herding and panic remain dormant, but volatility could shift dynamics if sentiment cools.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"new multi-year US$250 million facilities and services contract in West Texas"
"valuation checks now send a mixed message as the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) intrinsic value points to a discount"
"Target Hospitality has 'Solid Potential' for New Contract Wins, Oppenheimer Says"
"raised its full year 2026 revenue outlook to US$435 million to US$445 million"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 4D 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 — 67/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for this stock reflects deep methodological contrasts between passive and active investing philosophies. Burton Malkiel and John Bogle’s efficient-market approach sees a plausible case for deviation from a broad index, suggesting the stock’s fundamentals or momentum may justify a deviation from passive tracking. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of methodologies—ranging from Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria to Morgan Housel’s volatility concerns—flag red flags, with scores as low as 0 or 1, signaling overvaluation, risk, or speculative excess. Meanwhile, mid-tier thinkers like Jesse Livermore (score 63) and Howard Marks (score 23) offer cautious neutrality, with Livermore’s lack of clear trend and Marks’ late-cycle warning, illustrating a middle ground between outright rejection and passive acceptance. The divergence underscores how even moderate deviations from traditional value or growth benchmarks can trigger alarms for disciplined investors, while only a few frameworks—like the efficient-market hypothesis—allow for flexibility in such scenarios.
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟢 79
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)
🟢 67
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 29
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
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
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 14
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)
🔴 13
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 12
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 11
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 9
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 6
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 3
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 3
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (10 bullish · 1 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 uptrend 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
13.3%
Operating Margin
-10.8%
Net Margin
-11.6%
EBITDA Margin
12.1%
ROE
-9.5%
ROA
-7.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.37
Cash
$8.35M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.87
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$3.91
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.10
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 11 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Investing.com · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
PR Newswire · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
PR Newswire · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Target Hospitality Corp. (TH) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, 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.
TH currently scores 53/100 (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.
TH's technical score is 88/100, 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: Operating margin: -10.8% (negative); Net margin: -11.6% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for TH.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanchack Erich | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 6,963 | +6,963 | — |
| Smyth Margaret Mary | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 6,963 | +6,963 | — |
| Smyth Margaret Mary | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 6,963 | +6,963 | — |
| Sanchack Erich | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2026 | 6,963 | +6,963 | — |
| TDR Capital II Investments LP | Other Transaction | 18.6.2026 | 1,344,460 | -1,344,460 | — |
| DALE MANJIT | Other Transaction | 18.6.2026 | 45,978,409 | -1,344,460 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 17.6.2026 | 31,667 | +31,667 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 17.6.2026 | 348,475 | +348,475 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 17.6.2026 | 109,051 | +31,667 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 17.6.2026 | 655,689 | +348,475 | — |
| TDR Capital II Investments LP | Other Transaction | 29.5.2026 | 8,050,000 | -8,050,000 | $16.36 |
| DALE MANJIT | Other Transaction | 29.5.2026 | 47,322,869 | -8,050,000 | $16.36 |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 233,534 | +233,534 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 73,680 | +73,680 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 58,824 | +58,824 | — |
| TDR Capital II Investments LP | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 1,203,134 | -1,203,134 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 18,560 | +18,560 | — |
| DALE MANJIT | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 55,372,869 | -1,203,134 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 18,560 | +18,560 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 77,384 | +58,824 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 73,680 | +73,680 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Other Transaction | 28.5.2026 | 307,214 | +233,534 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 20,950 | -20,950 | — |
| Robertson Stephen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 20,950 | +20,950 | — |
| Medler Linda R | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 7,597 | +7,597 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,323,584 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,872,990 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
26.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 27.7% 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