Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$68.70
▼ $0.55 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/17 08:56 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$26.15B
Day Range
$68.04 - $70.24
52-Week Range
$67.64 - $94.57
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
OTIS is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-23.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/29 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.85
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+2.4%
Median 40D Outcome
72/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+2.9% … +7.1%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.9% … -0.7%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-7.9% … -3.5%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.6%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
4 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
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 | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.4% | -2.5% … +3.4% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -1.1% | -2.1% … +2.5% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.6% | -3.5% … +3.9% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.4% | -4.6% … +6.9% | +0.5% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.1% | -1.7% … +8.7% | +0.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-10-31 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +9.2% | +15.7% |
| 2022-04-25 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -1.0% | -2.2% |
| 2026-06-11 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +4.7% | -0.1% |
| 2026-05-22 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -1.4% | -1.1% |
| 2023-09-20 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -3.5% | +11.0% |
| 2025-11-25 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -0.6% | +1.7% |
| 2026-05-07 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -9.2% | -4.9% |
| 2022-02-04 | 72/100 | Consolidation | -9.9% | -11.1% |
| 2022-06-29 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +10.1% | -5.7% |
| 2022-05-10 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +4.9% | +9.0% |
| 2021-11-03 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +2.8% | +6.0% |
| 2023-08-25 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -3.5% | +1.1% |
| 2023-10-04 | 70/100 | Downtrend | -4.1% | +11.8% |
| 2023-03-23 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +3.1% | +8.5% |
| 2025-08-25 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +2.6% | +1.0% |
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 XLI (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
42
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
40
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
16
Risk
40
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
54
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING OTIS...
Recent media coverage of Otis Worldwide has centered on its financial performance and strategic leadership. The company’s Q2 earnings were reviewed in comparisons with peers in the industrial machinery sector, while CEO Judy Marks is set to participate in a high-profile fireside chat at Morgan Stanley’s annual conference. Additionally, Otis announced the appointment of Sridhar Rajagopal as Managing Director for its Southeast Asia business, signaling regional expansion efforts. Analysts also noted the company’s inclusion in dividend-focused updates and slight stock movement following its latest earnings report.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Otis Worldwide. News trend score: 56. Reason: 5 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
11
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
66
Fundamentals
54
Technical
16
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-6%
Market Narrative
43
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
OTIS’s psychology is dominated by anchoring, where traders appear fixated on the 1.1% proximity to support, ignoring broader negative momentum and peer underperformance. The narrative-reality gap (16) hints at a disconnect between optimistic sentiment (92/100) and technical weakness. Herding is present but selective, as OTIS lags peers, while FOMO and panic signals are muted by stable volume and low volatility. The key question: will traders break from anchoring if support is tested, or will they hold near-term reference points despite weakening fundamentals?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:02 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Otis CEO Judy Marks will participate in a fireside chat at Morgan Stanley conference"
"Otis appointed Sridhar Rajagopal as Managing Director, Southeast Asia"
"Otis Worldwide to provide 251 elevators, escalators to China's Tianjin 117 Tower"
"Dividend Champion, Contender, And Challenger Highlights: Week September 6"
📈 10D 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 — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 4/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Charles Mackay's documented principles, the model estimates a strong endorsement (score 95) noting no crowd mania, similarly Samuel Armstrong Nelson sees a favorable cycle position (score 88) and Morgan Housel calls it a quiet compounder (score 82). Howard Marks and his market‑cycle variant also rate the stock positively (73 and 71) because risk appears reasonably priced and the cycle is early‑to‑mid, and Edgar Smith’s 70 reflects a decade‑long buy‑and‑hold view. In contrast, Graham’s defensive criteria (score 43) and Fisher’s growth quality test (score 37) flag significant deficiencies, while Peter Lynch’s growth‑at‑a‑reasonable‑price bar (34) and the efficient‑market view (35) find little edge over the market. At the extreme low end, Livermore’s trend rule (score 14) and Graham’s enterprising safety bar (score 3) deem the stock unattractive, highlighting how differing emphasis on price, growth, liquidity, and trend leads to divergent conclusions.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 88
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 80
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 77
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)
🟢 73
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 70
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 49
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 37
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 34
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 14
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 4
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
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 · 9 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.
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
14.8%
Net Margin
9.6%
EBITDA Margin
16.0%
ROE
-25.7%
ROA
13.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.52
Cash
$1.10B
Total Debt
$7.74B
Current Ratio
0.85
Debt/Equity
-1.44
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $0.440 |
| 15.5.2026 | $0.440 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.440 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.420 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.420 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.420 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.420 |
| 15.8.2025 | $0.420 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.420 |
| 16.5.2025 | $0.420 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.420 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.390 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
-$13.65
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$18.81
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 11 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
StockStory · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Barchart · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 30.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
Otis Worldwide (OTIS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
OTIS currently scores 42/100 (Weak) 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.
OTIS's technical score is 16/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: -1.44; Debt/equity: -1.44.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.85; Calmar: -0.15 (3y annualized return -5.5% / max drawdown 36.0%); Return on equity (ROE): -25.7% (negative).
Yes — OTIS 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gosk Kimberly Shannon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 933 | +933 | — |
| Gosk Kimberly Shannon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 933 | -933 | — |
| Gosk Kimberly Shannon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.9.2026 | 274 | -274 | $70.83 |
| Mendez Echevarria Maria Cristina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 11,394 | +2,137 | — |
| Mendez Echevarria Maria Cristina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 2,145 | -2,137 | — |
| Mendez Echevarria Maria Cristina | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.8.2026 | 10,556 | -838 | $71.49 |
| Mendez Echevarria Maria Cristina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 2,137 | +2,137 | — |
| Mendez Echevarria Maria Cristina | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 2,137 | -2,137 | — |
| Mendez Echevarria Maria Cristina | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.8.2026 | 838 | -838 | $71.49 |
| KEARNEY CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 290.899 | -290.899 | $72.19 |
| KEARNEY CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 19,941 | -291 | $72.19 |
| Armas Joseph Jay | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.6.2026 | 1,680 | -1,680 | — |
| Armas Joseph Jay | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.6.2026 | 1,680 | +1,680 | — |
| Armas Joseph Jay | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.6.2026 | 421 | -421 | $70.33 |
| Armas Joseph Jay | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.6.2026 | 3,411 | +1,680 | — |
| Armas Joseph Jay | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.6.2026 | 2,990 | -421 | $70.33 |
| Armas Joseph Jay | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.6.2026 | 3,362 | -1,680 | — |
| Brannon Jill | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 4,527.093 | +4,527.093 | $71.79 |
| Connors Nelda J | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 2,716.256 | +2,716.256 | $71.79 |
| Black Jeffrey Harry | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 2,799.833 | +2,799.833 | $71.79 |
| Hannan Kathy Hopinkah | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 2,758.044 | +2,758.044 | $71.79 |
| PRESTON MARGARET M V | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 4,596.74 | +4,596.74 | $71.79 |
| WALKER JOHN H | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 4,805.683 | +4,805.683 | $71.79 |
| Stewart Shelley JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 2,590.89 | +2,590.89 | $71.79 |
| KEARNEY CHRISTOPHER J | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 2,590.89 | +2,590.89 | $71.79 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
15,148,224 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 14,376,624 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
67.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 67.6% 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