Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Utilities · ·
$69.77
▼ $1.21 (-1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/21 09:45 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$34.77B
Day Range
$69.72 - $70.58
52-Week Range
$69.72 - $87.63
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$69.72
Resistance
$81.65
PEG is a stock from the Utilities sector — Electricity, water, and residential gas — steady demand and heavy regulation, considered a defensive, dividend-paying sector.
-14.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/31 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 102.1%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$43.81 vs. price $69.77 (-162.8%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), 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.
78/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
88/100
Analog Quality
+6.2%
Median 40D Outcome
74/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+3.7% … +5.4%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.6% … -0.6%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-5.5% … -1.8%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 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 +3.5%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
8 occurrence(s) · 75% historical success
Echo #2 — 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 | 73% (48%–89%) | +3.0% | +1.1% … +4.3% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 73% (48%–89%) | +2.5% | +0.7% … +3.3% | +0.4% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.5% | -1.0% … +4.8% | +0.5% |
| 40D | 93% (70%–99%) | +6.2% | +3.1% … +8.9% | +1.1% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +5.4% | +2.2% … +7.9% | +1.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-20 | 78/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +15.4% | -7.8% |
| 2026-05-15 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +4.9% | -0.7% |
| 2025-12-08 | 72/100 | Downtrend | -1.5% | +5.8% |
| 2023-03-01 | 72/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +4.8% | +2.2% |
| 2017-06-29 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +4.8% | +8.3% |
| 2025-03-10 | 70/100 | Downtrend | -1.9% | +2.3% |
| 2024-01-19 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +2.1% | +9.8% |
| 2023-05-31 | 68/100 | Downtrend | +3.5% | +2.3% |
| 2020-09-01 | 68/100 | Downtrend | +7.7% | +17.6% |
| 2023-02-09 | 67/100 | Downtrend | -5.4% | +6.6% |
| 2026-01-08 | 67/100 | Downtrend | +4.2% | +5.4% |
| 2025-11-05 | 66/100 | Downtrend | +1.1% | +2.1% |
| 2023-09-05 | 65/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -5.7% | +7.5% |
| 2026-04-22 | 65/100 | Downtrend | -0.6% | -0.9% |
| 2025-05-14 | 65/100 | Downtrend | +5.5% | +12.0% |
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 XLU (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
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
73
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
6
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
56
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING PEG...
Recent media coverage of **Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG)** has primarily focused on its financial performance and operational reliability. Investor attention centers on its recent stock decline following earnings reports, with analysts assessing whether the company can rebound amid mixed market expectations. Additionally, PSEG’s utility subsidiary, PSE&G, has been highlighted for its infrastructure modernization efforts and strong reliability results ahead of hurricane season, reinforcing its preparedness for severe weather. No major new strategic shifts or controversies were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Public Service Enterprise Group. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
99
Fundamentals
56
Technical
6
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+17
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for PEG suggests traders are fixating on a near-term support level (1.6% above), consistent with anchoring. While extreme positive sentiment (100/100) and herd-like relative outperformance (+0.8% vs. peers) imply momentum-driven participation, the negative ROC (-2.2%) and neutral RSI (40) temper euphoric or FOMO-driven moves. The key open question is whether traders will hold near support or break away—given the narrative-reality gap (21 points), expectations may be overly optimistic. The dominant anchoring suggests a focus on immediate price levels rather than fundamentals or long-term trends.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:49 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Dividend Champion, Contender, And Challenger Highlights: Week September 6 — Explore this week’s dividend updates for Dividend Champions"
"modernize New Jersey's electric and gas infrastructure are helping deliver safe, reliable service"
"strengthening PSE&G's year-round preparedness for severe weather as the region enters the peak of Atlantic hurricane season"
"GridSmart Battery Program... helps residential electric customers offset the cost of purchasing and installing qualifying home battery energy storage systems"
📈 9D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between bullish, growth-oriented methodologies and more conservative, risk-averse frameworks. Investors like Jack Schwager, Samuel Nelson, and Philip Fisher—who prioritize favorable market positioning, cyclical strength, and exceptional company fundamentals—all rate it highly (80–84), suggesting it meets their criteria for disciplined, high-quality opportunities. In contrast, stricter value investors like Benjamin Graham and Walter Bagehot dismiss it outright (scores of 6–28), flagging liquidity risks and defensive violations that make it unsuitable for their core strategies. Meanwhile, moderates like Peter Lynch and Howard Marks (both scoring 44–65) acknowledge potential but temper enthusiasm, noting either overpriced growth or cyclical mid-range positioning, illustrating how the same stock can be seen as either a long-term hold or a speculative gamble depending on the investor’s core philosophy.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 81
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 80
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 68
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 66
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 60
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 38
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)
🟡 37
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 31
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 28
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)
🔴 11
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 8
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 (0 bullish · 11 bearish · 0 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
24.5%
Net Margin
17.3%
EBITDA Margin
24.5%
ROE
12.4%
ROA
3.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.23
Cash
$132.00M
Total Debt
$22.55B
Current Ratio
0.80
Debt/Equity
1.33
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 9.9.2026 | $0.670 |
| 9.6.2026 | $0.670 |
| 8.6.2026 | $0.670 |
| 10.3.2026 | $0.670 |
| 9.3.2026 | $0.670 |
| 10.12.2025 | $0.630 |
| 9.12.2025 | $0.630 |
| 9.9.2025 | $0.630 |
| 8.9.2025 | $0.630 |
| 9.6.2025 | $0.630 |
| 8.6.2025 | $0.630 |
| 10.3.2025 | $0.630 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$69.77
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$43.81
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-162.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
8.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.2% | $28.12M | $25.80M |
| 2 | 6.7% | $30.02M | $25.27M |
| 3 | 5.3% | $31.62M | $24.42M |
| 4 | 3.9% | $32.86M | $23.28M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $33.68M | $21.89M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$26.00M
Terminal Value
$531.10M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$345.18M
Enterprise Value
$465.83M
Net Debt
$22.41B
Equity Value
$-21.95B
*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
$33.90
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$33.90
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 7 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Motley Fool · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Barchart · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
PR Newswire · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 26.8.2026
MT Newswires · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
MT Newswires · 26.8.2026
Public Service Enterprise Group (PEG) 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.
PEG 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, PEG's estimated fair value is -$43.81, which is 162.8% below the current price of $69.77. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PEG's technical score is 6/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 102.1%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; ATR: 1.7% of price.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$43.81 vs. price $69.77 (-162.8%); Current ratio: 0.80; Calmar: 0.18 (3y annualized return 4.8% / max drawdown 26.2%).
Yes — PEG 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 12 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LaRossa Ralph A | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 2,083 | -2,083 | $73.46 |
| Thigpen Richard T | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 8,000 | -8,000 | $74.56 |
| Thigpen Richard T | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 20,970 | -8,000 | $74.56 |
| LaRossa Ralph A | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 2,083 | -2,083 | $76.47 |
| LaRossa Ralph A | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 283,656 | -2,083 | $76.47 |
| LaRossa Ralph A | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 2,083 | -2,083 | $80.51 |
| LaRossa Ralph A | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 285,149 | -2,083 | $80.51 |
| Hanemann Kim C | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 3,035 | -3,035 | $82.00 |
| Hanemann Kim C | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 98,815 | -3,035 | $82.00 |
| LaRossa Ralph A | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 2,083 | -2,083 | $77.01 |
| LaRossa Ralph A | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 287,232 | -2,083 | $77.01 |
| SUGG LAURA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| Gentoso Jamie M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| SURMA JOHN P | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| Perez Ricardo G | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| Deese Willie A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| Stephenson Scott G | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| Smith Valerie Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| Williams Geisha J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| TOMASKY SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| TANJI KENNETH | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,246 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| TOMASKY SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 53,197 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| SURMA JOHN P | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 16,587 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| Deese Willie A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 11,933 | +2,246 | $80.15 |
| LaRossa Ralph A | Open Market Sale | 1.5.2026 | 289,315 | -2,083 | $81.21 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
10,392,181 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,298,636 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
27.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 44.5% 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