Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$176.82
▼ $0.92 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/19 06:29 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$5.42B
Day Range
$175.79 - $178.42
52-Week Range
$171.99 - $245.53
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$177.41
Resistance
$225.21
EXP is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-22.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/30 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $51.18 vs. price $176.82 (-71.1%)
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
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.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
34
Quality
58
Value
43
Momentum
6
Risk
48
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
71
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 Eagle Materials Inc. has centered on analyst activity and insider transactions. Notably, DA Davidson initiated coverage with a **Neutral rating** and a $220 price target, while Citigroup maintained its **Neutral stance** but lowered its price target to $232. Additionally, an insider sold over 3,000 shares, valued at $627,000, amid a broader market decline. No operational or financial performance updates were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Eagle Materials Inc. News trend score: 56. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 7 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
96
Fundamentals
71
Technical
6
Valuation
43
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-21%
Market Narrative
49
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+9
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (score 58) reflects traders’ fixation on the stock’s 2.1% proximity to support, a common reaction when price nears a psychological threshold. Overconfidence (45) and herding (47) also persist, likely due to the stock’s extreme valuation (+272% above DCF) and recent underperformance relative to peers. The narrative gap (22) further suggests a disconnect between market perception (optimistic) and fundamentals (stagnant). The key question is whether traders will hold or adjust positions as the stock tests support, given the tension between valuation optimism and technical weakness. The low FOMO (8) and neutral volume hint at cautious, rather than impulsive, trading behavior.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:59 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"DA Davidson Initiates Coverage of Eagle Materials (EXP) with Neutral Recommendation"
"Citigroup analyst lowers price target from $240 to $232"
"Company insider sells over 3,000 shares valued at $627,000"
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two starkly contrasting camps: a minority of investors like Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Walter Bagehot see it as a compelling opportunity, while the majority—including heavyweights like Jesse Livermore and Morgan Housel—flag it as risky or unattractive. Nelson’s near-perfect score suggests the stock’s technicals align with his cyclical oversold bias, while Bagehot’s liquidity focus implies resilience in downturns. In contrast, Graham, Lynch, and Livermore dismiss it outright, with Livermore’s low score reflecting a clear trend divergence from his trend-following rules. The middle-ground thinkers—like Marks, Fisher, and the efficient-market camp—highlight mixed signals, with Fisher’s low score indicating a lack of his signature growth quality, while Marks’ caution flags valuation risks. The divide underscores whether the stock’s cyclical or liquidity strengths outweigh its structural weaknesses or volatility, a tension that even the highest-scoring methodologies can’t fully resolve.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 90
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 84
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 76
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 75
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)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 47
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 45
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 44
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 38
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)
🟡 37
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 35
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)
🔴 23
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)
🔴 23
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 11
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
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.
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
28.3%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
18.4%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
28.7%
ROA
11.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$13.24
Cash
$297.92M
Total Debt
$1.76B
Current Ratio
3.66
Debt/Equity
1.19
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.9.2026 | $0.250 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.250 |
| 14.6.2026 | $0.250 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.250 |
| 15.3.2026 | $0.250 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.250 |
| 14.12.2025 | $0.250 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.250 |
| 14.9.2025 | $0.250 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.250 |
| 15.6.2025 | $0.250 |
| 17.3.2025 | $0.250 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$176.82
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$51.18
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-71.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.5% | $202.27M | $185.57M |
| 2 | 2.5% | $207.26M | $174.45M |
| 3 | 2.5% | $212.39M | $164.01M |
| 4 | 2.5% | $217.68M | $154.21M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $223.12M | $145.01M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$197.43M
Terminal Value
$3.52B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.29B
Enterprise Value
$3.11B
Net Debt
$1.46B
Equity Value
$1.65B
*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
$45.81
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$31.19
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 5 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Fintel · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
The Fly · 9.9.2026
The Fly · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Motley Fool · 28.8.2026
Fintel · 27.8.2026
Business Wire · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 25.8.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
Benzinga · 18.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.8.2026
Eagle Materials Inc (EXP) 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.
EXP 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, EXP's estimated fair value is $51.18, which is 71.1% below the current price of $176.82. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
EXP'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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 28.7% — strong; Current ratio: 3.66.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $51.18 vs. price $176.82 (-71.1%); Calmar: 0.02 (3y annualized return 0.7% / max drawdown 45.1%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -4.4%.
Yes — EXP 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 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thompson Tony | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 3,074 | -3,074 | $203.96 |
| Thompson Tony | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 10,142 | -3,074 | $203.96 |
| Gregorio Mauro | Gift | 5.8.2026 | 1,273 | -1,173 | — |
| Gregorio Mauro | Gift | 5.8.2026 | 1,173 | -1,173 | — |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 561 | -561 | $212.35 |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 6,757 | -561 | $212.35 |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 1,659 | -1,659 | $204.56 |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 478 | -478 | $204.00 |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 2,517 | -2,517 | $203.57 |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 11,494 | -478 | $204.00 |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 8,977 | -2,517 | $203.57 |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 7,318 | -1,659 | $204.56 |
| Rush David E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,273 | +1,273 | — |
| Gregorio Mauro | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,273 | +1,273 | — |
| Damiris George John | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,273 | +1,273 | — |
| NICOLAIS MICHAEL R | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,341 | +1,341 | — |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| RICCIARDELLO MARY P | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 827 | +827 | — |
| RICCIARDELLO MARY P | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 955 | +955 | — |
| BECKWITT RICHARD | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| NICOLAIS MICHAEL R | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,549 | +1,549 | — |
| ELLEN MARTIN M | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Carter Margot Lebenberg | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 11,972 | +1,400 | — |
| NICOLAIS MICHAEL R | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 54,411 | +1,549 | — |
| NICOLAIS MICHAEL R | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.7.2026 | 1,341 | +1,341 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,065,576 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,921,344 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 67.6% 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