Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$138.02
▼ $2.36 (-1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:43 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$38.60B
Day Range
$136.88 - $140.59
52-Week Range
$131.75 - $176.22
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
Support
$133.88
Resistance
$157.23
DHI is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-18.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/24 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $161.10 vs. price $138.02 (+16.7%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.16 (3y annualized return 6.7% / max drawdown 41.6%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
83/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+6.4%
Median 40D Outcome
38/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
73%
+9.3% … +20.9%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.2% … +0.2%
🔴 Bearish
20%
-13.0% … -10.8%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 20 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 73% (95% CI 48%–89%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +9.5%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
4 occurrence(s) · 75% historical success
Echo #2 — 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.5% | -1.6% … +4.2% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.7% | -1.9% … +7.8% | +0.9% |
| 20D | 73% (48%–89%) | +9.5% | +2.2% … +14.8% | +1.6% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +6.4% | +2.0% … +26.2% | +2.8% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +5.1% | +1.2% … +32.2% | +4.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-09-27 | 83/100 | Downtrend | -14.8% | -21.2% |
| 2023-10-13 | 82/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +18.4% | +49.1% |
| 2026-01-06 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +9.5% | -3.3% |
| 2021-10-08 | 81/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +10.9% | +26.7% |
| 2018-07-03 | 81/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +6.6% | +1.7% |
| 2018-05-18 | 81/100 | Downtrend | +0.2% | +5.1% |
| 2025-11-13 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +9.1% | +14.3% |
| 2018-09-13 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -11.1% | -15.8% |
| 2026-04-01 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +11.3% | +18.8% |
| 2023-10-30 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +23.3% | +37.6% |
| 2026-06-03 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +9.7% | +2.0% |
| 2024-06-18 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +24.4% | +39.7% |
| 2024-07-09 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +27.7% | +40.1% |
| 2025-10-20 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -10.4% | +4.7% |
| 2026-05-11 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +4.2% | +0.7% |
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 XLY (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
46
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
40
Quality
No data available
Value
67
Momentum
24
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
61
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING DHI...
Recent media coverage of D.R. Horton (DHI) has primarily centered on its stock performance relative to broader market trends and sector benchmarks, with a focus on its recent modest gains. Analysts and investors have noted DHI’s outperformance in the consumer cyclical sector, while Berkshire Hathaway’s involvement—including Warren Buffett and Greg Abel’s bullish stance on dividend-paying housing stocks—has sparked discussion about the company’s long-term potential amid shifting housing market signals. Some commentary also highlights DHI’s valuation and whether its stock reflects underlying challenges or contrarian value.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about D. R. Horton. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 7 vs. 7 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
13
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
40
Fundamentals
61
Technical
24
Valuation
67
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
31
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
-7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior in DHI reflects relative strength relative to peers, consistent with investors aligning with recent outperformance. Low FOMO and anchoring scores imply limited urgency or panic, while muted volatility (0.86x ATR) suggests controlled participation. The key question is whether this herding persists as the narrative-reality gap (-6) hints at potential misalignment between market sentiment and fundamentals. The open question: Will traders sustain herding if peer performance diverges further?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:47 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Warren Buffett and Greg Abel Are Bullish on 4 Contrarian Stocks That All Pay Dividends"
"Greg Abel just steered Berkshire Hathaway into a massive housing bet right as the market sends some of its ugliest demand signals in years"
"growing focus on mold related lawsuits and construction quality may pressure margins"
"D.R. Horton Stock: Is DHI Underperforming the Consumer Cyclical Sector?"
📈 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into two starkly contrasting camps: the bullish camp, led by Mackay and Nelson, sees it as a low-risk opportunity, with Mackay’s near-perfect score suggesting no crowd-driven mania and Nelson’s cycle analysis positioning it as oversold rather than overbought. Meanwhile, Marks and Graham offer more cautious nods, with Marks calling the risk ‘reasonably priced’ and Graham acknowledging mixed—but not outright disqualifying—qualities. On the other end of the spectrum, Fisher, Lynch, and Livermore outright reject it, with Fisher dismissing its growth potential, Lynch finding it lacking in value, and Livermore’s near-zero score flagging a direct conflict with his trend-following discipline. The middle ground, populated by Housel, Schwager, and Smith, offers lukewarm support—Housel alone sees it as a ‘quiet compounder’ worth holding, while the others see it as neutral or merely reasonable, lacking the clarity or conviction of the extremes.
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)
🟢 82
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)
🟢 82
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)
🟢 80
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 69
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 66
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 44
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 44
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 34
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 32
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 31
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 19
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)
🔴 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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 8 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 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
23.7%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
10.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
14.8%
ROA
10.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$11.62
Cash
$2.99B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 6.8.2026 | $0.450 |
| 7.5.2026 | $0.450 |
| 6.5.2026 | $0.450 |
| 5.2.2026 | $0.450 |
| 4.2.2026 | $0.450 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.450 |
| 12.11.2025 | $0.450 |
| 7.8.2025 | $0.400 |
| 6.8.2025 | $0.400 |
| 2.5.2025 | $0.400 |
| 1.5.2025 | $0.400 |
| 7.2.2025 | $0.400 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$138.02
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$161.10
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+16.7%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
0.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9% | $3.31B | $3.04B |
| 2 | 1.3% | $3.36B | $2.83B |
| 3 | 1.7% | $3.41B | $2.64B |
| 4 | 2.1% | $3.49B | $2.47B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.57B | $2.32B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$3.28B
Terminal Value
$56.36B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$36.63B
Enterprise Value
$49.92B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$49.92B
*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
$78.06
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$77.53
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 6 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
CNBC · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 15.9.2026
Barrons.com · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
D. R. Horton (DHI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, rated "Moderate" (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.
DHI currently scores 46/100 (Moderate) 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, DHI's estimated fair value is $161.10, which is 16.7% above the current price of $138.02. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
DHI's technical score is 24/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $161.10 vs. price $138.02 (+16.7%); Free cash flow growth: 62.2%; P/E: 11.9.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.16 (3y annualized return 6.7% / max drawdown 41.6%); Revenue growth (last year): -6.9%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -19.3%.
Yes — DHI 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Murray Michael J | Gift | 8.9.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | — |
| CROWLEY ELAINE D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 792 | -264 | — |
| Smith Barbara | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 817 | +264 | — |
| Smith Barbara | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 792 | -264 | — |
| CROW M CHAD | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 792 | -264 | — |
| CROW M CHAD | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 951 | +264 | — |
| CROWLEY ELAINE D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 817 | +264 | — |
| CROWLEY ELAINE D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 264 | -264 | — |
| CROWLEY ELAINE D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 264 | +264 | — |
| Smith Barbara | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 264 | -264 | — |
| CROW M CHAD | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 264 | +264 | — |
| CROW M CHAD | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 264 | -264 | — |
| Smith Barbara | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 264 | +264 | — |
| Auld David V | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.4.2026 | 4,013 | -4,013 | $162.95 |
| Auld David V | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 5,110 | +5,110 | — |
| Romanowski Paul J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.4.2026 | 6,024 | -6,024 | $162.95 |
| Romanowski Paul J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 7,665 | +7,665 | — |
| Murray Michael J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 6,388 | +6,388 | — |
| Murray Michael J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.4.2026 | 4,992 | -4,992 | $162.95 |
| WHEAT BILL W | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.4.2026 | 3,920 | -3,920 | $162.95 |
| WHEAT BILL W | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 5,110 | +5,110 | — |
| WHEAT BILL W | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 340,464 | +5,110 | — |
| WHEAT BILL W | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.4.2026 | 336,544 | -3,920 | $162.95 |
| Auld David V | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 946,354 | +5,110 | — |
| Auld David V | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.4.2026 | 942,341 | -4,013 | $162.95 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
10,090,318 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,516,025 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.4% 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