Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$20.42
▼ $0.14 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:04 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$20.22 - $20.69
52-Week Range
$10.40 - $42.22
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$15.68
Resistance
$23.68
-53.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/26 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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $63.05 vs. price $20.42 (+208.8%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 6.0% of price
Risk
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
as of 09/10/202664
This Week
70
7D Ago
↓ -6
Weakening
Technical
46
7D Ago: 69
↓ -23
Fundamental
67
7D Ago: 67
→ 0
Growth
82
7D Ago: 82
→ 0
Valuation
62
7D Ago: 62
→ 0
News
100
7D Ago: 100
→ 0
Quality
58
7D Ago: 58
→ 0
Risk
34
7D Ago: 34
→ 0
Biggest Declines
📊 Score History
64
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
64 / 100
🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 29, 2026
Then
74
$21.98
Now
64
$20.42
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
82
Quality
58
Value
62
Momentum
46
Risk
34
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
67
Institutional
15
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 Pagaya Technologies Ltd. highlights its strong financial performance and market momentum, particularly focusing on its record $45 million profit in Q2 2026, marking a key profitability milestone after years of growth. Analysts praise its AI-driven lending platform, which leverages machine learning to expand its lending network, while also noting its 93.8% stock surge over six months. TD Cowen initiated a "Buy" rating with a $26 price target, underscoring its bullish technical setup and valuation appeal.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Pagaya Technologies Ltd.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
67
Technical
46
Valuation
62
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+31%
Market Narrative
49
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **herding** behavior reflects PGY’s relative underperformance (-3.9%) against peers (-2.0%), suggesting traders are aligning with broader sector trends rather than fundamentals. Meanwhile, **euphoria** (score 45) and **overconfidence** (score 12) coexist due to extreme positive sentiment (100/100) and detached valuation metrics (e.g., -65% vs. DCF), implying investors may ignore mispricing. The **narrative gap** (21-point disparity) hints at a disconnect between optimistic expectations and underlying reality. The key question: will herding persist if PGY’s underperformance widens, or will euphoria override caution despite valuation extremes?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:07 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Pagaya Technologies reported a record $45 million of GAAP net income"
"Pagaya Technologies (PGY) shows strong growth, reasonable valuation, and a bullish technical setup"
"Pagaya shares soar 93.8% in six months as stronger growth and profitability support a rebound"
"TD Cowen Initiates Pagaya Technologies at Buy With $26 Price Target"
📈 11D 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
Peter Lynch — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented methodologies and more conservative or cyclical frameworks. Peter Lynch’s near-perfect score and Philip Fisher’s high approval suggest the company exhibits strong qualitative growth potential and exceptional fundamentals, aligning with their focus on long-term expansion and quality. Meanwhile, Thorstein Veblen’s moderate endorsement reinforces the idea that growth is tied to real value creation, though not necessarily at a discount. In stark contrast, the majority of value-driven and cyclical investors—from Benjamin Graham and Howard Marks to Samuel Nelson and Gerald Loeb—flag significant red flags, either due to valuation concerns, perceived risk, or signs of market overreach. The efficient-market camp and Schwager’s disciplined approach further dismiss the stock as a clear outlier, while Charles Mackay’s skepticism hints at speculative crowd behavior. The debate thus hinges on whether the stock’s growth justifies its valuation or if it’s overpriced, with growth investors betting on upside and defensive investors treating it as a high-risk gamble.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 96
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 87
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 76
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 68
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 51
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 46
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 36
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 23
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
🔴 0
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: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 6 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 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
42.4%
Operating Margin
20.3%
Net Margin
6.3%
EBITDA Margin
22.6%
ROE
17.0%
ROA
5.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.99
Cash
$235.33M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$20.42
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$63.05
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+208.8%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
20.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20.5% | $270.87M | $248.51M |
| 2 | 16.0% | $314.29M | $264.53M |
| 3 | 11.5% | $350.49M | $270.64M |
| 4 | 7.0% | $375.06M | $265.70M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $384.44M | $249.86M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$224.72M
Terminal Value
$6.06B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$3.94B
Enterprise Value
$5.24B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$5.24B
*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
$5.78
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$5.41
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 4 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Pagaya Technologies Ltd. (PGY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 64/100, 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.
PGY currently scores 64/100 (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, PGY's estimated fair value is $63.05, which is 208.8% above the current price of $20.42. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PGY's technical score is 46/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Estimated fair value: $63.05 vs. price $20.42 (+208.8%); Revenue growth (last year): 26.1%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 116.4%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 6.0% of price; Calmar: -0.00 (3y annualized return -0.4% / max drawdown 75.7%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for PGY.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 11 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosen Tami | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 1,265 | -1,265 | $23.07 |
| Vieira Cory | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 5,208 | -5,208 | — |
| Vieira Cory | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 5,208 | +5,208 | — |
| Vieira Cory | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 3,075 | -3,075 | $22.71 |
| Gardner Jason M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 5,946 | +5,946 | — |
| Rosen Tami | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 7,302 | +7,302 | — |
| DAS SANJIV | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 21,289 | -21,289 | $22.00 |
| Rosen Tami | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 28,181 | -28,181 | $21.98 |
| DAS SANJIV | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 144,186 | -21,289 | $22.00 |
| Rosen Tami | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 44,846 | +7,302 | — |
| Rosen Tami | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 16,665 | -28,181 | $21.98 |
| Dobres Jonathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 34,995 | +34,995 | — |
| Dobres Jonathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 34,995 | +34,995 | — |
| DAS SANJIV | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.6.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Vieira Cory | Open Market Sale | 25.6.2026 | 1,458 | -1,458 | $15.83 |
| Vieira Cory | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.6.2026 | 3,572 | +3,572 | — |
| DAS SANJIV | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.6.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | — |
| Vieira Cory | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.6.2026 | 3,572 | -3,572 | — |
| DAS SANJIV | Open Market Sale | 25.6.2026 | 14,000 | -14,000 | $15.83 |
| Krubiner Gal | Open Market Purchase | 24.6.2026 | 16,230 | +16,230 | $15.43 |
| Krubiner Gal | Open Market Purchase | 24.6.2026 | 555,906 | +16,230 | $15.43 |
| Rosen Tami | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 9,944 | -9,944 | $15.20 |
| Rosen Tami | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 37,544 | -9,944 | $15.20 |
| Perros Evangelos | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 11,558 | -11,558 | $16.23 |
| Perros Evangelos | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.6.2026 | 20,625 | +20,625 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
10,426,236 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 12,410,472 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
36.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 33.2% 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