Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$150.13
▼ $4.95 (-3.2%)
Market data updated: 09/19 06:52 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$2.45B
Day Range
$148.73 - $155.83
52-Week Range
$73.08 - $199.89
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
Support
$147.66
Resistance
$199.89
+101.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/28 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
🔴 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: 68.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
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
47
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
71
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
28
Risk
48
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
47
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 Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (KALU) has centered on its stock valuation and market performance. Analysts discuss whether its shares are currently undervalued after a recent pullback, despite strong long-term gains—including a 137% three-year return and 112% total shareholder return. Investment firms like UBS and Riverwater Partners highlight its potential amid industry shifts, such as Middle East production capacity, while noting mixed signals in earnings-driven valuation. The focus remains on balancing growth momentum with near-term stock pricing.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Kaiser Aluminum Corporation. News trend score: 56. Reason: 7 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
6
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
47
Technical
28
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-15%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
KALU’s psychology is fragmented but dominated by **FOMO and overconfidence**, as momentum-driven buying outweighs caution. The narrative-reality gap (31) suggests traders may be overestimating growth potential, while the RSI (53) and moderate volume (0.88x) hint at controlled euphoria—not panic. The key question: Is the price rallying on fundamentals, or is it a speculative bubble fueled by momentum chasing? The lack of dominant panic or anchoring signals keeps the market in a cautious yet optimistic state.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:33 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"UBS upgraded Kaiser Aluminum from Neutral to Buy and raised its price target to $184 from $179, citing the selloff as an attractive entry point."
"Kaiser Aluminum’s share price return is up 31.99% year-to-date and 112.39% over one year, despite a 14.79% drop in the last 90 days."
"Kaiser Aluminum (KALU) could be 6% below fair value after its recent pullback."
"Kaiser Aluminum stays ahead even if Middle East capacity returns faster."
📈 9D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Charles Mackay — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles, the model estimates that growth‑oriented thinkers like Peter Lynch (score 73) and Charles Mackay (score 61) see KALU as a potential upside story, noting unmet growth and emerging crowd excitement, while liquidity‑concerned analysts such as Walter Bagehot (score 58) and Thorstein Veblen (score 56) acknowledge mixed signals about profit conversion. In contrast, value‑focused frameworks—including the efficient‑market view (score 50), Graham’s defensive criteria (score 24), and Fisher’s quality standard (score 26) – assign much lower scores, emphasizing insufficient cheapness, lack of quality signatures, and weak defensive metrics. Mid‑range assessments from Howard Marks (scores 44) and Edgar Smith (score 48) reflect a balanced view of a decent business but with expectations possibly already priced in. The most risk‑averse perspectives, such as Gerald Loeb (score 34) and Morgan Housel (score 0), flag capital‑preservation threats and volatility that could unsettle patient holders. Consequently, the divergence stems from each methodology’s weighting of growth potential versus valuation safety, liquidity, and cyclical risk.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 92
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 77
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 73
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 58
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 36
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 34
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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)
🔴 28
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 26
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 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 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
13.1%
Operating Margin
5.6%
Net Margin
3.3%
EBITDA Margin
9.2%
ROE
13.6%
ROA
4.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.96
Cash
$7.00M
Total Debt
$1.06B
Current Ratio
2.95
Debt/Equity
1.28
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.7.2026 | $0.770 |
| 23.7.2026 | $0.770 |
| 24.4.2026 | $0.770 |
| 23.4.2026 | $0.770 |
| 23.1.2026 | $0.770 |
| 22.1.2026 | $0.770 |
| 24.10.2025 | $0.770 |
| 23.10.2025 | $0.770 |
| 25.7.2025 | $0.770 |
| 24.7.2025 | $0.770 |
| 25.4.2025 | $0.770 |
| 24.4.2025 | $0.770 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$49.70
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$46.10
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 7 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
TheStreet · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 1.9.2026
MT Newswires · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (KALU) 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.
KALU 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.
KALU's technical score is 28/100, 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: 68.4%; Net income growth: 71.2%; Current ratio: 2.95.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 4.6% of price; Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — KALU 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 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilcox Brett | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 328 | +328 | $178.10 |
| STEBBINS DONALD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 786 | +786 | — |
| MINOR GLENDA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 786 | +786 | — |
| MINOR GLENDA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 335 | +335 | $178.10 |
| Wilcox Brett | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 786 | +786 | — |
| Grimley Richard P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 786 | +786 | — |
| arnold michael c | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 786 | +786 | — |
| HOFFMAN JAMES DONALD | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 589 | +589 | $178.10 |
| STEBBINS DONALD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 631 | +631 | $178.10 |
| Glas Kimberly Thompson | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 786 | +786 | — |
| Foster David A | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 786 | +786 | — |
| HOFFMAN JAMES DONALD | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 786 | +786 | — |
| STEBBINS DONALD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 14,776 | +786 | — |
| STEBBINS DONALD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 15,407 | +631 | $178.10 |
| arnold michael c | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 11,445 | +786 | — |
| MINOR GLENDA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 4,181 | +786 | — |
| MINOR GLENDA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 4,516 | +335 | $178.10 |
| Wilcox Brett | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 2,691 | +786 | — |
| Wilcox Brett | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,019 | +328 | $178.10 |
| Foster David A | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 24,332 | +786 | — |
| HOFFMAN JAMES DONALD | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,171 | +786 | — |
| HOFFMAN JAMES DONALD | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,760 | +589 | $178.10 |
| Grimley Richard P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 5,364 | +786 | — |
| Glas Kimberly Thompson | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 3,466 | +786 | — |
| Harvey Keith | Open Market Sale | 29.4.2026 | 3,031 | -3,031 | $173.13 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
918,977 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 734,539 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
69.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.0% 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