Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$2.70
▼ $0.01 (-0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:16 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$2.41B
Day Range
$2.65 - $2.77
52-Week Range
$0.93 - $3.18
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$1.82
Resistance
$3.03
AMC is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-4.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/31 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Death Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200
Technical
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
40
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
66
Risk
32
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
32
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 of AMC Entertainment Holdings has centered on its stock volatility and legal disputes with Robinhood, particularly over the brokerage’s tokenized stock offerings, which AMC’s CEO has called "detestable" and "vile." The company’s shares surged amid the feud, with investors capitalizing on the controversy, including a trader profiting over $2 million in hours. Additionally, AMC announced **Leawood Films**, a new low-risk movie distribution arm, while analysts debated its stock valuation amid speculation and activist investor activity.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
40
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
32
Technical
66
Valuation
50
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 rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-5%
Market Narrative
62
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+20
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant euphoria—backed by extreme valuation (+38% above 200-day average) and perfect sentiment—suggests investors are prioritizing momentum over fundamentals, consistent with overconfidence. Herding is evident as AMC outperforms peers, while FOMO is fueled by elevated volume and positive momentum. The key open question is whether this disconnect between price action and fundamentals will sustain or if a correction will reveal the gap between narrative (70) and reality (42).
Updated: 09/06/2026, 02:57 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AMC CEO slams Robinhood over 'inexcusable, vile' Stock Token Trading"
"Man turns Robinhood-AMC feud into $2 million gain in 12 hours"
"record Spider-Man box office keeps focus on theater traffic"
"AMC Entertainment Holdings (AMC) Price Target Increased by 32.44% to 2.89"
📈 7D 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
Jesse Livermore — 62/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 19/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s divergent verdicts reflect stark contrasts in methodology priorities. The more passive approaches—like Burton Malkiel’s efficient-market perspective or Jesse Livermore’s trend-following—lean toward caution, with scores in the mid-50s suggesting only *mixed* or *no clear trend* signals, implying the stock lacks decisive momentum or fundamental justification for active selection. Meanwhile, the stricter valuation and risk-focused frameworks—such as Howard Marks’ market-cycle analysis or Walter Bagehot’s liquidity concerns—score far lower (25–35), flagging it as either overbought, speculative, or structurally risky, aligning with their documented aversion to stretched valuations or crowd-driven moves. In contrast, the growth-oriented models (e.g., Peter Lynch or Philip Fisher) dismiss it outright for failing to meet their thresholds, while the more flexible Graham-based methods still struggle to justify a long-term hold, underscoring a consensus that AMC’s profile doesn’t neatly fit traditional ‘buy-and-hold’ or ‘quality-growth’ criteria.
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 62
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 59
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)
🟡 54
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 50
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 37
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 36
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 35
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 35
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 33
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 31
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 25
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 19
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 19
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 3 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 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
-0.4%
Net Margin
-13.0%
EBITDA Margin
6.1%
ROE
33.4%
ROA
-7.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.34
Cash
$428.50M
Total Debt
$4.04B
Current Ratio
0.41
Debt/Equity
-2.13
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
-$4.01
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$9.43
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 9 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Motley Fool · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo Finance · 10.9.2026
AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. (AMC) 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.
AMC 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.
AMC's technical score is 66/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 33.4% — strong; Debt/equity: -2.13.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Operating margin: -0.4% (negative); Net margin: -13.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AMC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARON ADAM M | Open Market Purchase | 19.5.2026 | 2,437,020 | +250,000 | $1.38 |
| ARON ADAM M | Open Market Purchase | 19.5.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | $1.38 |
| WAY MARK | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 285,069 | +157,136 | — |
| COX CHRIS A | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 142,169 | +78,592 | — |
| COX CHRIS A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 104,436 | -37,733 | — |
| Goodman Sean D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 660,637 | +369,940 | — |
| ARON ADAM M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 2,187,020 | -716,399 | — |
| Goodman Sean D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 494,422 | -166,215 | — |
| CHAVARRIA CARLA C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 218,444 | -64,118 | — |
| DENSON-RANDOLPH NIKKOLE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 76,513 | -41,881 | — |
| COPAKEN ELLEN | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 83,775 | -35,617 | — |
| ELLIS DANIEL E | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 314,478 | +174,590 | — |
| ELLIS DANIEL E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 236,034 | -78,444 | — |
| ARON ADAM M | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 2,903,419 | +1,594,478 | — |
| DENSON-RANDOLPH NIKKOLE | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 118,394 | +73,346 | — |
| Gladbach EDWIN F | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 42,751 | +26,206 | — |
| COPAKEN ELLEN | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 119,392 | +73,898 | — |
| WAY MARK | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 211,215 | -73,854 | — |
| CHAVARRIA CARLA C | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 282,562 | +139,598 | — |
| Gladbach EDWIN F | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 29,324 | -13,427 | — |
| COX CHRIS A | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 78,592 | +78,592 | — |
| Gladbach EDWIN F | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 13,427 | -13,427 | — |
| Goodman Sean D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.2.2026 | 369,940 | +369,940 | — |
| ELLIS DANIEL E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 78,444 | -78,444 | — |
| Goodman Sean D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.2.2026 | 166,215 | -166,215 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
37,527,938 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 46,522,596 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
38.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 40.7% 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