Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$105.16
▼ $2.63 (-2.4%)
Market data updated: 09/17 06:47 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$181.86B
Day Range
$103.89 - $107.55
52-Week Range
$83.96 - $114.53
Beta
—
Next Earnings
15.10.2026
SCHW is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
+17.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/30 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 22.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $81.98 vs. price $105.16 (-22.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), 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.
89/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
93/100
Analog Quality
+8.2%
Median 40D Outcome
67/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+5.0% … +11.5%
🟡 Base
33%
-0.6% … +0.2%
🔴 Bearish
20%
-7.4% … -2.7%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 60 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 +0.2%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
2 occurrence(s) · 0% 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%) | +0.1% | -1.6% … +2.2% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -1.0% | -1.7% … +2.7% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.2% | -0.7% … +7.5% | +1.0% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +8.2% | -4.6% … +14.9% | +2.3% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +8.4% | -3.2% … +14.0% | +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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-08 | 89/100 | Uptrend | -0.2% | -29.9% |
| 2025-08-22 | 86/100 | Uptrend | -1.5% | -4.1% |
| 2025-02-20 | 86/100 | Uptrend | -4.0% | +8.4% |
| 2017-11-15 | 85/100 | Uptrend | +12.7% | +14.8% |
| 2017-11-01 | 84/100 | Uptrend | +10.3% | +20.3% |
| 2021-09-13 | 84/100 | Consolidation | +6.6% | +13.1% |
| 2018-06-05 | 83/100 | Uptrend | -10.8% | -8.8% |
| 2019-12-23 | 83/100 | Uptrend | -0.6% | -36.9% |
| 2025-11-04 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +0.2% | +12.1% |
| 2025-10-09 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +0.2% | +10.2% |
| 2021-11-17 | 81/100 | Uptrend | +3.0% | +7.8% |
| 2026-06-08 | 81/100 | Downtrend | +15.5% | +22.9% |
| 2025-12-02 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +8.5% | +3.7% |
| 2026-05-22 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +3.3% | +23.0% |
| 2026-03-18 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -0.7% | -2.3% |
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
58
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
82
Quality
50
Value
38
Momentum
46
Risk
44
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
57
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING SCHW...
Recent media coverage of Charles Schwab Corporation highlights shifting retail investor behavior and strategic financial moves. The company’s proprietary **Schwab Trading Activity Index (STAX)** showed a decline in August, reflecting reduced stock buying activity and a 3.9% drop in retail positions as investors trimmed gains. Meanwhile, Schwab’s bond ETFs attracted billions amid rising Treasury yields, signaling demand for fixed-income assets. While not directly featured, headlines also noted industry trends like Robinhood’s IPO underwriting and agentic trading growth, indirectly framing Schwab within broader retail brokerage dynamics.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Charles Schwab Corporation. News trend score: 98. Reason: 12 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
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
59
Fundamentals
57
Technical
46
Valuation
38
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
Price (3M)
+14%
Market Narrative
71
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** behavior in SCHW reflects relative underperformance today (-2.2% vs peers), consistent with traders aligning with broader sector trends. Meanwhile, elevated **euphoria** (32) and **overconfidence** (27) stem from valuation metrics (+30% above DCF) despite weak momentum, hinting at a disconnect between price and fundamentals. The **narrative gap** (33) suggests traders may be overestimating positive narratives relative to reality. The key question: Will herd behavior persist if momentum fails to recover, or will valuation-driven confidence sustain despite underperformance?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:27 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Retail investors were less eager buyers of stocks in August, taking advantage of gains early in the month to trim some of their positions"
"Schwab Bond ETFs are attracting billions in investments"
"Robinhood enters IPO underwriting with Oura. The move is expected to expand retail allocations, deepen issuer ties and add a new fee-based revenue stream"
"The Schwab Trading Activity Index™ (STAX) decreased to 57.50 in August, down from its score of 59.80 in July"
📈 13D 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
Philip Fisher — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Fisher's documented principles, the model estimates that SCHW ranks very highly, reflecting exceptional company quality, while Lynch and Nelson also give strong scores, seeing growth that the price has not yet fully recognized and a favorable cycle position. Mid‑range scores from Mackay, Veblen, Smith, Marks‑cycle and Housel suggest the stock is solid and creates real value but lacks obvious crowd enthusiasm or effortless upside. Lower scores from Livermore, Marks, Loeb, the efficient‑market view and Schwager indicate concerns about negative trends, potentially over‑inflated expectations, and a risk profile that would keep disciplined traders or index‑focused investors on the sidelines. The very low scores from Graham, Bagehot and Graham‑Enterprising highlight fundamental safety‑margin and liquidity deficiencies, leading those frameworks to deem the stock unsuitable under their defensive or enterprising criteria.
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 96
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 86
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)
🟢 73
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 67
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 59
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 57
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 48
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 36
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 34
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 30
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 4
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
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
🔴 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?
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 (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
86.4%
Operating Margin
41.4%
Net Margin
32.0%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
17.9%
ROA
1.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.67
Cash
$46.03B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.39
Debt/Equity
5.80
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $0.320 |
| 8.5.2026 | $0.320 |
| 7.5.2026 | $0.320 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.320 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.320 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.270 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.270 |
| 8.8.2025 | $0.270 |
| 7.8.2025 | $0.270 |
| 9.5.2025 | $0.270 |
| 8.5.2025 | $0.270 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.270 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$105.16
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$81.98
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-22.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.6% | $9.25B | $8.49B |
| 2 | 4.8% | $9.70B | $8.17B |
| 3 | 4.1% | $10.09B | $7.79B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $10.43B | $7.39B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $10.69B | $6.95B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$8.76B
Terminal Value
$168.51B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$109.52B
Enterprise Value
$148.30B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$148.30B
*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
$28.11
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$24.00
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 4 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Charles Schwab Corporation (SCHW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, 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.
SCHW currently scores 58/100 (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, SCHW's estimated fair value is $81.98, which is 22.0% below the current price of $105.16. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SCHW'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: Revenue growth (last year): 22.0%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 55.5%; Free cash flow growth: 327.5%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $81.98 vs. price $105.16 (-22.0%); Current ratio: 0.39; Debt/equity: 5.80.
Yes — SCHW 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 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hathi Neesha | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 3,177 | -3,177 | — |
| Hathi Neesha | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 3,177 | +3,177 | $52.05 |
| Hathi Neesha | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 3,177 | -3,177 | $109.04 |
| Hathi Neesha | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 0 | -3,177 | $108.12 |
| Bettinger Walter W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 154,589 | -74,388 | — |
| Bettinger Walter W | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 610,360 | -74,388 | $110.91 |
| Hathi Neesha | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 0 | +3,177 | $52.05 |
| Bettinger Walter W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 684,748 | +74,388 | $46.81 |
| Hathi Neesha | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 3,177 | -3,177 | — |
| Bettinger Walter W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 74,388 | -74,388 | — |
| Bettinger Walter W | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 74,388 | -74,388 | $110.91 |
| Hathi Neesha | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 3,177 | -3,177 | $108.12 |
| Bettinger Walter W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 74,388 | +74,388 | $46.81 |
| Hathi Neesha | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 3,177 | -3,177 | — |
| Hathi Neesha | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 3,177 | +3,177 | $52.05 |
| Schwab Charles R. | Gift | 27.8.2026 | 9,300 | -9,300 | — |
| Schwab Charles R. | Gift | 27.8.2026 | 53,549,441 | -9,300 | — |
| Schwab-Pomerantz Carolyn | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 9,175 | -9,175 | $109.25 |
| Schwab-Pomerantz Carolyn | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 1,323,162 | -9,175 | $109.25 |
| Bettinger Walter W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 176,210 | +176,210 | $46.81 |
| Schwab Charles R. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 117,000 | -117,000 | $113.20 |
| Bettinger Walter W | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 176,210 | -176,210 | $113.49 |
| Bettinger Walter W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 176,210 | -176,210 | — |
| Bettinger Walter W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 786,570 | +176,210 | $46.81 |
| Bettinger Walter W | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 610,360 | -176,210 | $113.49 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
21,290,875 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 20,477,875 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.3% 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