Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$461.88
▼ $3.42 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/18 03:22 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$80.00B
Day Range
$461.86 - $468.05
52-Week Range
$402.28 - $546.88
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
MCO is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
-8.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/31 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: 21.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $255.05 vs. price $461.88 (-44.8%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (67/100), 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.
83/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+4.0%
Median 40D Outcome
65/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+5.5% … +9.7%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
33%
-5.9% … -1.2%
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, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +5.4%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
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%) | +1.7% | -0.8% … +4.3% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 73% (48%–89%) | +3.6% | +1.0% … +5.6% | +1.2% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +5.4% | -1.1% … +7.6% | +2.0% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +4.0% | +0.1% … +13.3% | +3.2% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +6.8% | +2.5% … +16.1% | +4.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-03-06 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -5.9% | +2.1% |
| 2021-01-27 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +5.4% | +24.6% |
| 2018-10-03 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -12.5% | -15.8% |
| 2018-04-02 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.2% | +6.8% |
| 2020-09-24 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -1.0% | +2.9% |
| 2023-02-22 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -1.2% | +6.7% |
| 2023-10-02 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -3.1% | +23.4% |
| 2023-10-20 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +15.2% | +23.8% |
| 2024-04-18 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +10.0% | +20.8% |
| 2025-09-26 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +3.0% | +6.9% |
| 2025-01-10 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +11.4% | -12.4% |
| 2025-11-18 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +6.1% | -10.0% |
| 2024-11-01 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +9.0% | +9.4% |
| 2026-05-15 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +5.9% | +11.4% |
| 2026-03-25 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +5.7% | +4.5% |
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
50
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
67
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
13
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
75
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MCO...
Recent media coverage of Moody’s Corporation has primarily focused on its **insurance financial strength ratings**, with the company assigning its first-ever ratings to two subsidiaries of Freedom Holding Corp. (Freedom Insurance and Freedom Life) in early September 2026, reflecting stable outlooks. Additionally, Moody’s stock briefly rose alongside financial firms like Goldman Sachs and StoneX following a Federal Reserve signal of potential rate stability, though broader market trends dominated other headlines. No other direct Moody’s-specific developments were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Moody's Corporation. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 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
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
89
Fundamentals
75
Technical
13
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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 (3M)
+3%
Market Narrative
65
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+29
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence (score 45) reflects a disconnect between price (+94% above DCF) and fundamentals (EPS growth outpacing momentum). Euphoria (36) aligns with detached valuation optimism, while FOMO (10) is muted by weak technical signals. The 39-point narrative gap (75 vs. 36) suggests traders may be overestimating tailwinds. The key question: *Will fundamentals justify this valuation gap, or will reality correct the overconfidence?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 01:06 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Moody’s Ratings has assigned insurance financial strength ratings to two Freedom Holding Corp. insurance subsidiaries for the first time."
"Moody's stocks jumped ... after Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller signaled support for holding interest rates steady."
📈 7D 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 — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a deep chasm between cyclical and fundamental approaches. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score and bullish cycle position contrast sharply with the overwhelmingly bearish or neutral signals from Graham, Marks, and Lynch—all of whom prioritize valuation, margin of safety, or growth-at-a-reasonable-price principles, finding little justification for a long-term hold. Meanwhile, the middle-ground methodologies like Veblen, Schwager, and Mackay hover around neutral, torn between speculative excitement and weak evidence of sustainable profitability, while Livermore and Bagehot flag outright red flags around trend alignment and liquidity risks. The divide underscores how technical/cyclical models can diverge entirely from deep-value or growth-focused frameworks, even on the same data.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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)
🟡 63
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 49
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 45
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 41
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 40
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 38
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 38
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 29
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 29
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 22
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 7
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 (0 bullish · 10 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$462.65
Range Bottom
$523.31
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
74.4%
Operating Margin
43.4%
Net Margin
31.9%
EBITDA Margin
49.6%
ROE
60.7%
ROA
15.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$13.73
Cash
$2.38B
Total Debt
$6.99B
Current Ratio
1.74
Debt/Equity
1.73
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $1.030 |
| 15.5.2026 | $1.030 |
| 14.5.2026 | $1.030 |
| 2.3.2026 | $1.030 |
| 1.3.2026 | $1.030 |
| 21.11.2025 | $0.940 |
| 20.11.2025 | $0.940 |
| 15.8.2025 | $0.940 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.940 |
| 16.5.2025 | $0.940 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.940 |
| 25.2.2025 | $0.940 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$461.88
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$255.05
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-44.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
12.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.3% | $2.89B | $2.65B |
| 2 | 9.8% | $3.18B | $2.67B |
| 3 | 7.4% | $3.41B | $2.63B |
| 4 | 4.9% | $3.58B | $2.54B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.67B | $2.39B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.58B
Terminal Value
$57.87B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$37.61B
Enterprise Value
$50.49B
Net Debt
$4.61B
Equity Value
$45.88B
*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
$22.53
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$23.24
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 9 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Motley Fool · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
StockStory · 4.9.2026
Moody's Corporation (MCO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
MCO currently scores 50/100 (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, MCO's estimated fair value is $255.05, which is 44.8% below the current price of $461.88. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MCO's technical score is 13/100, 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: 21.4%; Return on equity (ROE): 60.7% — strong; Current ratio: 1.74.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $255.05 vs. price $461.88 (-44.8%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.43 (3y annualized return 10.7% / max drawdown 24.8%).
Yes — MCO 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 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FORLENZA VINCENT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 15.187 | +15.187 | — |
| Esperdy Therese | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 10.931 | +10.931 | — |
| Bermudez Jorge A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 1.3 | +1.3 | — |
| Sawicki Lisa P | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 1.106 | +1.106 | — |
| Minaya Jose | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 3.454 | +3.454 | $493.55 |
| Minaya Jose | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 6.081 | +6.081 | — |
| Seidman Leslie | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 2.118 | +2.118 | — |
| Seidman Leslie | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 14 | +14 | — |
| VAN SAUN BRUCE | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 13.384 | +13.384 | — |
| Bermudez Jorge A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 16 | +16 | — |
| FORLENZA VINCENT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 1.379 | +1.379 | $493.55 |
| VAN SAUN BRUCE | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 7 | +7 | — |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 575 | +575 | $167.50 |
| Fauber Robert | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 300 | -300 | $501.89 |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 592 | -592 | — |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 575 | -575 | — |
| Fauber Robert | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,167 | -1,167 | $501.89 |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 592 | +592 | $113.34 |
| Fauber Robert | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 1,167 | -1,167 | $484.30 |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 592 | -592 | — |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 575 | +575 | $167.50 |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 575 | -575 | — |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 592 | +592 | $113.34 |
| Fauber Robert | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 300 | -300 | $484.30 |
| Fauber Robert | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 52,556 | +592 | $113.34 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,538,683 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,069,888 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
65.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.1% 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