Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Communication Services · ·
$102.67
▼ $2.68 (-2.5%)
Market data updated: 09/19 05:57 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$177.28B
Day Range
$102.37 - $105.00
52-Week Range
$92.19 - $117.09
Beta
—
Next Earnings
11.11.2026
Support
$92.49
Resistance
$111.87
DIS is a stock from the Communication Services sector — Telecom, media, and internet/social platforms — revenue from advertising and subscriptions.
-9.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/31 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 151.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $71.84 vs. price $102.67 (-30.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
90/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-4.1%
Median 40D Outcome
68/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
7%
+1.2% … +1.2%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.2% … +0.3%
🔴 Bearish
73%
-8.5% … -3.1%
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, 7% (95% CI 1%–30%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -3.4%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
1 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 | 7% (1%–30%) | -2.3% | -2.8% … +0.3% | +0.0% |
| 10D | 7% (1%–30%) | -2.0% | -6.1% … -1.1% | -0.2% |
| 20D | 7% (1%–30%) | -3.4% | -6.7% … -0.9% | -0.4% |
| 40D | 7% (1%–30%) | -4.1% | -13.2% … -2.8% | -1.2% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -2.4% | -9.4% … +2.2% | -0.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-01-26 | 90/100 | Consolidation | -4.7% | -5.8% |
| 2025-03-04 | 85/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -10.4% | +2.8% |
| 2018-12-12 | 84/100 | Consolidation | +0.4% | +2.2% |
| 2018-02-14 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -1.3% | -2.4% |
| 2025-01-06 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.5% | -20.0% |
| 2025-11-06 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.7% | -3.1% |
| 2018-03-13 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -2.8% | -1.2% |
| 2019-08-20 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.2% | +10.1% |
| 2024-12-18 | 82/100 | Uptrend | -2.4% | -9.9% |
| 2025-09-10 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -3.4% | -8.9% |
| 2020-02-11 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -25.2% | -25.1% |
| 2025-02-18 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -9.3% | +3.1% |
| 2025-10-03 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +0.1% | +2.1% |
| 2025-10-20 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -5.6% | +1.3% |
| 2024-05-02 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -7.7% | -16.7% |
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 XLC (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
54
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
73
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
54
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
53
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING DIS...
Recent media coverage of The Walt Disney Company has focused on its financial and operational shifts, including the shutdown of its online Disney Store in major markets as part of a broader retail pullback. Additionally, headlines highlight rising ticket prices at Disney parks—now exceeding $200—alongside concerns about financial strain on visitors, such as debt for vacations. Analysts also note Disney’s consistent earnings growth, though its stock remains undervalued relative to expectations, with predictions of a potential rebound to $130 per share.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Walt Disney Company (The). News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 8 vs. 8 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
12
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
39
Fundamentals
53
Technical
54
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
54
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests investors are exhibiting **overconfidence**, likely due to a disconnect between price performance and fundamental growth. The stock trades +45% above DCF fair value while EPS growth outpaces price momentum, signaling potential mispricing. The narrative gap (52 vs. 42) hints at optimism not fully grounded in reality. Key uncertainty remains: whether overconfidence persists or corrects as fundamentals align with valuation. No clear panic or FOMO signals dominate, reinforcing cautious optimism.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:15 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Disney just posted its fifth straight earnings beat, yet shares remain stuck well below where the math says they should be."
"A Day at Disney World Can Now Cost Over $200 Per Ticket... finance experts warn would-be visitors to be mindful of their finances."
"The company is ending online Disney Store operations in several major markets."
📈 12D 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
Peter Lynch — 83/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 19/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented and value-driven methodologies. Peter Lynch and Morgan Housel both see it as a high-potential pick—Lynch highlights undervalued growth potential, while Housel frames it as a patient investor’s quiet compounder. Meanwhile, Samuel Nelson and Charles Mackay lean toward cyclical or crowd-free opportunities, though their enthusiasm is slightly tempered. In contrast, value purists like Benjamin Graham and Walter Bagehot dismiss it outright, with Graham calling it unsafe and Bagehot flagging liquidity risks. The middle ground is occupied by mixed signals from Howard Marks (who questions inflated expectations) and Philip Fisher (who lacks the signature quality/growth traits), while efficient-market theorists and technical analysts see little clear edge. The divergence underscores whether the stock’s strengths lie in momentum, fundamentals, or structural risks—depending on the investor’s framework.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 83
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 81
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 80
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 73
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 71
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 62
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 62
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
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)
🟡 55
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 49
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)
🟡 49
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 44
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 31
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 24
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
🔴 19
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 19
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 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.
The stock is in a clear uptrend 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
18.6%
Net Margin
13.1%
EBITDA Margin
24.2%
ROE
11.3%
ROA
6.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.88
Cash
$5.70B
Total Debt
$42.03B
Current Ratio
0.71
Debt/Equity
0.38
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 30.6.2026 | $0.750 |
| 29.6.2026 | $0.750 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.750 |
| 14.12.2025 | $0.750 |
| 24.6.2025 | $0.500 |
| 23.6.2025 | $0.500 |
| 16.12.2024 | $0.500 |
| 15.12.2024 | $0.500 |
| 8.7.2024 | $0.450 |
| 7.7.2024 | $0.450 |
| 8.12.2023 | $0.300 |
| 7.12.2023 | $0.300 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$102.67
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$71.84
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-30.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
4.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.5% | $10.53B | $9.66B |
| 2 | 4.0% | $10.96B | $9.22B |
| 3 | 3.5% | $11.34B | $8.76B |
| 4 | 3.0% | $11.68B | $8.28B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $11.98B | $7.78B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$10.08B
Terminal Value
$188.85B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$122.74B
Enterprise Value
$166.44B
Net Debt
$36.33B
Equity Value
$130.11B
*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
$60.67
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.08
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 4 neutral, 8 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
CNBC · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Walt Disney Company (The) (DIS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
DIS currently scores 54/100 (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, DIS's estimated fair value is $71.84, which is 30.0% below the current price of $102.67. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
DIS's technical score is 54/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 151.8%; Net income growth: 149.5%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $71.84 vs. price $102.67 (-30.0%); Current ratio: 0.71; Calmar: 0.22 (3y annualized return 7.4% / max drawdown 33.5%).
Yes — DIS 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 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WOODFORD BRENT | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 3,618 | +3,618 | $105.21 |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 3,618 | -3,618 | — |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 3,618 | -3,618 | $107.13 |
| Roeder Paul M | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 3,596 | -3,596 | $106.32 |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 7,238 | -7,238 | — |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 7,238 | -7,238 | $105.31 |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 7,238 | +7,238 | $105.21 |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 1,162 | +1,162 | — |
| Coleman Sonia L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 559 | -559 | $98.42 |
| Roeder Paul M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 343 | -343 | $98.42 |
| Roeder Paul M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 955 | +955 | — |
| Roeder Paul M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 955 | -955 | — |
| Coleman Sonia L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 1,181 | -1,181 | — |
| Coleman Sonia L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 1,181 | +1,181 | — |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 1,162 | -1,162 | — |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 362 | -362 | $98.42 |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 62,685 | +1,162 | — |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 62,323 | -362 | $98.42 |
| WOODFORD BRENT | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 0 | -1,162 | — |
| Coleman Sonia L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 4,316 | +1,181 | — |
| Coleman Sonia L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 3,757 | -559 | $98.42 |
| Coleman Sonia L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 0 | -1,181 | — |
| Roeder Paul M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 3,936 | +955 | — |
| Roeder Paul M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.7.2026 | 3,593 | -343 | $98.42 |
| Roeder Paul M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.7.2026 | 0 | -955 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
20,629,864 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 19,483,572 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 44.8% 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