Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$966.30
▼ $25.05 (-2.5%)
Market data updated: 09/18 11:17 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$20.87B
Day Range
$961.48 - $990.55
52-Week Range
$870.01 - $1,998.01
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
FICO is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-37.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/31 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
🔴 Bearish
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: 29.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $506.35 vs. price $966.30 (-47.6%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (79/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
75/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+1.3%
Median 40D Outcome
41/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+10.6% … +15.9%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.1% … +0.1%
🔴 Bearish
53%
-10.3% … -3.6%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -1.4%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
8 occurrence(s) · 25% 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%) | +0.7% | -2.4% … +3.8% | +0.7% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.4% | -1.8% … +6.7% | +1.3% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -1.4% | -9.1% … +11.9% | +2.9% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.3% | -8.1% … +18.4% | +6.5% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.6% | -9.1% … +19.7% | +8.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-12 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -15.4% | -18.4% |
| 2025-07-22 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -9.6% | +6.9% |
| 2026-04-01 | 74/100 | High Volatility | -3.5% | +10.9% |
| 2021-11-26 | 70/100 | Downtrend | +25.8% | +31.6% |
| 2026-04-21 | 70/100 | High Volatility | +14.4% | +21.3% |
| 2022-04-18 | 69/100 | Downtrend | -10.0% | +3.6% |
| 2026-03-18 | 69/100 | ✓ High Volatility | -11.1% | -2.0% |
| 2025-08-12 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +16.1% | +23.5% |
| 2019-09-27 | 67/100 | Consolidation | +0.1% | +25.8% |
| 2021-08-20 | 67/100 | Downtrend | -3.6% | -11.7% |
| 2026-06-18 | 65/100 | Downtrend | +15.3% | -10.1% |
| 2026-05-06 | 64/100 | High Volatility | +9.3% | -2.0% |
| 2024-12-27 | 63/100 | Consolidation | -8.7% | -8.1% |
| 2025-06-05 | 63/100 | High Volatility | +5.5% | -15.1% |
| 2025-02-12 | 62/100 | Consolidation | -1.4% | +18.2% |
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 XLK (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
47
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
13d ago · $932.26
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 26 to -2 day-over-day
What happened after
13d ago · $932.26
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 3 to 55 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
79
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
22
Risk
32
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
62
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING FICO...
Recent media coverage of Fair Isaac (FICO) has centered on the company’s long-held dominance in U.S. mortgage credit scoring being challenged by regulatory action. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept VantageScore 4.0, ending FICO’s exclusive role in government-backed mortgage lending—a move that has caused FICO’s stock to plummet nearly 16% in pre-market trading and over 40% year-to-date. Analysts debate whether the stock’s sharp decline reflects justified concerns over lost market share or if its long-term valuation remains strong despite the disruption.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Fair Isaac. News trend score: 44. Reason: 5 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 4 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
49
Fundamentals
62
Technical
22
Valuation
33
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental 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.
Price (3M)
-12%
Market Narrative
43
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
FICO’s market behavior suggests a dominant **panic selling** phase, driven by extreme oversold conditions (RSI 27) and sharp momentum reversal (-20.8% ROC). The **anchoring** (2.8% from support) and **loss aversion** (25.4% 3-month drop) may be reinforcing liquidation, while **overconfidence** (84% DCF premium) hints at lingering misplaced optimism. The **narrative gap** (-16) implies traders underestimate the severity of current conditions. The key question: *Will traders pivot from panic to accumulation near support, or will volume sustain liquidation?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:55 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"FHFA directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept VantageScore 4.0 from all mortgage lenders"
"Fair Isaac’s share price down 16.7% on a one-day basis and 43.3% year-to-date"
"FICO maintained a virtual monopoly over the US mortgage credit scoring market"
"Introducing direct price and model competition into its historically protected mortgage franchise"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 17D 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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 2/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in scores for FICO reflects a clash between cyclical optimism and fundamental caution. Methodologies like Nelson and Marks (cycle-focused) see it as near the bottom of a favorable cycle, scoring it perfectly, while Fisher and Lynch highlight its growth potential and quality—both scoring above 70. Meanwhile, more conservative voices like Graham and Livermore dismiss it outright, with Graham’s Enterprising Investor scoring it barely above zero, arguing it lacks defensive value or statistical cheapness. Even Bagehot and Loeb flag liquidity and risk concerns, contrasting sharply with the disciplined setups praised by Schwager and Smith, who see it as a long-term hold. The tension lies between those who prioritize growth and cyclical positioning and those who demand deeper valuation or defensive metrics.
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 92
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 79
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 74
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 38
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 33
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 19
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)
🔴 8
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 2
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: 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.
Low 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
82.2%
Operating Margin
46.5%
Net Margin
32.7%
EBITDA Margin
47.2%
ROE
-37.3%
ROA
34.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$26.90
Cash
$134.14M
Total Debt
$3.06B
Current Ratio
0.83
Debt/Equity
-1.75
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$966.30
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$506.35
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-47.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
13.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13.1% | $870.71M | $798.81M |
| 2 | 10.4% | $961.66M | $809.41M |
| 3 | 7.8% | $1.04B | $800.49M |
| 4 | 5.1% | $1.09B | $772.20M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.12B | $726.16M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$769.88M
Terminal Value
$17.62B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$11.45B
Enterprise Value
$15.36B
Net Debt
$2.92B
Equity Value
$12.44B
*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
-$71.08
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$102.97
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 11 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 10.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Barchart · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Fair Isaac (FICO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
FICO currently scores 47/100 (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, FICO's estimated fair value is $506.35, which is 47.6% below the current price of $966.30. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FICO's technical score is 22/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 29.8%; Free cash flow growth: 23.4%; Net income growth: 27.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $506.35 vs. price $966.30 (-47.6%); ATR: 5.3% of price; Current ratio: 0.83.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FICO.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 1,285 | +1,285 | $475.46 |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 1,386 | +1,386 | $455.13 |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 1,386 | -1,386 | — |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 1,285 | -1,285 | — |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 13,940 | +1,386 | $455.13 |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 15,225 | +1,285 | $475.46 |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 0 | -1,386 | — |
| Stansbury Henry Tayloe | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.8.2026 | 91 | -91 | — |
| Stansbury Henry Tayloe | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.8.2026 | 91 | +91 | — |
| Stansbury Henry Tayloe | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.8.2026 | 351 | +91 | — |
| Stansbury Henry Tayloe | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.8.2026 | 0 | -91 | — |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 1,682 | -1,682 | — |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 1,682 | +1,682 | $391.57 |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 12,554 | +1,682 | $391.57 |
| KELLY BRADEN R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 0 | -1,682 | — |
| Manolis Eva | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 967 | -967 | $1,400.00 |
| Manolis Eva | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 967 | -967 | — |
| Manolis Eva | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 967 | +967 | $391.57 |
| Manolis Eva | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 1,465 | +967 | $391.57 |
| Manolis Eva | Open Market Sale | 29.7.2026 | 498 | -967 | $1,400.00 |
| Manolis Eva | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 967 | -967 | — |
| Behl Nikhil | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.7.2026 | 124 | -124 | $1,270.83 |
| Behl Nikhil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.7.2026 | 242 | -242 | — |
| Behl Nikhil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.7.2026 | 242 | +242 | — |
| Leonard Michael S | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.7.2026 | 237 | +237 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,792,796 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,852,790 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.9% 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