Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$12.35
▼ $0.21 (-1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/19 02:03 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$5.99B
Day Range
$12.32 - $12.60
52-Week Range
$10.86 - $20.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$10.86
Resistance
$15.48
ACI is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
-31.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/28 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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
MACD
MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
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
🌱 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
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
3d ago · $12.76
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 5 to 30 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
42
Value
50
Momentum
54
Risk
34
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
38
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage on Albertsons Companies has primarily focused on its inclusion in a broader Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into rising beef prices across major U.S. retailers, including Walmart, Kroger, and Costco. The probe, linked to inflation concerns ahead of midterm elections, examines how retail pricing practices may have contributed to soaring meat costs. Albertsons was not directly highlighted beyond this context, with no specific company developments reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Albertsons Companies, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 4 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
12
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
14
Fundamentals
38
Technical
54
Valuation
50
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-7%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **Loss Aversion** (score 40) reflects a defensive stance after a steep 23.3% drop, despite modest momentum (+3.5% ROC) and elevated volume. FOMO (20) lingers due to momentum and volume spikes, but euphoria is absent—RSI (55) and negative 200-day deviation keep excitement muted. The narrative gap (5-point overestimation) suggests traders may be underweighting recent weakness. Key question: Will elevated volume sustain or signal exhaustion as losses persist?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:45 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"DOJ expands beef price probe to eight retailers, including Walmart and Amazon, with inflation a key issue"
"The DOJ just expanded its investigation into eight major grocery chains and big-box retailers, asking, ‘How did these beef prices get so high?’"
"Albertsons Companies stock has fallen about 41% over the past five years"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 11D 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 — 89/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for ACI reflects a clash between cautious, defensive investors and those who prioritize relative valuation or market positioning. Benjamin Graham and Walter Bagehot’s near-zero scores highlight deep concerns about the stock’s fundamentals and liquidity, aligning with their strict defensive criteria—Graham’s focus on margin of safety and Bagehot’s emphasis on financial stability. In contrast, Charles Mackay’s high score suggests the stock avoids obvious crowd-driven mania, while Howard Marks’ mid-range verdicts balance cycle awareness with risk tolerance, implying it’s neither wildly overextended nor a clear bargain. Meanwhile, Fisher, Lynch, and Graham’s *Enterprising* variant reject it for lacking growth or value, while Veblen and Nelson flag speculative or overbought tendencies. The spectrum from Livermore’s bearish trend-following stance to Housel’s volatility concerns underscores a stock that either lacks clear momentum or carries unsettling risk, depending on the framework.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 89
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)
🟢 75
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)
🟡 63
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 51
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 39
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 35
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 29
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 28
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 28
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 25
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 14
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)
🔴 12
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 2
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
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
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (6 bullish · 4 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.
Low 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
27.2%
Operating Margin
0.9%
Net Margin
0.3%
EBITDA Margin
3.2%
ROE
11.8%
ROA
0.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.40
Cash
$198.60M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.86
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.7.2026 | $0.170 |
| 23.7.2026 | $0.170 |
| 24.4.2026 | $0.170 |
| 23.4.2026 | $0.170 |
| 23.1.2026 | $0.150 |
| 22.1.2026 | $0.150 |
| 24.10.2025 | $0.150 |
| 23.10.2025 | $0.150 |
| 25.7.2025 | $0.150 |
| 24.7.2025 | $0.150 |
| 25.4.2025 | $0.150 |
| 24.4.2025 | $0.150 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$3.36
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$2.78
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 14 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
StockStory · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
PR Newswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
TheStreet · 10.9.2026
Quartz · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
The Wall Street Journal · 9.9.2026
Albertsons Companies, Inc. (ACI) 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.
ACI 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.
ACI's technical score is 54/100, 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: MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; RSI 52.0 — healthy positive momentum; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.86; Calmar: -0.35 (3y annualized return -18.8% / max drawdown 52.9%).
Yes — ACI 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moriarty Thomas M | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 164,745 | +164,745 | — |
| WHITMAN MARGARET C | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 733,114 | +733,114 | — |
| Larson Robert Bruce | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 40,128 | +40,128 | — |
| MCCOLLAM SHARON | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 1,835 | +1,835 | — |
| MCCOLLAM SHARON | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 2,564 | +2,564 | — |
| DHANDA ANUJ | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 1,781 | +1,781 | — |
| DHANDA ANUJ | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 327 | +327 | — |
| DHANDA ANUJ | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 374 | +374 | — |
| DHANDA ANUJ | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 627 | +627 | — |
| DHANDA ANUJ | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 1,267 | +1,267 | — |
| Bruno Frank W | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 154 | +154 | — |
| Pinkham Allison Suzanne | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 2,425 | +2,425 | — |
| MCCOLLAM SHARON | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 474 | +474 | — |
| MCCOLLAM SHARON | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 916 | +916 | — |
| MORRIS SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 2,494 | +2,494 | — |
| MCCOLLAM SHARON | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 484 | +484 | — |
| Larson Robert Bruce | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 147 | +147 | — |
| Larson Robert Bruce | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 328 | +328 | — |
| Larson Robert Bruce | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 110 | +110 | — |
| Pinkham Allison Suzanne | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 1,223 | +1,223 | — |
| Larson Robert Bruce | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 73 | +73 | — |
| MORRIS SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 4,811 | +4,811 | — |
| MORRIS SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 1,243 | +1,243 | — |
| MORRIS SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 553 | +553 | — |
| Larson Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.8.2026 | 185 | +185 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
54,431,919 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 48,342,446 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.1% 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