Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$153.30
▼ $0.80 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/17 11:36 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$86.06B
Day Range
$152.61 - $154.21
52-Week Range
$121.79 - $176.05
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
ICE is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
-10.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/30 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: 20.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $105.44 vs. price $153.30 (-31.2%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (70/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+2.7%
Median 40D Outcome
60/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+2.5% … +5.1%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.2% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-15.7% … -4.7%
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, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.5%.
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%) | +2.6% | -1.5% … +3.0% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.6% | -1.0% … +4.3% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.5% | -2.6% … +4.5% | +1.0% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.7% | -1.7% … +6.6% | +1.9% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.3% | -4.4% … +8.1% | +2.8% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-15 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +5.1% | -4.6% |
| 2018-12-14 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -4.7% | -4.2% |
| 2018-04-06 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.5% | +4.4% |
| 2021-01-29 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.1% | +9.9% |
| 2020-06-24 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +5.7% | +9.4% |
| 2020-09-23 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.5% | +16.3% |
| 2018-07-03 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.5% | +3.3% |
| 2022-04-11 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -24.7% | -25.2% |
| 2022-12-30 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +4.8% | -0.9% |
| 2023-05-03 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +1.5% | +9.5% |
| 2019-07-31 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +6.2% | +5.7% |
| 2026-05-19 | 71/100 | Downtrend | -12.7% | +0.4% |
| 2026-02-10 | 70/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.7% | -5.3% |
| 2023-05-24 | 70/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.2% | +6.8% |
| 2026-03-23 | 68/100 | Downtrend | +0.9% | -14.4% |
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
56
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
70
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
40
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
61
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING ICE...
Recent media coverage of Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) has highlighted its strategic expansion and market leadership. Notable themes include record futures trading volumes in August 2026, with significant growth in interest rate, agriculture, and metals contracts, signaling strong demand. Additionally, ICE’s partnership with the Korea Exchange to enhance cross-border trading and infrastructure collaboration was emphasized, alongside broader industry trends like AI-driven investment technology, as seen with Nasdaq’s Dasseti acquisition. Bill Ackman’s bullish stance on ICE amid AI-related market discussions also drew attention.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Intercontinental Exchange. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 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)
41
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
61
Technical
40
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+15%
Market Narrative
71
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+30
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ICE’s dominant **herding** behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers despite relative underperformance today. The **euphoria** and **overconfidence** scores imply lingering optimism, possibly anchored to a +50% valuation premium over DCF. The **narrative gap** (76 vs. 41) hints at a disconnect between market enthusiasm and fundamentals. Key question: Will traders double down on alignment or pivot if ICE’s underperformance persists? The absence of panic or FOMO signals suggests caution rather than urgency.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 11:42 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Nasdaq's Dasseti acquisition expands eVestment with AI-powered due diligence and monitoring"
"double-digit year-over-year growth in average daily volume and open interest across major asset classes, including record interest rate futures open interest"
"NYSE and Korea Exchange signed a memorandum of understanding to deepen market collaboration"
"24-hour trading potential as SEC, Nasdaq, and Cboe extend trading hours"
📈 10D 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 — 90/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for ICE reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. At the optimistic end, **Samuel Armstrong Nelson** and **Edgar Lawrence Smith** see strong cyclical positioning and long-term potential, respectively, while **Thorstein Veblen** and **Peter Lynch** acknowledge growth but question whether it translates into sustainable profitability or if the price already discounts it. Meanwhile, **Benjamin Graham** and **Walter Bagehot** take the opposite stance, flagging extreme valuation risks and liquidity concerns that would disqualify the stock outright under their strict frameworks. The middle-ground methodologies—like **Jack Schwager** and **Morgan Housel**—cautiously dismiss it as neither a clear winner nor a red flag, while **Howard Marks**’ contrasting scores highlight his nuanced but ultimately bearish view on risk/valuation versus his broader market-cycle perspective. The split underscores whether one prioritizes growth momentum, defensive metrics, or structural risks.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 90
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 68
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 64
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 62
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 57
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 51
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 49
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 44
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 34
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 31
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 27
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)
🔴 9
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 7
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 (3 bullish · 7 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.
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
39.0%
Net Margin
26.2%
EBITDA Margin
51.3%
ROE
11.5%
ROA
2.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$5.79
Cash
$837.00M
Total Debt
$19.64B
Current Ratio
1.02
Debt/Equity
0.68
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.6.2026 | $0.520 |
| 14.6.2026 | $0.520 |
| 17.3.2026 | $0.520 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.520 |
| 16.12.2025 | $0.480 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.480 |
| 16.9.2025 | $0.480 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.480 |
| 13.6.2025 | $0.480 |
| 12.6.2025 | $0.480 |
| 17.3.2025 | $0.480 |
| 16.3.2025 | $0.480 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$153.30
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$105.44
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-31.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
9.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.7% | $4.70B | $4.32B |
| 2 | 7.9% | $5.07B | $4.27B |
| 3 | 6.1% | $5.38B | $4.16B |
| 4 | 4.3% | $5.61B | $3.98B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $5.75B | $3.74B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$4.29B
Terminal Value
$90.74B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$58.98B
Enterprise Value
$79.44B
Net Debt
$18.81B
Equity Value
$60.63B
*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
$50.29
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$29.71
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
The Wall Street Journal · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) 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.
ICE 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, ICE's estimated fair value is $105.44, which is 31.2% below the current price of $153.30. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ICE's technical score is 40/100, 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: 20.7%; Net income growth: 20.4%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $105.44 vs. price $153.30 (-31.2%); Calmar: 0.29 (3y annualized return 10.0% / max drawdown 34.8%); Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — ICE 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 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jackson Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 6,431 | -6,431 | — |
| Jackson Benjamin | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 6,242 | -6,242 | $160.17 |
| Jackson Benjamin | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,600 | -1,600 | $161.05 |
| Jackson Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 6,431 | +6,431 | $57.31 |
| Edmonds Christopher Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | — |
| Edmonds Christopher Scott | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $160.59 |
| Edmonds Christopher Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $57.31 |
| Jackson Benjamin | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 5,020 | -5,020 | $159.68 |
| Jackson Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 6,431 | +6,431 | $57.31 |
| Jackson Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 6,431 | -6,431 | — |
| Surdykowski Andrew J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 47,639 | +2,065 | $57.31 |
| Surdykowski Andrew J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 2,064 | -2,065 | — |
| Tirinnanzi Martha A | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 3,747 | -1,340 | $161.16 |
| Surdykowski Andrew J | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 43,665 | -3,974 | $161.67 |
| Surdykowski Andrew J | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 43,065 | -600 | $162.38 |
| Surdykowski Andrew J | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 600 | -600 | $162.38 |
| Surdykowski Andrew J | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 3,974 | -3,974 | $161.67 |
| Tirinnanzi Martha A | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 1,340 | -1,340 | $161.16 |
| Surdykowski Andrew J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 2,065 | -2,065 | — |
| Surdykowski Andrew J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 2,065 | +2,065 | $57.31 |
| Foley Douglas | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 17,463 | -1,600 | $160.00 |
| Foley Douglas | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 1,600 | -1,600 | $160.00 |
| Gardiner Warren | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 2,491 | -2,491 | $156.30 |
| Tirinnanzi Martha A | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 141 | -141 | $155.00 |
| Kapani Mayur | Open Market Sale | 12.8.2026 | 100 | -100 | $151.78 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,351,924 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,928,441 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.6% 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