Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$48.45
▼ $0.03 (-0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:56 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$6.66B
Day Range
$47.89 - $48.64
52-Week Range
$34.64 - $50.56
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$43.72
Resistance
$50.56
+26.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/24 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 2.0% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Net income growth
Net income growth: -2.0%
Growth
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
72/100
Similarity
7
Historical Matches
70/100
Analog Quality
+7.3%
Median 40D Outcome
78/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
71%
+2.9% … +7.4%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
29%
-3.1% … -2.1%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 7 similar historical cases for this stock, 71% (95% CI 36%–92%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +2.9%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 71% (36%–92%) | +1.5% | +0.3% … +4.2% | +0.7% |
| 10D | 57% (25%–84%) | +2.2% | -0.4% … +3.5% | +1.6% |
| 20D | 71% (36%–92%) | +2.9% | +0.6% … +7.0% | +3.3% |
| 40D | 100% (65%–100%) | +7.3% | +4.6% … +11.1% | +6.5% |
| 60D | 86% (49%–97%) | +13.5% | +7.1% … +14.7% | +10.4% |
Sample size: 7 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-15 | 72/100 | Uptrend | -1.6% | +14.8% |
| 2026-03-10 | 67/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.9% | -0.4% |
| 2026-06-22 | 67/100 | Consolidation | +6.5% | +14.5% |
| 2026-04-16 | 65/100 | Consolidation | +2.7% | +9.1% |
| 2026-05-01 | 61/100 | Consolidation | -3.5% | +13.5% |
| 2026-03-24 | 61/100 | Consolidation | +7.4% | +5.0% |
| 2026-06-05 | 55/100 | Consolidation | +8.9% | +15.9% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity.
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
| Symbol | Matched date | Similarity | 20D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSPN | 2026-06-24 | 56/100 | +9.1% |
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
61
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
55
Value
55
Momentum
55
Risk
64
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
64
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 Enact Holdings, Inc. (ACT) has centered on its stock valuation and market sentiment, with analysts debating whether its recent price surge reflects undervaluation or overvaluation. The focus includes rising implied volatility in put options, suggesting investor caution or anticipation of volatility. Additionally, there’s mention of its financial performance during Q2 earnings, though specifics are limited, and comparisons to other small-cap stocks with mixed market perceptions. No substantive operational or strategic updates were detailed.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Enact Holdings, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
37
Fundamentals
64
Technical
55
Valuation
55
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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+14%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+24
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for ACT suggests a dominant anchoring bias, as the stock’s proximity to resistance (2.6%) may be influencing decisions. Euphoria is also present, supported by strong momentum and sentiment, while FOMO is muted despite volume spikes. The key question is whether traders will break resistance or retreat, given the narrative-reality gap (24 points) and overconfidence in price momentum. The absence of panic or herding suggests discipline, but anchoring could prolong indecision.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:47 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Keefe, Bruyette & Woods raises Enact Holdings price target to $49"
"Enact Holdings (ACT) surging implied volatility in 2026 put options"
"Enact Holdings stock looks reasonable rather than a clear bargain"
"Must-read analyst questions from Enact Holdings’s Q2 2026 Earnings Call"
📈 5D 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
Benjamin Graham — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between fundamental value investors and those wary of speculative or late-cycle risks. Benjamin Graham and his Defensive Investor variant both see strong potential, with Graham’s model praising its attractiveness for cautious, long-term holders, while the Enterprising Investor still finds it discounted—though not a deep bargain. Meanwhile, Morgan Housel and Gerald Loeb echo this cautious optimism, emphasizing capital preservation and quiet compounding, suggesting the stock aligns with patient, principle-driven investing. However, methodologies rooted in trend-following (Livermore), market efficiency (Malkiel/Bogle), or late-cycle caution (Marks) paint a starker picture, flagging signs of crowd excitement, overvaluation, or a lack of clear momentum. Fisher, Lynch, and Schwager’s wizards dismiss it outright, either for lacking growth quality or failing to meet disciplined entry thresholds, while Veblen’s critique of speculative growth further underscores the tension between value-driven and behavioral/psychological perspectives.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 92
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 86
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 83
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 75
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟢 71
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 63
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 54
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 54
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 49
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 39
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 31
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 17
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 4 bearish · 3 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
54.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
12.6%
ROA
9.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.54
Cash
$582.49M
Total Debt
$744.48M
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.14
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 20.8.2026 | $0.240 |
| 28.5.2026 | $0.240 |
| 26.2.2026 | $0.210 |
| 21.11.2025 | $0.210 |
| 18.8.2025 | $0.210 |
| 19.5.2025 | $0.210 |
| 21.2.2025 | $0.185 |
| 18.11.2024 | $0.185 |
| 28.8.2024 | $0.185 |
| 29.5.2024 | $0.185 |
| 27.2.2024 | $0.160 |
| 15.11.2023 | $0.870 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$35.86
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$35.86
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 6 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 6.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 6.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Enact Holdings, Inc. (ACT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 61/100, 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.
ACT currently scores 61/100 (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.
ACT's technical score is 55/100, 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: ATR: 2.0% of price; Debt/equity: 0.14; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net income growth: -2.0%; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — ACT 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 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genworth Holdings, Inc. | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 687,379 | -687,379 | $49.40 |
| Stolove Evan | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 20,024 | -20,024 | $49.52 |
| Genworth Holdings, Inc. | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 523,226 | -523,226 | $45.92 |
| Genworth Holdings, Inc. | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 111,078,346 | -523,226 | $45.92 |
| Genworth Holdings, Inc. | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 605,067 | -605,067 | $42.28 |
| Genworth Holdings, Inc. | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 111,601,572 | -605,067 | $42.28 |
| Derstine Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 39 | +39 | — |
| Stolove Evan | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 24 | +24 | — |
| Gould Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 23 | +23 | — |
| Gupta Rohit | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 217 | +217 | — |
| Stolove Evan | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 15 | +15 | — |
| Derstine Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 15 | +15 | — |
| Hooda Sheila | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 201 | +201 | — |
| RESTREPO ROBERT P JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 201 | +201 | — |
| Stolove Evan | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 28 | +28 | — |
| Mitchell Hardin Dean | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 36 | +36 | — |
| Mitchell Hardin Dean | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 58 | +58 | — |
| Addesso Dominic James | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 348 | +348 | — |
| BLESS MICHAEL A | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 176 | +176 | — |
| Gould Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 12 | +12 | — |
| Gupta Rohit | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 173 | +173 | — |
| Mitchell H Elizabeth | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 56 | +56 | — |
| Mitchell Hardin Dean | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 75 | +75 | — |
| Derstine Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 24 | +24 | — |
| Gupta Rohit | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 107 | +107 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,117,356 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,928,904 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
86.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 75.8% 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