Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$12.22
▲ $0.23 (+1.9%)
Market data updated: 09/18 08:41 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$11.91 - $12.33
52-Week Range
$8.27 - $12.89
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$10.13
Resistance
$12.51
+21.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/25 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $15.25 vs. price $12.22 (+24.8%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 1.85
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
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
82
Quality
50
Value
57
Momentum
57
Risk
44
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
49
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 **BGC Group, Inc.** has primarily focused on its strategic partnership with **IPC Systems**, announcing the adoption of **IPC One** as its global communications and connectivity platform to modernize trading infrastructure. Analysts and financial platforms also briefly discussed BGC’s Q2 earnings performance and compared it with competitors like Robinhood, though details remain limited. The company’s broader growth and technological upgrades dominate headlines.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about BGC Group, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
20
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
22
Fundamentals
49
Technical
57
Valuation
57
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-0%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests **herding** is dominant, with traders aligning after BGC underperformed peers. Positive momentum and sentiment fuel FOMO, but valuation gaps (22% below DCF) and modest EPS growth hint at overconfidence. The narrative gap (60 vs. 38) implies traders overestimate fundamentals. Key question: Will traders prioritize relative performance or valuation discrepancies?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:18 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"BGC selected IPC One as its strategic communications and connectivity platform to support its growth strategy"
"BGC Q2 earnings beat on record revenues"
"Stock falls as costs rise year-over-year"
📈 8D 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
Philip Fisher — 73/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological disagreements about risk, timing, and valuation. Fisher and Smith both see potential—Fisher’s high score suggests a solid but not exceptional business, while Smith’s ‘buy-and-hold’ label implies long-term durability—but their thresholds differ sharply. Meanwhile, Graham and Bagehot’s near-zero scores highlight a fundamental mismatch: the stock fails defensive metrics entirely, while even the Enterprising Investor’s looser standards reject it as statistically uncheap. On the other end, Livermore’s indecision and Marks’ late-cycle caution flag structural concerns, while Schwager’s wizards and Loeb’s risk-averse lens would outright avoid it. The contrast between Lynch and Marks (both scoring 52) underscores a nuanced split: Lynch sees residual growth value, while Marks warns of overpriced expectations. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s fundamentals justify its price (Smith, Fisher) or if its momentum, volatility, or valuation already signal trouble (Graham, Loeb, Veblen).
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 73
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
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)
🟡 62
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 57
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 51
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 46
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 41
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 37
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 35
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 30
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 24
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 20
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
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
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (5 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.
High 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
5.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
15.9%
ROA
3.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.31
Cash
$851.50M
Total Debt
$1.80B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
1.85
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 19.8.2026 | $0.020 |
| 27.5.2026 | $0.020 |
| 26.5.2026 | $0.020 |
| 4.3.2026 | $0.020 |
| 3.3.2026 | $0.020 |
| 26.11.2025 | $0.020 |
| 25.11.2025 | $0.020 |
| 20.8.2025 | $0.020 |
| 19.8.2025 | $0.020 |
| 27.5.2025 | $0.020 |
| 26.5.2025 | $0.020 |
| 6.3.2025 | $0.020 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$12.22
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$15.25
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+24.8%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
18.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18.2% | $440.64M | $404.26M |
| 2 | 14.3% | $503.46M | $423.75M |
| 3 | 10.3% | $555.51M | $428.96M |
| 4 | 6.4% | $591.17M | $418.80M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $605.95M | $393.83M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$372.87M
Terminal Value
$9.56B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$6.21B
Enterprise Value
$8.28B
Net Debt
$944.20M
Equity Value
$7.34B
*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
$2.02
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.22
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 10 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 25.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 25.8.2026
Business Wire · 20.8.2026
StockStory · 17.8.2026
Zacks · 17.8.2026
StockStory · 10.8.2026
StockStory · 9.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.8.2026
Zacks · 3.8.2026
StockStory · 1.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 31.7.2026
Motley Fool · 31.7.2026
BGC Group, Inc. (BGC) 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.
BGC 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, BGC's estimated fair value is $15.25, which is 24.8% above the current price of $12.22. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BGC's technical score is 57/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $15.25 vs. price $12.22 (+24.8%); Revenue growth (last year): 30.0%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 24.0%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Debt/equity: 1.85; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; -2.3% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Yes — BGC 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 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUBIN JEAN-PIERRE | Disposition to the Company | 28.8.2026 | 1,082,071 | -373,191 | $12.12 |
| AUBIN JEAN-PIERRE | Disposition to the Company | 28.8.2026 | 373,191 | -373,191 | $12.12 |
| AUBIN JEAN-PIERRE | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 269,557 | +269,557 | — |
| Windeatt Sean A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 5,649 | -5,649 | $9.84 |
| Hauf Jason W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 42,835 | +42,835 | — |
| ABULARRAGE JOHN J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 350,727 | +350,727 | — |
| MERKEL STEPHEN M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 77,882 | +77,882 | $9.84 |
| Hauf Jason W. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 6,320 | -6,320 | $9.84 |
| Windeatt Sean A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 268,498 | +268,498 | — |
| MERKEL STEPHEN M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 16,576 | -16,576 | $9.84 |
| ABULARRAGE JOHN J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 832,072 | +350,727 | — |
| AUBIN JEAN-PIERRE | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 1,455,262 | +269,557 | — |
| Hauf Jason W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 120,031 | +42,835 | — |
| Hauf Jason W. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 113,711 | -6,320 | $9.84 |
| MERKEL STEPHEN M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 212,317 | +77,882 | $9.84 |
| MERKEL STEPHEN M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 195,741 | -16,576 | $9.84 |
| Windeatt Sean A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.4.2026 | 730,762 | +268,498 | — |
| Windeatt Sean A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 725,113 | -5,649 | $9.84 |
| ABULARRAGE JOHN J. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.3.2026 | 41,516 | -41,516 | $9.57 |
| AUBIN JEAN-PIERRE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.3.2026 | 14,392 | -14,392 | $9.57 |
| AUBIN JEAN-PIERRE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.3.2026 | 1,185,705 | -14,392 | $9.57 |
| ABULARRAGE JOHN J. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.3.2026 | 481,345 | -41,516 | $9.57 |
| AUBIN JEAN-PIERRE | Open Market Sale | 5.3.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $9.55 |
| AUBIN JEAN-PIERRE | Open Market Sale | 5.3.2026 | 1,121,641 | -10,000 | $9.55 |
| Windeatt Sean A | Disposition to the Company | 22.1.2026 | 246,360 | -246,360 | $9.17 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
12,576,458 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,208,663 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
65.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 68.6% 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