Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$10.38
▲ $0.12 (+1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:25 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$82.05M
Day Range
$10.11 - $10.38
52-Week Range
$8.90 - $11.19
Beta
—
Next Earnings
01.12.2026
Support
$9.74
Resistance
$10.50
-6.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 24/30 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $30.51 vs. price $10.38 (+193.9%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.41 (3y annualized return 14.4% / max drawdown 34.8%)
Risk
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
73
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 10, 2026
Then
74
$10.25
Now
73
$10.38
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
79
Quality
58
Value
72
Momentum
84
Risk
56
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
72
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 **Hennessy Advisors, Inc.** has primarily focused on its **third-quarter fiscal earnings report** for 2026, where earnings per share slightly declined to $0.25 (down 3.85% year-over-year) while revenue rose to $8.39 million (up from $8.054 million). The company also announced a **quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share**, yielding 6.1% annually, alongside promotions of its **diversified mutual funds** (e.g., HFCGX, GASFX, HLFNX) for portfolio expansion.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Hennessy Advisors, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 2 of the last 6 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
77
Fundamentals
72
Technical
84
Valuation
72
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
39
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
-2
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 1.3% resistance level, likely due to its proximity. FOMO is present but tempered by moderate RSI and a valuation gap, while overconfidence stems from momentum decoupling from fundamentals. The narrative gap is minimal, indicating no stark disconnect between market perception and reality. The key question is whether traders will break resistance or retreat, given the valuation disconnect and anchoring pressure.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:08 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"reported results for its third fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2026, and declared a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share"
"gain exposure to different market segments and investment strategies"
📈 16D 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Benjamin Graham's documented defensive principles, the model estimates the stock to be highly attractive, reflected by a perfect score of 100 and a strong margin of safety. Growth‑focused frameworks such as Peter Lynch, Morgan Housel, and Edgar Lawrence Smith also rate it favorably, seeing ample earnings expansion and a quiet compounder profile. In contrast, cycle‑sensitive perspectives like Howard Marks (market‑cycle), Samuel Armstrong Nelson, and Jack Schwager assign middling to low scores, indicating concerns about the stock’s position in the broader economic cycle and a lack of a clear price trend. This divergence shows how emphasis on valuation safety, growth potential, liquidity, and cycle timing leads different historical methodologies to arrive at contrasting conclusions about the same security.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 92
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)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 91
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 89
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 87
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 86
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 80
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 74
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 73
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 64
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 63
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 61
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)
🟡 47
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 42
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 21
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 an uptrend (10 bullish · 2 bearish · 1 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
37.0%
Net Margin
28.0%
EBITDA Margin
37.0%
ROE
10.2%
ROA
6.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.28
Cash
$72.43M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
12.72
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 20.8.2026 | $0.150 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.150 |
| 20.5.2026 | $0.150 |
| 18.2.2026 | $0.150 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.150 |
| 12.11.2025 | $0.138 |
| 11.11.2025 | $0.138 |
| 20.8.2025 | $0.138 |
| 19.8.2025 | $0.138 |
| 20.5.2025 | $0.138 |
| 19.5.2025 | $0.138 |
| 24.2.2025 | $0.138 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$10.38
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$30.51
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+193.9%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
8.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.1% | $14.43M | $13.24M |
| 2 | 6.7% | $15.40M | $12.96M |
| 3 | 5.3% | $16.21M | $12.52M |
| 4 | 3.9% | $16.84M | $11.93M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $17.27M | $11.22M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$13.35M
Terminal Value
$272.26M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$176.95M
Enterprise Value
$238.82M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$238.82M
*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
$12.48
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.48
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 4 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 6 articles.
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Associated Press · 5.8.2026
PR Newswire · 5.8.2026
Yahoo · 5.8.2026
Benzinga · 5.8.2026
Hennessy Advisors, Inc. (HNNA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 73/100, rated "Strong". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
HNNA currently scores 73/100 (Strong) 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, HNNA's estimated fair value is $30.51, which is 193.9% above the current price of $10.38. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HNNA's technical score is 84/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: $30.51 vs. price $10.38 (+193.9%); SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 38.0%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.41 (3y annualized return 14.4% / max drawdown 34.8%); -0.5% over the last 3 months relative to the index; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — HNNA 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 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fahy Kathryn | Open Market Sale | 11.5.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $10.00 |
| Fahy Kathryn | Open Market Sale | 11.5.2026 | 60,689 | -10,000 | $10.00 |
| Newton Kiera | Open Market Sale | 30.12.2025 | 571 | -571 | $9.35 |
| Newton Kiera | Open Market Sale | 30.12.2025 | 16,294 | -571 | $9.35 |
| STEADMAN DANIEL B | Gift | 26.12.2025 | 750 | -750 | — |
| STEADMAN DANIEL B | Gift | 26.12.2025 | 36,574 | -750 | — |
| HENNESSY BRIAN A | Gift | 19.12.2025 | 4,900 | -4,900 | — |
| HENNESSY BRIAN A | Gift | 19.12.2025 | 229,065 | -4,900 | — |
| Fahy Kathryn | Gift | 10.12.2025 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| Fahy Kathryn | Gift | 10.12.2025 | 70,689 | -2,000 | — |
| STEADMAN DANIEL B | Gift | 8.12.2025 | 500 | +500 | — |
| STEADMAN DANIEL B | Gift | 8.12.2025 | 500 | -500 | — |
| STEADMAN DANIEL B | Gift | 8.12.2025 | 37,324 | -500 | — |
| STEADMAN DANIEL B | Gift | 8.12.2025 | 2,250 | +500 | — |
| Newton Kiera | Open Market Sale | 29.9.2025 | 390 | -390 | $10.73 |
| Newton Kiera | Open Market Sale | 29.9.2025 | 16,865 | -390 | $10.73 |
| Newton Kiera | Open Market Sale | 23.9.2025 | 3 | -3 | $11.00 |
| Newton Kiera | Open Market Sale | 23.9.2025 | 17,255 | -3 | $11.00 |
| HANSEL HENRY | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.9.2025 | 5,600 | +5,600 | — |
| Fahy Kathryn | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.9.2025 | 12,500 | +12,500 | — |
| STEADMAN DANIEL B | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.9.2025 | 9,400 | +9,400 | — |
| NILSEN TERESA M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.9.2025 | 9,000 | -9,000 | $11.08 |
| HENNESSY BRIAN A | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.9.2025 | 5,600 | +5,600 | — |
| Fahy Kathryn | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.9.2025 | 4,022 | -4,022 | $11.08 |
| STEADMAN DANIEL B | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.9.2025 | 3,008 | -3,008 | $11.08 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,327 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,577 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.3% 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