Not a good buy right now: trend/momentum is decisively bearish (SMA_200 > SMA_20 > SMA_5 + MACD histogram negative and worsening).
With an impatient profile, the current setup offers poor immediate upside vs. downside risk: price is sitting just above near-term support (S1=2.834), and similar-pattern stats still skew negative over 1 month (-8.01%).
Options positioning is very call-heavy (bullish/speculative), but it is not confirmed by price action; I would avoid new longs until price reclaims the pivot (~3.365) or shows a clear reversal.
If already holding, I would exit/trim into any bounce toward 3.10–3.36 rather than averaging down.
Technical Analysis
Price/Trend: Bearish structure with moving averages stacked negatively (SMA_200 > SMA_20 > SMA_5), signaling a sustained downtrend.
Momentum: MACD histogram = -0.0695 and expanding lower → downside momentum is strengthening rather than stabilizing.
RSI: RSI(6)=27.37 (near oversold). This can trigger short bounces, but by itself is not a reliable “buy now” signal when MACD/MA trend remain bearish.
Key levels: Immediate support S1=2.834 (very close to current 2.855); if that breaks, next support S2=2.506. Overhead resistance/pivot at 3.365; stronger resistance R1=3.896.
Pattern-based outlook (provided): ~70% chance of a small next-day move (+1.17%), flat-ish next week (+0.27%), but negative next month (-8.01%) → short-term noise, medium-term bias down.
Activity: Options volume is far above average (today vs 30-day avg ~48.93), and open interest is elevated (today vs OI avg ~107.77) → strong attention/positioning.
Volatility: 30D IV ~45.57 vs historical vol ~86.96; IV percentile/rank shown as 0 → options are priced relatively “cheap” vs recent distribution, but the underlying has been volatile.
Interpretation: Bullish options skew is a supporting data point, but it conflicts with the bearish trend/weak price structure; without a price reversal, call-heavy flow can still unwind fast.
Technical Summary
Sell
9
Buy
4
Positive Catalysts
could produce a short relief rally.
Neutral/Negative Catalysts
Market backdrop: SP500 down (-0.85%) during the session → risk-off tape is not supportive for small/more volatile names.
Net income: 6.41M, up +3.15% YoY → headline profitability improved, but it diverges from collapsing revenue (suggests non-operating items or one-offs may be playing a role).
EPS: 0.15, down -16.67% YoY → earnings per share deteriorated despite higher net income.
Overall: Growth trend is negative on revenue and margins, which aligns more with the bearish technical setup than the bullish options skew.
Growth
Profitability
Efficiency
Analyst Ratings and Price Target Trends
No analyst rating/price target change data was provided, and there is no recent news flow; effectively, there’s no visible “Wall Street upgrade/downgrade” catalyst to lean on right now.
Pros (typical bullish case): If coverage exists, bulls would point to AI/security theme exposure and the very bullish options skew.
Cons (typical bear case): Sharp YoY revenue decline and margin compression, plus a confirmed technical downtrend; without upgrades or catalysts, institutions often stay sidelined.
Influential/political trading: No recent congress trading data available; hedge funds and insiders are reported neutral with no significant recent trends.
Wall Street analysts forecast AISP stock price to rise over the next 12 months. According to Wall Street analysts, the average 1-year price target for AISP is 8 USD with a low forecast of 8 USD and a high forecast of 8 USD. However, analyst price targets are subjective and often lag stock prices, so investors should focus on the objective reasons behind analyst rating changes, which better reflect the company's fundamentals.
1 Analyst Rating
Wall Street analysts forecast AISP stock price to rise over the next 12 months. According to Wall Street analysts, the average 1-year price target for AISP is 8 USD with a low forecast of 8 USD and a high forecast of 8 USD. However, analyst price targets are subjective and often lag stock prices, so investors should focus on the objective reasons behind analyst rating changes, which better reflect the company's fundamentals.
