Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Real Estate · ·
$8.91
▼ $0.10 (-1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 07:25 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$800.83M
Day Range
$8.84 - $9.10
52-Week Range
$6.45 - $10.36
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$8.53
Resistance
$10.36
ADAM is a stock from the Real Estate sector — REITs and real-estate companies — highly sensitive to interest rates and property prices.
+20.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/24 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $19.92 vs. price $8.91 (+123.6%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.05 (3y annualized return -2.4% / max drawdown 45.5%)
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
52
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
74
Quality
50
Value
72
Momentum
16
Risk
42
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
51
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 **Adamas Trust, Inc.** has primarily focused on its stock performance and financial health, highlighting mixed analyst perspectives and market volatility. Analysts like UBS raised the price target slightly to $9.50 while maintaining a neutral rating, while other reports noted strong growth metrics—such as earnings and margins—alongside concerns over high debt and weak financial stability. The company’s stock has been compared to broader sector trends, particularly against peers like Interactive Brokers, with discussions on implied volatility and dividend potential.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Adamas Trust, Inc.. 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
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
32
Fundamentals
51
Technical
16
Valuation
72
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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 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.
Price (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for ADAM suggests a disconnect between valuation optimism and technical signals, with euphoria dominating despite weak momentum and a significant DCF discount. Investors appear to overlook fundamental mispricing (+9.6% above 200-day average) while ignoring the -51% gap to fair value, a classic case of narrative-driven valuation. The lack of panic or herding implies confidence in a sustained rally, though the neutral RSI and subdued volume (0.72x avg) hint at cautious participation. The key question is whether this euphoria persists despite the technical and valuation misalignment, or if a correction will reveal the underlying narrative gap.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:59 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Are Finance Stocks Lagging Adamas Trust, Inc. (ADAM) This Year?"
"Adamas Trust baby bonds offer high yields reflecting significant credit risk due to elevated recourse leverage."
"UBS maintains Adamas Trust with a Neutral and raises the price target from $8.5 to $9.5."
"Adamas Trust passes Navellier's 8 growth rules with strong earnings, revenue, and margins, but weak financial health and high debt pose risks."
📈 16D 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 — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 45/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented and value-driven methodologies, with some of the highest scores coming from investors who prioritize fundamentals and long-term potential. Peter Lynch’s near-perfect 97 score and Philip Fisher’s 100 (despite insufficient data) suggest the stock aligns with his vision of undervalued growth stocks, while Benjamin Graham’s 96 and his Enterprising Investor variant’s 87 reinforce its appeal to disciplined value hunters seeking statistical discounts. Meanwhile, cyclical and market-timing approaches like Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s 75 and Howard Marks’ 34 create a stark contrast—Nelson sees it as oversold and worth holding, but Marks flags it as late-cycle, signaling caution. The middle ground, where methodologies like Morgan Housel’s 77 and Gerald Loeb’s 56 land, reflects a mix of patient compounding and moderate risk, while efficiency skeptics like Malkiel/Bogle and Livermore’s 48-55 scores dismiss it as either unbeatably random or trendless. The divergence highlights whether the stock’s strengths lie in its growth trajectory (Lynch, Fisher) or its valuation edge (Graham) versus its cyclical or speculative risks (Marks, Loeb).
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 100
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 97
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 96
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 91
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 88
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 77
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 76
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 73
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 73
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 63
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 60
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 47
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 45
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
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 (1 bullish · 10 bearish · 0 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
10.4%
ROA
1.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.12
Cash
$210.33M
Total Debt
$735.83M
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.52
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 23.6.2026 | $0.270 |
| 22.6.2026 | $0.270 |
| 30.3.2026 | $0.230 |
| 29.3.2026 | $0.230 |
| 22.12.2025 | $0.230 |
| 21.12.2025 | $0.230 |
| 25.9.2025 | $0.230 |
| 24.9.2025 | $0.230 |
| 23.6.2025 | $0.200 |
| 22.6.2025 | $0.200 |
| 31.3.2025 | $0.200 |
| 30.3.2025 | $0.200 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$8.91
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$19.92
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+123.6%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $138.47M | $127.04M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $149.73M | $126.02M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $159.08M | $122.84M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $166.04M | $117.63M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $170.19M | $110.61M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$125.89M
Terminal Value
$2.68B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.74B
Enterprise Value
$2.35B
Net Debt
$525.50M
Equity Value
$1.82B
*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
$15.59
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.16
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 13 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 19.8.2026
Benzinga · 19.8.2026
Yahoo · 17.8.2026
Adamas Trust, Inc. (ADAM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 52/100, 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.
ADAM currently scores 52/100 (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, ADAM's estimated fair value is $19.92, which is 123.6% above the current price of $8.91. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ADAM's technical score is 16/100, 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: $19.92 vs. price $8.91 (+123.6%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 196.5%; Free cash flow growth: 1290.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.05 (3y annualized return -2.4% / max drawdown 45.5%); Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — ADAM 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mumma Steven R | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 14,238 | +14,238 | — |
| Cheng Gena | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 14,238 | +14,238 | — |
| Clement Michael B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 14,238 | +14,238 | — |
| Greenberg Audrey | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 14,238 | +14,238 | — |
| Pendergast Lisa A | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 14,238 | +14,238 | — |
| Norcutt Steven G | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 14,238 | +14,238 | — |
| Mumma Steven R | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 51,378 | +14,238 | — |
| Cheng Gena | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 51,378 | +14,238 | — |
| Clement Michael B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 14,238 | +14,238 | — |
| Pendergast Lisa A | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 51,378 | +14,238 | — |
| Greenberg Audrey | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 51,378 | +14,238 | — |
| Norcutt Steven G | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 51,378 | +14,238 | — |
| Clement Michael B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.6.2026 | 18,678 | +18,678 | — |
| Clement Michael B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.6.2026 | 18,678 | -18,678 | — |
| Clement Michael B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.6.2026 | 101,309 | +18,678 | — |
| Clement Michael B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.6.2026 | 0 | -18,678 | — |
| Mah Nicholas | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.1.2026 | 2,237 | -2,237 | $8.41 |
| Serrano Jason T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.1.2026 | 5,827 | -5,827 | $8.41 |
| Nario-Eng Kristine Rimando | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.1.2026 | 751 | -751 | $8.41 |
| Mah Nicholas | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.1.2026 | 251,456 | -2,237 | $8.41 |
| Nario-Eng Kristine Rimando | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.1.2026 | 156,546 | -751 | $8.41 |
| Serrano Jason T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.1.2026 | 389,714 | -5,827 | $8.41 |
| Mah Nicholas | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.1.2026 | 127,321 | +127,321 | — |
| Serrano Jason T | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.1.2026 | 216,711 | +216,711 | — |
| Nario-Eng Kristine Rimando | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.1.2026 | 61,989 | +61,989 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,121,326 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,946,071 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
73.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.5% 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