Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$12.02
▲ $0.27 (+2.3%)
Market data updated: 09/21 02:39 AM
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$11.74 - $12.02
52-Week Range
$10.41 - $13.98
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$11.68
Resistance
$12.76
-7.7% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 1/12 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.6% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.39 (3y annualized return 9.8% / max drawdown 24.8%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 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.
Ardmore Shipping Corporation (AGD) exhibits a **WEAK** overall rating (investor score of 37) driven by a mixed technical profile and elevated risk metrics, despite a neutral news environment. The technical category (score: 29) highlights conflicting signals: while the stock remains above its 200-day average—a potential bullish anchor—it sits below the 50-day average, signals a negative MACD histogram (falling momentum), and an RSI of 43.5 suggests weak/negative bias, though %K at 3.3 indicates oversold conditions. The news category (score: 50) is neutral, with no material positive or negative developments, leaving sentiment unchanged. Risk (score: 50) is a critical concern: the Calmar ratio of 0.39 (3-year annualized return of 9.7% offset by a 24.8% max drawdown) underscores volatility risk, while the ATR of 1.4% of price suggests limited short-term stability. Collectively, these factors create a cautious outlook, with technical weakness and risk metrics outweighing minor oversold signals and neutral news.
The stock is below its 50-day average and 52-week high, with a negative MACD histogram and RSI of 43.5 indicating weak momentum, though it is oversold (%K: 3.3) and above its 200-day average.
Short-term technical indicators dominate, signaling potential downside pressure despite long-term support.
The only news item is a neutral declaration of distribution dates for Aberdeen Investments funds, with no material impact on AGD’s fundamentals or market perception.
Lack of news-driven catalysts means investor sentiment remains unchanged, relying solely on technical and risk factors.
The Calmar ratio of 0.39 (3-year return: 9.7%, max drawdown: 24.8%) highlights significant volatility risk, while ATR (1.4% of price) suggests limited short-term predictability.
High drawdowns and volatility make the stock riskier for investors seeking stability or consistent returns.
StockIQ conclusion
AGD’s **WEAK** rating stems from a technical profile marred by short-term weakness and elevated risk, despite minor oversold conditions and neutral news. The stock’s volatility (Calmar: 0.39) and underperformance relative to the index (-4.5% 3-month lag) underscore caution, while long-term support (200-day average) offers limited optimism. Investors should monitor momentum shifts and news catalysts, as current data suggests a precarious balance between downside risk and potential rebound opportunities.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
31
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
17
Risk
50
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
100
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 for **abrdn Global Dynamic Dividend Fund** (formerly part of Aberdeen Investments) has been limited to a single announcement from **PR Newswire (August 11, 2026)**, which focused solely on the **declaration of distribution dates and amounts** for certain Aberdeen Investments U.S. closed-end funds—*not* the Global Dynamic Dividend Fund itself. No additional details, performance updates, or broader news about this specific fund were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about abrdn Global Dynamic Dividend Fund Common Shares of Beneficial Interest. News trend score: 56. Reason: 1 of the last 4 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
7
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
43
Fundamentals
—
Technical
17
Valuation
—
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, 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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-3%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
AGD’s psychology is anchored by its 2.9% proximity to support, suggesting traders may cling to a past price level despite modest underperformance relative to peers. The herding score (42) indicates traders are reacting to relative underperformance rather than absolute momentum, while FOMO and euphoria are absent due to weak technical signals. The narrative gap (-9) hints at a disconnect where reality (neutral momentum, balanced sentiment) may not align with traders’ focus on support levels. The key question: will traders break from anchoring if support holds, or will they double down?
Updated: 09/06/2026, 07:26 AM
What could change this?
📈 3D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Charles Mackay — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 35/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies that prioritize qualitative or cyclical signals and those that demand rigorous quantitative or fundamental validation. The highest-scoring approaches—like those of **Edgar Lawrence Smith (100)**, **Charles Mackay (95)**, and **Samuel Armstrong Nelson (91)**—focus on dividend potential, crowd psychology, or cyclical positioning, all of which suggest a favorable opportunity based on their frameworks. Meanwhile, **Morgan Housel (88)** and **Thorstein Veblen (80)** lean toward patient, value-aligned growth, reinforcing a cautious but constructive view. However, the middle tier—**Howard Marks (70)**, **Gerald M. Loeb (65)**, and **Marks’ market-cycle variant (65)**—cautiously acknowledges reasonable risk-reward but lacks the enthusiasm of the top scorers. The sharp contrast comes from the **efficient-market proponents (54)**, who dismiss the stock as unproven, and the **Graham, Fisher, Lynch, and Bagehot variants (all 50)**, which lack sufficient data to apply their strict valuation or fundamental filters. At the bottom, **Jack Schwager (34)** and **Jesse Livermore (31)** outright reject the setup, with Livermore’s low score tied to a perceived trend violation. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s qualitative or cyclical strengths outweigh the fundamental or market-efficiency skepticism.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ 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)
🟢 95
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)
🟢 82
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 74
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 68
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 63
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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)
🟡 58
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 50
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 35
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 264 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 8 bearish · 2 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$11.68
Range Bottom
$12.76
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.8.2026 | $0.120 |
| 23.7.2026 | $0.120 |
| 23.6.2026 | $0.120 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.120 |
| 22.4.2026 | $0.120 |
| 24.3.2026 | $0.120 |
| 20.2.2026 | $0.120 |
| 23.1.2026 | $0.120 |
| 31.12.2025 | $0.120 |
| 21.11.2025 | $0.120 |
| 24.10.2025 | $0.110 |
| 23.9.2025 | $0.110 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 1 positive, 3 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 4 articles.
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
PR Newswire · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
PR Newswire · 11.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for abrdn Global Dynamic Dividend Fund Common Shares of Beneficial Interest (AGD) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for AGD specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
AGD's technical score is 17/100, 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: ATR: 1.6% of price.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.39 (3y annualized return 9.8% / max drawdown 24.8%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — AGD 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 — 8 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 8 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reit Todd | Open Market Purchase | 7.1.2025 | 100 | +100 | $9.96 |
| Reit Todd | Open Market Purchase | 11.7.2023 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $9.42 |
| BIRD STEPHEN | Open Market Purchase | 18.10.2021 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $12.01 |
| Maasbach Nancy Yao | Open Market Purchase | 2.3.2020 | 500 | +500 | $9.13 |
| GILBERT MARTIN JAMES | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2019 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $9.49 |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Open Market Purchase | 29.11.2018 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $9.32 |
| Sievwright John P. | Open Market Purchase | 7.11.2018 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $9.55 |
| Maasbach Nancy Yao | Open Market Purchase | 22.10.2018 | 500 | +500 | $9.68 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
90,562 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 37,252 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.0% 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