Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$119.82
▲ $10.01 (+9.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 08:02 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$111.06 - $120.57
52-Week Range
$63.52 - $153.86
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$83.68
Resistance
$125.25
HOOD is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
-7.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/22 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 51.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 6.0% of price
Risk
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (74/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (45/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
76/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+9.1%
Median 40D Outcome
2/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+9.7% … +31.0%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
47%
-14.9% … -11.9%
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 +1.2%.
Echo #1 — 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.8% | -4.2% … +11.6% | +1.3% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +7.0% | -4.7% … +16.4% | +3.2% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -12.6% … +16.4% | +4.5% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +9.1% | -6.6% … +25.7% | +8.5% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +15.0% | -5.8% … +25.8% | +14.8% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-08 | 76/100 | High Volatility | +33.5% | +25.8% |
| 2023-06-26 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +30.2% | +6.1% |
| 2023-02-15 | 74/100 | Uptrend | -12.4% | -17.8% |
| 2025-12-19 | 73/100 | ✓ High Volatility | -12.7% | -38.9% |
| 2025-05-02 | 73/100 | High Volatility | +39.9% | +118.4% |
| 2023-04-18 | 72/100 | Consolidation | -15.1% | +25.8% |
| 2023-06-06 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +14.1% | +19.4% |
| 2023-05-22 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +11.4% | +15.0% |
| 2024-09-09 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +18.6% | +96.5% |
| 2023-10-17 | 69/100 | Downtrend | -11.5% | +14.8% |
| 2026-04-28 | 69/100 | High Volatility | -7.1% | +15.6% |
| 2025-10-20 | 69/100 | High Volatility | -14.6% | -18.7% |
| 2024-10-03 | 68/100 | Uptrend | +4.7% | +70.7% |
| 2026-06-23 | 68/100 | ✓ High Volatility | +1.2% | +6.4% |
| 2026-01-12 | 67/100 | Consolidation | -27.2% | -40.3% |
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
🌱 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
64
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
16d ago · $123.14
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 24 to 49 day-over-day
What happened after
16d ago · $123.14
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 89)
What happened after
16d ago · $123.14
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 26 to 70 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 4, 2026
Then
70
$124.72
Now
64
$119.82
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
74
Quality
No data available
Value
45
Momentum
64
Risk
50
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
59
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING HOOD...
Recent media coverage of Robinhood Markets has centered on two main themes: a public feud with AMC over tokenization, where AMC’s CEO criticized Robinhood for trading a tokenized asset bearing the company’s name, calling it "outrageous," and a strategic expansion into prediction markets. The company announced a multiyear partnership with Crypto.com and OG.com to integrate their prediction markets into Robinhood’s platform, including a minority stake in both firms. Additionally, Robinhood secured an underwriting role for Oura’s IPO, with Goldman Sachs raising its stock price target.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Robinhood Markets. News trend score: 92. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 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)
39
Psychology
30
Fundamentals
59
Technical
64
Valuation
45
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+2%
Market Narrative
67
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+28
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests traders are exhibiting **overconfidence** (68) and **euphoria** (66), fueled by detached momentum (+27.5% ROC) relative to fundamentals (+0.3% EPS growth) and extreme overbought conditions (RSI 68, +35.2% above 200-day average). FOMO (63) further amplifies participation, while anchoring (-2.3% from resistance) may reinforce near-term positioning. The **narrative-reality gap (31)** hints at a disconnect between optimistic expectations and underlying fundamentals. The key question: *Will momentum sustain, or will traders reassess as the gap widens?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:09 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Robinhood is adding a new partner and enhancing its prediction markets offering for customers."
"AMC CEO Adam Aron dubbed [Robinhood’s token] 'outrageous' and demanded that Robinhood cease trading it."
"Robinhood serving as the underwriter for Oura's IPO and whether the platform is accumulating a reputation as a bank."
📈 14D 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
Philip Fisher — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Philip Fisher’s model standing out as a near-unanimous outlier by declaring it an *exceptional* company quality—likely due to its strong fundamentals or long-term growth potential under his criteria. Meanwhile, the bulk of the models cluster into cautious or negative verdicts, with Peter Lynch and Edgar Lawrence Smith acknowledging some growth but flagging valuation concerns, while others like Howard Marks and Benjamin Graham’s defensive approach see it as either overpriced or structurally risky. The extreme contrast between Fisher’s top score and the near-zero ratings from Morgan Housel or Samuel Nelson suggests the stock may embody both enduring strengths (for Fisher) and cyclical or speculative risks (for the more conservative or cycle-sensitive models). Even Jesse Livermore’s trend-following approach remains cautiously positive, while the rest—from Bagehot’s liquidity concerns to Mackay’s crowd-delusion warning—paint a picture of a stock that may appeal to growth investors but carries significant pitfalls for those prioritizing stability or valuation discipline.
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 100
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 63
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 60
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 52
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 46
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)
🟡 41
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 30
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 30
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 29
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 26
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 14
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 4
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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 an uptrend (5 bullish · 2 bearish · 3 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.
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
—
Net Margin
42.1%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
20.6%
ROA
4.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.12
Cash
$4.26B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.26
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$9.96
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$9.36
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 5 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Benzinga · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 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
CNBC · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Robinhood Markets (HOOD) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 64/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
HOOD currently scores 64/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
HOOD's technical score is 64/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 51.6%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 31.4%; Net income growth: 33.5%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 6.0% of price; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; P/E: 58.4.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for HOOD.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 20 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treseder Oluwadara Johnson | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 1,875 | -1,875 | $125.00 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 400 | -400 | $120.63 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 900 | -900 | $119.60 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 800 | -800 | $121.66 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 3,800 | -3,800 | $123.00 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 100 | -100 | $113.45 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 300 | -300 | $117.86 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 3,599 | -3,599 | $122.97 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 700 | -700 | $124.62 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 300 | -300 | $118.37 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 2,700 | -2,700 | $123.88 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 400 | -400 | $120.77 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 200 | -200 | $116.28 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 2,700 | -2,700 | $123.91 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 800 | -800 | $121.70 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 812 | -812 | $124.58 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 200 | -200 | $117.17 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 100 | -100 | $115.84 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 2,397 | -2,397 | $113.25 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 13,208 | -13,208 | $119.93 |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 8,205 | -8,205 | — |
| Quirk Steven M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 9,846 | -9,846 | — |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 112,856 | +112,856 | — |
| Gallagher Daniel Martin Jr | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 54,309 | -54,309 | $104.81 |
| Quirk Steven M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 71,176 | +71,176 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
35,537,085 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 33,162,605 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.6% 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