Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$84.27
▼ $2.03 (-2.4%)
Market data updated: 09/15 03:53 PM
News analyzed: 09/15/2026
Market Cap
$7.06B
Day Range
$82.96 - $86.49
52-Week Range
$29.11 - $110.32
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.11.2026
+170.7% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 7/12 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 3.65 (3y annualized return 197.7% / max drawdown 54.1%)
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.2% of price
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
62
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
11d ago · $88.11
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 21 to 46 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
69
Risk
50
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
40
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 **Aura Minerals Inc.** (AUGO) has primarily focused on its financial performance and valuation, highlighting strong earnings and profitability while cautioning about its balance sheet. Analysts praised its growth potential and affordability, scoring it highly for value and growth metrics, though some noted concerns over financial health. Insider share sales were also reported, and broader industry trends—such as surging gold miner stocks—were mentioned in passing. No major operational or strategic shifts were explicitly detailed.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Aura Minerals Inc. - Common. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 5 vs. 5 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
19
Fundamentals
—
Technical
69
Valuation
—
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+30%
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
AUGO’s psychology profile suggests a **detached euphoria**—price remains 16.8% above its 200-day average despite weak momentum (-1.2%) and neutral RSI (61). This disconnect between valuation and momentum may reflect overconfidence in fundamentals or a narrative gap, where sentiment (44/100) lags reality. Mild FOMO (12) and panic signals (7) are muted by low volatility (1.12x ATR) and modest volume (0.73x avg), indicating cautious, not frantic, behavior. The key question: *Is the premium justified, or will reality (narrative gap of -10) eventually correct the disconnect?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:37 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Aura Minerals Insider Sold Shares Worth $10,353,000 (Article 1)"
"Aura Minerals scores 7/10 on affordable growth with strong earnings (Article 4)"
"watch its moderate balance sheet (Article 9)"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 6D 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 — 68/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for AUGO reflects deep methodological divides between investors who prioritize qualitative insights and those who rely on quantitative or cyclical frameworks. Edgar Lawrence Smith’s high score suggests he might have seen potential in the company’s dividend or growth trajectory, though his verdict notes insufficient data—a rare exception where his model still flags interest despite uncertainty. In contrast, Morgan Housel’s zero score and Thorstein Veblen’s low reading highlight a consensus among behavioral and volatility-focused thinkers that AUGO’s volatility or speculative growth patterns would be red flags. Meanwhile, the middle-ground methodologies—like Howard Marks’ mixed verdict or Jesse Livermore’s indecision—reflect caution, either due to unclear trends or already high expectations, while the efficient-market camp dismisses it outright as unworthy of active picking. The lack of strong agreement underscores how data scarcity (Graham, Fisher, Lynch) or cyclical ambiguity (Marks, Nelson) can leave even disciplined investors divided.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 86
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)
🟢 68
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 59
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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
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%
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 36
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 33
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)
🔴 31
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 20
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 277 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 2 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.
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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.8.2026 | $0.720 |
| 19.5.2026 | $0.780 |
| 18.5.2026 | $0.780 |
| 11.3.2026 | $0.660 |
| 10.3.2026 | $0.660 |
| 18.8.2025 | $0.330 |
| 17.8.2025 | $0.330 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 10 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 12.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
ChartMill · 28.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 19.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
ChartMill · 13.8.2026
Motley Fool · 12.8.2026
MT Newswires · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.8.2026
MT Newswires · 6.8.2026
Moby · 6.8.2026
TMX Newsfile · 6.8.2026
Yahoo · 6.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
Yahoo · 6.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Aura Minerals Inc. - Common (AUGO) — 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 AUGO 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.
AUGO's technical score is 69/100, 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: Calmar: 3.65 (3y annualized return 197.7% / max drawdown 54.1%); Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.2% of price; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; ROC 12 days: -3.4%.
Yes — AUGO 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 12 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Purchase | 3.9.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $29.20 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 250,000 | -250,000 | $29.32 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Purchase | 2.9.2026 | 33,500 | +33,500 | $28.29 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 52,908 | -52,908 | $28.11 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 22,000 | -22,000 | $27.81 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 11,500 | -11,500 | $27.81 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Purchase | 1.9.2026 | 4,075 | +4,075 | $26.50 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Conversion of Derivative Security | 1.9.2026 | 3,067 | +3,067 | $80.01 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 2 | -2 | $27.01 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 4,075 | -4,075 | $27.65 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Conversion of Derivative Security | 1.9.2026 | 4,999 | +4,999 | $81.23 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Conversion of Derivative Security | 1.9.2026 | 24,198 | -24,198 | $26.83 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Purchase | 1.9.2026 | 1 | +1 | $81.10 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 70,153 | -70,153 | — |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Conversion of Derivative Security | 31.8.2026 | 21,675 | -21,675 | $26.74 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $10.33 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2026 | 1,500 | +1,500 | $4.53 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2026 | 405,273 | +405,273 | — |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2026 | 70,153 | +70,153 | — |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 377,987 | -377,987 | — |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 27,286 | -27,286 | — |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 1 | -1 | $26.74 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Conversion of Derivative Security | 31.8.2026 | 3,225 | +3,225 | $80.42 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2026 | 10 | +10 | $79.89 |
| Sousa Mauad Bruno | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 127,500 | -127,500 | $81.20 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,074,162 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,070,877 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
74.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 55.2% 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