Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$40.10
▼ $0.07 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:03 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$39.55 - $40.57
52-Week Range
$39.16 - $69.18
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
Support
$39.16
Resistance
$52.16
-42.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 1/23 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Net margin
Net margin: 16.9% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$179.76 vs. price $40.10 (-548.3%)
Fair Value
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
30
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
26
Quality
No data available
Value
38
Momentum
6
Risk
42
Sentiment
26
Fundamental
56
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 **The Carlyle Group Inc.** has centered on its financial performance and strategic investments. The company’s stock has faced slight declines post-earnings, prompting speculation about potential rebounds. Notably, Carlyle finalized minority investments in the **Seattle Seahawks**, supporting the team’s ownership transition, while also reportedly preparing bids for other high-profile assets, including a **Serie A international media business**. Additionally, there are reports of Carlyle’s involvement in failed bids for major retail assets, such as the **Very Group** and the **Barclay family’s former retail empire**, due to valuation disputes.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about The Carlyle Group Inc.. News trend score: 26. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 5 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
41
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
53
Fundamentals
56
Technical
6
Valuation
38
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
23
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
-15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests **herding** is dominant, driven by relative underperformance versus peers today. Confirmation bias persists due to a significant narrative-reality gap (+17), despite stagnant revenue growth. Low FOMO and panic selling scores indicate muted urgency, while negative momentum and neutral RSI (44) dampen euphoric or panic-driven extremes. The key question: *Will the narrative gap close, or will traders double down on selective validation?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:23 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Carlyle (CG) and other private equity firms prepping bids for Serie A International Media Business"
"bidders baulk at £2bn valuation – report"
"Carlyle and Dynasty Equity Announce Closing of Minority Investments in the Seattle Seahawks"
📈 11D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s documented principles, the model estimates the stock is in a favorable cycle position, while Charles Mackay’s view similarly suggests no crowd mania, leading to relatively high scores. Howard Marks (both cycle and overall) and Jack Schwager give moderate scores, reflecting a view that the company is not overextended but that expectations may already be priced in, producing mixed but less enthusiastic assessments. In contrast, value‑oriented frameworks such as Benjamin Graham, Graham’s Enterprising Investor, and Philip Fisher assign low scores because the stock fails defensive criteria and lacks the quality‑growth signature they require. Risk‑focused thinkers like Gerald Loeb, Jesse Livermore, and Morgan Housel also rate it poorly, flagging capital‑risk and volatility concerns. The spread of scores therefore stems from each methodology’s emphasis—cycle timing and market sentiment versus deep value, intrinsic quality, or risk management.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟢 98
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 87
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
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)
🟢 73
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 73
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)
🟡 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%
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 46
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: 45%
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 29
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 22
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
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)
🔴 20
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 16
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 7
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 3
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 0
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
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 (0 bullish · 11 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
16.9%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
11.5%
ROA
2.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.25
Cash
$1.97B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 17.8.2026 | $0.350 |
| 18.5.2026 | $0.350 |
| 17.5.2026 | $0.350 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.350 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.350 |
| 10.11.2025 | $0.350 |
| 9.11.2025 | $0.350 |
| 18.8.2025 | $0.350 |
| 17.8.2025 | $0.350 |
| 19.5.2025 | $0.350 |
| 18.5.2025 | $0.350 |
| 21.2.2025 | $0.350 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$40.10
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$179.76
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-548.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
12.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.6% | $-3.80B | $-3.49B |
| 2 | 10.1% | $-4.19B | $-3.52B |
| 3 | 7.6% | $-4.50B | $-3.48B |
| 4 | 5.0% | $-4.73B | $-3.35B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-4.85B | $-3.15B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-3.37B
Terminal Value
$-76.45B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-49.68B
Enterprise Value
$-66.67B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-66.67B
*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
$19.03
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$17.66
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 6 neutral, 9 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
CorpGov.com · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
PR Newswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
The Carlyle Group Inc. (CG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 30/100, rated "Weak" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CG currently scores 30/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). 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, CG's estimated fair value is -$179.76, which is 548.3% below the current price of $40.10. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CG's technical score is 6/100, 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: Net margin: 16.9% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$179.76 vs. price $40.10 (-548.3%); Calmar: 0.17 (3y annualized return 7.3% / max drawdown 42.3%); Revenue growth (last year): -11.9%.
Yes — CG 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 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rubenstein David M. | Gift | 11.9.2026 | 100,000 | -100,000 | — |
| Rubenstein David M. | Open Market Sale | 11.9.2026 | 400,000 | -400,000 | $42.74 |
| LoBue Lindsay | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 700,578 | +2,657 | — |
| Plouffe Justin | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 852,461 | +3,769 | — |
| Andrews Charles Elliott Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 135,668 | +304 | — |
| Nedelman Jeffrey | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 1,609,479 | +6,615 | — |
| Jenkins Mark David | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 1,415,478 | +6,264 | — |
| Redett John C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 1,752,000 | +8,302 | — |
| Heinzelman Kate Elizabeth | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 11,109 | +78 | — |
| SCHWARTZ HARVEY M | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 5,273,362 | +19,240 | — |
| Redett John C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 8,302 | +8,302 | — |
| Plouffe Justin | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 3,769 | +3,769 | — |
| SCHWARTZ HARVEY M | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 19,240 | +19,240 | — |
| LoBue Lindsay | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 2,657 | +2,657 | — |
| Andrews Charles Elliott Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 304 | +304 | — |
| Nedelman Jeffrey | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 6,615 | +6,615 | — |
| Jenkins Mark David | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 6,264 | +6,264 | — |
| Heinzelman Kate Elizabeth | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.8.2026 | 78 | +78 | — |
| Nedelman Jeffrey | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 43,081 | -43,081 | $46.02 |
| Heinzelman Kate Elizabeth | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.8.2026 | 11,031 | +11,031 | — |
| Andrews Charles Elliott Jr. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 12,364 | -12,364 | $46.02 |
| Redett John C. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 124,558 | -124,558 | $46.02 |
| LoBue Lindsay | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 18,284 | -18,284 | $46.02 |
| Jenkins Mark David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 124,793 | -124,793 | $46.02 |
| Plouffe Justin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 62,533 | -62,533 | $46.02 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
17,896,730 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,750,625 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.0% 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