Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Utilities · ·
$65.34
▼ $0.86 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:39 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$20.49B
Day Range
$65.14 - $65.86
52-Week Range
$65.14 - $80.36
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$65.14
Resistance
$76.39
CMS is a stock from the Utilities sector — Electricity, water, and residential gas — steady demand and heavy regulation, considered a defensive, dividend-paying sector.
-6.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/29 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
🟡 Mixed
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
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.98
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
90/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+2.3%
Median 40D Outcome
65/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+4.3% … +7.0%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.5% … -0.2%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-11.1% … -2.0%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.4%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
2 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.5% | -0.7% … +1.6% | +0.0% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.4% | -1.8% … +3.3% | +0.0% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.4% | -1.7% … +5.5% | +0.0% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.3% | -5.4% … +5.4% | -0.5% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.1% | -7.8% … +6.9% | -0.6% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980-08-29 | 90/100 | Downtrend | -0.7% | -9.0% |
| 1979-04-24 | 90/100 | Downtrend | +0.0% | +6.7% |
| 1979-12-24 | 88/100 | Downtrend | -2.0% | -15.0% |
| 1978-05-15 | 87/100 | Downtrend | +3.4% | +11.5% |
| 1980-08-08 | 87/100 | Downtrend | -1.4% | -6.8% |
| 1980-10-13 | 87/100 | Downtrend | -5.7% | -2.1% |
| 1976-06-14 | 86/100 | Consolidation | +5.7% | +10.1% |
| 1983-08-12 | 86/100 | Downtrend | +6.9% | +4.9% |
| 1979-10-09 | 85/100 | Downtrend | -11.1% | -8.8% |
| 1983-11-08 | 85/100 | Downtrend | -16.8% | -28.7% |
| 1981-10-26 | 85/100 | Downtrend | +7.0% | +3.1% |
| 1982-01-26 | 84/100 | Downtrend | +4.5% | +6.8% |
| 1981-09-10 | 84/100 | Downtrend | +5.4% | +6.9% |
| 1981-12-14 | 83/100 | Downtrend | +3.8% | +7.5% |
| 2026-06-01 | 83/100 | Downtrend | +8.4% | -1.9% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLU (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
41
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 23, 2026
Then
42
$68.27
Now
41
$65.34
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
59
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
10
Risk
36
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
49
Institutional
50
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CMS...
Recent media coverage of **CMS Energy** has primarily focused on its subsidiary, **Consumers Energy**, which dominates the headlines. The company has announced a **20-year energy supply plan** emphasizing a balanced mix of natural gas, solar, wind, and storage to ensure reliable and affordable energy for Michigan. Additionally, Consumers Energy introduced a **new safety tool, "Crew Check,"** to help customers identify gas workers in their neighborhoods. Separately, CMS Energy’s stock performance and dividend status have been briefly discussed, with analysts maintaining a **buy rating** and setting a price target of $80. No direct CMS Energy news beyond these points is evident in the sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CMS Energy. 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
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
94
Fundamentals
49
Technical
10
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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)
-11%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
-1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixated on the 1.9% proximity to support, likely treating it as a hard threshold. Herding is present but muted, as the stock’s movement aligns with peers without extreme deviation. The narrative gap (4 points) hints at a slight disconnect between market perception and fundamentals, but no clear bias like overconfidence or euphoria is active. The key question is whether the 1.9% support holds or if traders will adjust their anchor if price tests it.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:17 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Dividend activity recap for Champions, Contenders & Challengers: dividend changes plus upcoming ex-dividend and pay dates."
"Argus Research analyst reiterates CMS Energy (NYSE:CMS) with a Buy and maintains $80 price target."
"CMS Energy (CMS) reported earnings 30 days ago... stock down 6.9% since last earnings report."
"Analysts lowering their price targets put more pressure on CMS Energy."
📈 17D 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
Walter Bagehot — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divergent verdicts reflect deep methodological divides between cautious, value-driven investors and those prioritizing growth or cyclical positioning. At the top, Charles Mackay’s near-perfect score suggests no speculative frenzy, while Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) see it as undervalued or early-cycle, aligning with their bias toward buying dips or favorable market phases. Meanwhile, the middle tier—including Fisher, Smith, and even Marks (general)—cautiously acknowledge strengths but flag concerns like high expectations or mediocre long-term fit. The bottom half, however, reveals a sharp split: Graham and Bagehot’s ultra-low scores stem from strict liquidity and valuation thresholds, while Livermore and Lynch dismiss it outright for trend or growth-at-a-reasonable-price failures. The contrast underscores how a stock’s perceived risk-reward shifts from ‘opportunistic’ (Nelson) to ‘dangerous’ (Bagehot) depending on whether the focus is on timing, fundamentals, or defensive metrics.
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)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 85
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 66
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 61
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 59
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 51
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 42
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 33
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 26
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 24
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 21
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 9
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 8
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 bearish · 1 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.
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
20.2%
Net Margin
12.5%
EBITDA Margin
35.5%
ROE
11.7%
ROA
2.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.53
Cash
$509.00M
Total Debt
$18.76B
Current Ratio
0.98
Debt/Equity
2.05
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 7.8.2026 | $0.570 |
| 8.5.2026 | $0.570 |
| 7.5.2026 | $0.570 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.570 |
| 16.2.2026 | $0.570 |
| 7.11.2025 | $0.543 |
| 6.11.2025 | $0.543 |
| 8.8.2025 | $0.543 |
| 7.8.2025 | $0.543 |
| 9.5.2025 | $0.543 |
| 8.5.2025 | $0.543 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.543 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$30.38
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$30.38
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 10 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
PR Newswire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Zacks · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 24.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Stocktwits · 24.8.2026
CMS Energy (CMS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 41/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CMS currently scores 41/100 (Weak) 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.
CMS's technical score is 10/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; ATR: 1.7% of price; Operating margin: 20.2% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.98; Calmar: 0.26 (3y annualized return 4.8% / max drawdown 18.3%); Debt/equity: 2.05.
Yes — CMS 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 — 2 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MADDIPATI SRIKANTH | Open Market Purchase | 31.7.2026 | 200 | +200 | $72.46 |
| MADDIPATI SRIKANTH | Open Market Purchase | 31.7.2026 | 34,895 | +200 | $72.46 |
| MADDIPATI SRIKANTH | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.6.2026 | 10,184 | +10,184 | — |
| MADDIPATI SRIKANTH | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.6.2026 | 34,695 | +10,184 | — |
| Hofmeister Brandon J. | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $74.31 |
| Hofmeister Brandon J. | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 67,111 | -3,000 | $74.31 |
| Butler Deborah H | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| Leopold Diane | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| SHANK SUZANNE F. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| IZZO RALPH | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| Soto Myrna | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| Sznewajs John G | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| RUSSELL JOHN G | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| Keyes Richard Patrick | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| TANSKI RONALD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| Wright Laura | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 2,411 | +2,411 | — |
| RUSSELL JOHN G | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 134,068 | +2,411 | — |
| TANSKI RONALD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 20,903 | +2,411 | — |
| IZZO RALPH | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 10,779 | +2,411 | — |
| Wright Laura | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 43,623 | +2,411 | — |
| Sznewajs John G | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 37,594 | +2,411 | — |
| Butler Deborah H | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 39,850 | +2,411 | — |
| Leopold Diane | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 5,180 | +2,411 | — |
| Soto Myrna | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 41,023 | +2,411 | — |
| SHANK SUZANNE F. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 23,680 | +2,411 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
15,738,780 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,591,680 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
47.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.9% 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