Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$276.41
▼ $0.68 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/17 08:38 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$9.83B
Day Range
$271.06 - $277.14
52-Week Range
$185.00 - $338.53
Beta
—
Next Earnings
30.09.2026
FDS is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
-19.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/29 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 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
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.5% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
73/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
87/100
Analog Quality
+7.0%
Median 40D Outcome
41/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+7.7% … +13.1%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.3% … +0.3%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-5.0% … -3.7%
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 +2.2%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 100% 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%) | +0.8% | -8.0% … +3.9% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.2% | -4.0% … +6.0% | +1.0% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.2% | -2.4% … +9.2% | +1.2% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +7.0% | -0.8% … +14.4% | +1.5% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +8.9% | +0.5% … +14.1% | +1.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-08 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +10.2% | +24.3% |
| 2018-04-05 | 70/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -5.0% | +0.7% |
| 2022-09-29 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +6.7% | +0.3% |
| 2018-07-03 | 68/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.6% | +12.6% |
| 2017-12-27 | 66/100 | Consolidation | +8.2% | +8.9% |
| 2020-06-24 | 66/100 | Uptrend | +17.1% | +13.2% |
| 2026-06-17 | 66/100 | Consolidation | +13.0% | +21.3% |
| 2020-03-10 | 65/100 | Consolidation | -1.0% | +15.0% |
| 2024-08-01 | 65/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.2% | +11.3% |
| 2020-05-04 | 64/100 | Consolidation | +13.4% | +29.1% |
| 2022-12-15 | 64/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.5% | -6.1% |
| 2020-12-24 | 63/100 | Consolidation | -4.7% | -1.9% |
| 2024-10-31 | 63/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +8.1% | +4.0% |
| 2022-05-04 | 63/100 | Downtrend | -3.7% | +5.9% |
| 2026-01-23 | 63/100 | Consolidation | -33.6% | -16.2% |
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 XLF (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
as of 09/04/202656
This Week
73
7D Ago
↓ -17
Weakening
Technical
36
7D Ago: 89
↓ -53
Fundamental
75
7D Ago: 78
↓ -3
Growth
62
7D Ago: 62
→ 0
Valuation
50
7D Ago: 50
→ 0
News
74
7D Ago: 100
↓ -26
Quality
58
7D Ago: 58
→ 0
Risk
34
7D Ago: 42
↓ -8
Biggest Declines
📊 Score History
56
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
3d ago · $259.71
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 7 to 32 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
13d ago · $312.96
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
13d ago · $312.96
Evidence: 10 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
56 / 100
🐻 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 26, 2026
Then
69
$296.08
Now
56
$276.41
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
62
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
36
Risk
34
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
75
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING FDS...
The provided news headlines do not contain any information or media coverage regarding FactSet. The supplied sources instead focus on quarterly financial results, revenue guidance, and analyst rating changes for various other companies. As a result, no relevant media coverage about FactSet can be summarized from the provided text.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about FactSet. News trend score: 74. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 6 negative.
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)
40
Psychology
31
Fundamentals
75
Technical
36
Valuation
50
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.
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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+25%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+2
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a **narrative-reality disconnect** (gap: 19) where euphoric positioning (+18.1% above 200-day avg) persists despite weak momentum (-3.7% ROC) and peer underperformance. Herding dominates (score: 26) as traders align with peers despite the stock lagging, while euphoria (score: 32) reflects overvaluation relative to fundamentals. The absence of panic or FOMO signals (scores: 9, 11) implies complacency, though the narrative gap hints at potential mispricing. The key question: *Will traders recognize the divergence between price momentum and fundamentals?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 11:44 AM
What could change this?
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 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
Thorstein Veblen — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 24/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on their documented principles, the model estimates that Veblen, Nelson, Mackay, Smith and Fisher assign relatively high scores because they emphasize real value creation, favorable cycle position, emerging crowd enthusiasm and long‑term buy‑and‑hold potential. Mid‑range scores from Bagehot, Livermore, Howard Marks (both cycle and general), the efficient‑market view, Lynch and Schwager reflect mixed or neutral assessments, often citing liquidity adequacy, lack of a clear trend, or being situated in the middle of a market cycle. The lower scores from Graham, Loeb, Housel and Graham’s Enterprising framework highlight defensive concerns, risk‑aversion and insufficient cheapness, leading them to view the stock as too volatile or not meeting safety margins. Consequently, the divergence stems from each methodology’s core focus—growth and long‑term fundamentals versus margin of safety, cycle timing and volatility—producing a range of conclusions from cautiously favorable to markedly unfavorable.
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 80
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 74
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 66
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 64
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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)
🟡 47
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 44
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 43
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 38
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 38
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
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
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 26
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 24
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
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 (2 bullish · 7 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
52.7%
Operating Margin
32.2%
Net Margin
25.7%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
27.3%
ROA
13.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$15.74
Cash
$337.65M
Total Debt
$1.37B
Current Ratio
1.40
Debt/Equity
0.63
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 31.8.2026 | $1.160 |
| 29.5.2026 | $1.160 |
| 28.5.2026 | $1.160 |
| 27.2.2026 | $1.100 |
| 26.2.2026 | $1.100 |
| 28.11.2025 | $1.100 |
| 27.11.2025 | $1.100 |
| 29.8.2025 | $1.100 |
| 28.8.2025 | $1.100 |
| 30.5.2025 | $1.100 |
| 29.5.2025 | $1.100 |
| 28.2.2025 | $1.040 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$58.08
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$7.18
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 4 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
Benzinga · 12.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
FactSet (FDS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
FDS currently scores 56/100 (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.
FDS's technical score is 36/100, 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): 27.3% — strong; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.5% of price; Calmar: -0.22 (3y annualized return -13.7% / max drawdown 61.7%); Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — FDS 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warren Joshua | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 8,567 | +8,567 | — |
| Warren Joshua | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,272 | +2,272 | — |
| Warren Joshua | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,272 | +2,272 | — |
| Warren Joshua | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 8,567 | +8,567 | — |
| Moskoff Gregory T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.2.2026 | 3 | -3 | $222.62 |
| Moskoff Gregory T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.2.2026 | 183 | -3 | $222.62 |
| Moskoff Gregory T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.2.2026 | 4 | -4 | $254.36 |
| Moskoff Gregory T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.2.2026 | 186 | -4 | $254.36 |
| ABRAMS ROBIN ANN | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,477 | +1,477 | — |
| Choy Siew Kai | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 439 | +439 | — |
| ABRAMS ROBIN ANN | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 604 | +604 | — |
| Tejada Maria Teresa | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 439 | +439 | — |
| SIEGEL LAURIE | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 626 | +626 | — |
| Eilam Barak | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 439 | +439 | — |
| Choy Siew Kai | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,074 | +1,074 | — |
| Wiesel Shlomo Elisha | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,396 | +1,396 | — |
| Frank Malcolm | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,743 | +1,743 | — |
| SIEGEL LAURIE | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,531 | +1,531 | — |
| Shavel Lee | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 571 | +571 | — |
| Shavel Lee | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,396 | +1,396 | — |
| Eilam Barak | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,074 | +1,074 | — |
| Frank Malcolm | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 713 | +713 | — |
| HYLTON LAURIE G | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,074 | +1,074 | — |
| Tejada Maria Teresa | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 1,074 | +1,074 | — |
| Wiesel Shlomo Elisha | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.1.2026 | 571 | +571 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,473,101 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,958,908 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
69.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 78.4% 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