Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$65.11
▼ $1.99 (-3.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 12:23 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$32.16B
Day Range
$65.03 - $67.73
52-Week Range
$31.63 - $69.63
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$56.67
Resistance
$69.63
CNC is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+102.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/30 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $166.70 vs. price $65.11 (+156.0%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -3.9% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
83/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+1.6%
Median 40D Outcome
62/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+5.6% … +7.2%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.1% … +0.8%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-14.4% … -6.7%
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 +4.0%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
11 occurrence(s) · 55% 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 | 33% (15%–58%) | +0.2% | -2.0% … +3.6% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.9% | -0.6% … +5.9% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +4.0% | -3.3% … +6.3% | +0.9% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.6% | -2.3% … +11.2% | +1.6% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +5.2% | +0.4% … +10.8% | +2.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-02-03 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -14.1% | +5.2% |
| 2017-11-14 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +8.8% | +10.8% |
| 2022-06-02 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +4.4% | +10.8% |
| 2022-03-08 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +4.0% | +1.2% |
| 2017-10-24 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +1.0% | +20.0% |
| 2017-12-06 | 81/100 | Uptrend | +7.1% | +2.6% |
| 2022-04-22 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +0.7% | +6.8% |
| 2018-04-30 | 80/100 | Uptrend | +7.7% | +21.5% |
| 2018-03-26 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +5.9% | +23.6% |
| 2022-03-23 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +6.5% | -7.4% |
| 2022-05-06 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -0.9% | +10.4% |
| 2018-02-01 | 79/100 | Uptrend | -5.6% | +1.7% |
| 2018-12-06 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -15.5% | -16.0% |
| 2024-03-06 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -7.1% | -7.7% |
| 2024-01-24 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +6.1% | -0.4% |
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 XLV (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
49
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
47
$65.02
Now
49
$65.11
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
51
Quality
42
Value
62
Momentum
46
Risk
42
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
23
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CNC...
Recent media coverage of Centene Corporation has primarily focused on its financial performance and market positioning. Analysts highlighted its inclusion in growth stock lists, such as Zacks’ Strong Buy recommendations, alongside discussions of its undervalued potential and strong estimate revisions. Additionally, the company’s subsidiary, Fidelis Care, received attention for launching a $140,000 maternal health grant program in New York to support postpartum care and mental health screening. Broader industry trends, including Medicare Advantage plan changes, were also noted, though not directly tied to Centene.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Centene Corporation. News trend score: 98. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
33
Fundamentals
23
Technical
46
Valuation
62
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 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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+7%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers after CNC’s relative underperformance today. Euphoria and anchoring coexist, indicating detached valuation optimism near resistance, while FOMO’s momentum and sentiment may fuel further participation. The key question is whether traders will double down on the stock’s relative lag or pivot if peer weakness persists. Overconfidence in price momentum over fundamentals could amplify herding if sentiment remains extreme. The narrative gap (56 vs. 36) hints at potential disconnect between market perception and fundamentals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:00 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Insurers spent the summer telling Wall Street exactly which Medicare Advantage plans are disappearing on December 31."
"CNC and AVT are five undervalued stocks with strong estimate revisions and growth prospects."
"Stocks like PRAA, CNC, BILL and PARR are seeing price strength, and the momentum is likely to continue."
"CNC made it to the Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) growth stocks list."
📈 14D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 64/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with scores ranging from a cautious 61 under Benjamin Graham’s traditional framework to a resounding 12 under Thorstein Veblen’s critique of speculative excess. Graham and Fisher both see *some* merit—Graham’s mixed verdict suggests it fails to meet his strict margin-of-safety tests, while Fisher acknowledges solid fundamentals but not the exceptional quality he sought. Meanwhile, the lower-scoring approaches—from Gerald Loeb’s risk aversion to Veblen’s dismissal of growth-for-growth’s-sake—highlight divergent priorities: Loeb’s focus on capital preservation clashes with the more opportunistic signals from Nelson or Marks’ late-cycle warning. The middle ground, where investors like Marks or Housel see it as ‘holdable but not effortless,’ reflects a consensus that the stock isn’t a slam dunk but also not a glaring misfit—yet the extremes underscore how subjective criteria (e.g., Fisher’s ‘exceptional quality’ vs. Veblen’s skepticism of trends) can polarize even moderately attractive cases.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 64
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 61
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 58
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 56
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 54
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 46
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 42
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 33
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 30
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 29
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 28
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 25
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
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 (3 bullish · 5 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.
A trading range after an advance, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of a distribution phase.
Low confidence
$56.67
Range Bottom
$69.63
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
7.3%
Operating Margin
-3.9%
Net Margin
-3.4%
EBITDA Margin
-3.3%
ROE
-33.4%
ROA
-8.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$13.53
Cash
$17.89B
Total Debt
$17.40B
Current Ratio
1.10
Debt/Equity
0.87
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$65.11
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$166.70
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+156.0%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.6% | $4.78B | $4.39B |
| 2 | 8.6% | $5.19B | $4.37B |
| 3 | 6.6% | $5.53B | $4.27B |
| 4 | 4.5% | $5.78B | $4.10B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $5.93B | $3.85B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$4.32B
Terminal Value
$93.46B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$60.74B
Enterprise Value
$81.72B
Net Debt
$-487.00M
Equity Value
$82.20B
*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
$40.46
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$9.30
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 4 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Centene Corporation (CNC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
CNC currently scores 49/100 (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, CNC's estimated fair value is $166.70, which is 156.0% above the current price of $65.11. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CNC's technical score is 46/100, 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: $166.70 vs. price $65.11 (+156.0%); Free cash flow growth: 981.8%; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -3.9% (negative); Net margin: -3.4% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CNC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KOSTER CHRISTOPHER | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 248,854 | -56,500 | $66.90 |
| KOSTER CHRISTOPHER | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 56,500 | -56,500 | $66.90 |
| KOSTER CHRISTOPHER | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 47,603 | -47,603 | $65.36 |
| DIAZ PAUL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 2,771 | +2,771 | — |
| DIAZ PAUL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 2,771 | +2,771 | — |
| Tyler Lauren M | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.7.2026 | 3,155 | +3,155 | — |
| Tyler Lauren M | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.7.2026 | 3,216 | +3,155 | — |
| EPPINGER FREDERICK H | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 833 | +833 | — |
| COUGHLIN CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 562 | +562 | — |
| TANJI KENNETH | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 581 | +581 | — |
| Tyler Lauren M | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 61 | +61 | — |
| Samuels Theodore R. II | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 465 | +465 | — |
| COUGHLIN CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 18,711 | +562 | — |
| EPPINGER FREDERICK H | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 369,538 | +833 | — |
| Samuels Theodore R. II | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 25,213 | +465 | — |
| TANJI KENNETH | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 12,490 | +581 | — |
| Tyler Lauren M | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 61 | +61 | — |
| SMITH SUSAN RAYE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.6.2026 | 483 | -483 | $65.19 |
| SMITH SUSAN RAYE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.6.2026 | 212,237 | -483 | $65.19 |
| Burdick Kenneth A | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 80,000 | -80,000 | $64.55 |
| Burdick Kenneth A | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 197,086 | -80,000 | $64.55 |
| Carson Michael A | I | 29.5.2026 | 604.004 | -604.004 | $59.60 |
| Carson Michael A | I | 29.5.2026 | 0 | -604 | $59.60 |
| Carson Michael A | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 47.935 | +47.935 | $57.77 |
| Carson Michael A | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 604 | +48 | $57.77 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
13,426,202 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 13,590,512 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
41.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 45.0% 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