Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$61.99
▼ $1.42 (-2.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 06:49 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$7.98B
Day Range
$61.89 - $63.93
52-Week Range
$60.35 - $135.52
Beta
—
Next Earnings
16.11.2026
Support
$60.35
Resistance
$76.85
ACM is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-53.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/31 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $101.49 vs. price $61.99 (+63.7%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.17 (3y annualized return -9.5% / max drawdown 54.6%)
Risk
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
49
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
62
Quality
58
Value
67
Momentum
13
Risk
42
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
46
Institutional
67
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 AECOM has focused on its growing infrastructure projects and financial momentum. The company has secured a major contract to design the **Pure Water Silicon Valley Demonstration Facility**, a drought-resilient water reuse project in California, highlighting its expansion in water infrastructure. Additionally, AECOM’s backlog remains at record highs, with a 30% growth in U.S. water pipeline projects in Q3 FY26, while its transportation wins—like the **Northland Corridor** in New Zealand—strengthen its global footprint. Analysts also note its strong financial performance, with rising revenues and profit margins.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about AECOM. News trend score: 92. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
46
Technical
13
Valuation
67
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
41
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant herd-driven caution, likely due to ACM’s relative underperformance versus peers. The narrative gap (11 points) indicates investors may be overestimating positive momentum while ignoring valuation discrepancies. FOMO and euphoria signals are muted by neutral RSI and significant undervaluation. The key question is whether the herd will shift toward defensive positioning or if sentiment-driven buying emerges despite valuation headwinds.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:59 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AECOM selected to design Pure Water Silicon Valley demonstration facility — project advances drought-resilient drinking water"
"U.S. water pipeline grew 30% in Q3 FY26, with backlog at record highs"
"AECOM appointed as design partner on New Zealand’s Northland Corridor, Section One"
"infrastructure demand fuels broad-based profit growth (Quanta’s Q2 2026 performance referenced)"
📈 18D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between bullish and cautious camps, with Veblen, Lynch, and Mackay all scoring above 75 and praising ACM’s growth potential or lack of speculative mania. Veblen’s high score suggests the stock aligns with his emphasis on real value creation, while Lynch’s verdict implies the market hasn’t yet fully priced in its growth trajectory. Even Marks and Smith, both scoring 69, see it as a reasonable long-term hold—though Marks hedges with a neutral risk assessment. Meanwhile, Fisher and the Enterprising Investor variant (20-22) dismiss it outright, arguing it lacks Fisher’s signature quality or Graham’s statistical cheapness. The middle ground—from Schwager to Livermore—reflects indecision, with Livermore’s low score (40) standing out as an outlier, flagging a negative trend. The contrast highlights how growth-focused thinkers (Veblen, Lynch) contrast sharply with Fisher’s quality-first approach, while cyclical or trend-following models (Livermore, Marks-cycle) remain neutral or negative.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 93
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 89
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 80
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 75
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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)
🟡 61
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 49
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 47
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
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)
🟡 45
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 37
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 27
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 23
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)
🔴 22
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 22
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 12
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 11
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
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 (0 bullish · 10 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.
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
7.5%
Operating Margin
6.4%
Net Margin
3.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
22.5%
ROA
4.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.24
Cash
$1.59B
Total Debt
$66.30M
Current Ratio
1.14
Debt/Equity
1.09
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 1.7.2026 | $0.310 |
| 30.6.2026 | $0.310 |
| 1.4.2026 | $0.310 |
| 31.3.2026 | $0.310 |
| 7.1.2026 | $0.310 |
| 6.1.2026 | $0.310 |
| 1.10.2025 | $0.260 |
| 30.9.2025 | $0.260 |
| 2.7.2025 | $0.260 |
| 1.7.2025 | $0.260 |
| 2.4.2025 | $0.260 |
| 1.4.2025 | $0.260 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$61.99
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$101.49
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+63.7%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
7.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.2% | $734.20M | $673.57M |
| 2 | 6.0% | $778.40M | $655.16M |
| 3 | 4.8% | $816.12M | $630.20M |
| 4 | 3.7% | $846.10M | $599.40M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $867.25M | $563.66M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$684.93M
Terminal Value
$13.68B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$8.89B
Enterprise Value
$12.01B
Net Debt
$-1.52B
Equity Value
$13.53B
*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
$18.91
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$17.52
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 13 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
AECOM (ACM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
ACM currently scores 49/100 (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, ACM's estimated fair value is $101.49, which is 63.7% above the current price of $61.99. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ACM's technical score is 13/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $101.49 vs. price $61.99 (+63.7%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 42.7%; Net income growth: 39.7%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.17 (3y annualized return -9.5% / max drawdown 54.6%); Free cash flow growth: -3.2%; Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — ACM has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 6 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poloni Lara | Open Market Purchase | 16.6.2026 | 4,224 | +4,224 | $70.63 |
| Poloni Lara | Open Market Purchase | 16.6.2026 | 153,446 | +4,224 | $70.63 |
| Rudd Troy | Open Market Purchase | 14.5.2026 | 4,225 | +4,225 | $71.02 |
| Kapoor Gaurav | Open Market Purchase | 14.5.2026 | 1,420 | +1,420 | $71.12 |
| Rudd Troy | Open Market Purchase | 14.5.2026 | 142,207 | +4,225 | $71.02 |
| Kapoor Gaurav | Open Market Purchase | 14.5.2026 | 88,053 | +1,420 | $71.12 |
| KERR DEREK J | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 2,002 | +2,002 | — |
| Stotlar Douglas | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 2,236 | +2,236 | — |
| Pipes Kristy | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 2,002 | +2,002 | — |
| Buss Brad W | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 2,002 | +2,002 | — |
| Wolfenbarger Janet Carol | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 2,002 | +2,002 | — |
| Tishman Daniel R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 2,002 | +2,002 | — |
| van 't Noordende Alexander M | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 2,002 | +2,002 | — |
| KERR DEREK J | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 3,677 | +2,002 | — |
| Stotlar Douglas | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 38,804 | +2,236 | — |
| Buss Brad W | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 28,513 | +2,002 | — |
| van 't Noordende Alexander M | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 12,423 | +2,002 | — |
| Tishman Daniel R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 23,677 | +2,002 | — |
| Wolfenbarger Janet Carol | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 38,822 | +2,002 | — |
| Pipes Kristy | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.3.2026 | 8,623 | +2,002 | — |
| Rudd Troy | Gift | 23.12.2025 | 600 | -600 | — |
| Rudd Troy | Gift | 23.12.2025 | 259,756 | -600 | — |
| Poloni Lara | Open Market Sale | 17.12.2025 | 193 | -193 | $98.35 |
| Poloni Lara | Open Market Sale | 17.12.2025 | 17,340 | -17,340 | $97.01 |
| Gan David Y. | Open Market Sale | 17.12.2025 | 9,502 | -9,502 | $97.01 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,749,820 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,135,556 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.0% 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