Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$4.68
▲ $0.03 (+0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/18 04:49 AM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$4.67 - $4.74
52-Week Range
$4.50 - $5.93
Beta
—
Next Earnings
08.01.2027
-21.2% (1Y)
🔴 Weak
Strengths: 1/13 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.9% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.37 (3y annualized return -13.2% / max drawdown 36.1%)
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
🌱 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
31
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 · $4.57
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 22 to 48 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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
15
Risk
50
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
100
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 the **abrdn Income Credit Strategies Fund Common** has primarily focused on investor concerns and operational updates. Analysts, like those at SeekingAlpha, have flagged risks such as **net asset value (NAV) erosion**, an **unsustainable 17.9% yield**, and heightened exposure to **high-yield debt and leverage**, prompting a "sell" recommendation. Meanwhile, routine PR Newswire announcements highlight **quarterly dividend declarations** and **shareholder meeting outcomes**, with no major strategic shifts or financial surprises reported. The focus remains on stability amid yield sustainability and credit risk concerns.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about abrdn Income Credit Strategies Fund Common. News trend score: 62. Reason: 2 of the last 8 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
45
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
53
Fundamentals
—
Technical
15
Valuation
—
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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-12%
Market Narrative
38
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for ACP strongly suggests **anchoring**, as the stock sits precisely at a key support level (0.0% distance), anchoring traders' expectations. The low FOMO (score 1) and absence of euphoria or overconfidence imply a cautious, reference-point-driven mindset. Mild panic selling (score 16) and herding (score 36) are secondary, reflecting relative underperformance but not dominant sentiment. The key question is whether traders will treat this support as a floor or a trigger for further price discovery, given the neutral narrative-reality gap (-11).
Updated: 09/07/2026, 04:15 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"abrdn Income Credit Strategies Fund 5.25% Series A Perpetual Preferred Shares Declare Quarterly Dividend"
"Certain Aberdeen Investments U.S. Closed-End Funds Declare Distribution Dates and Amounts"
"ABERDEEN INVESTMENTS U.S. CLOSED-END FUNDS ANNOUNCE RESULTS OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 13D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 30/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies that prioritize fundamental strength and those skeptical of active selection. The highest-scoring approaches—like Mackay’s crowd psychology assessment and Smith’s dividend/growth limitations—suggest it avoids speculative bubbles or lacks clear growth signals, while Nelson’s cyclical analysis and Housel’s patient-compounder lens frame it as a low-risk, long-term hold. Meanwhile, Marks’ cycle and risk assessments, along with Veblen’s value alignment, lean cautiously optimistic, viewing it as mid-cycle with reasonable risk-reward. However, the efficient-market camp and Graham/Fisher/Lynch all flag insufficient data, implying a lack of decisive fundamentals, while Livermore’s low score and Schwager’s indecision highlight potential short-term volatility or trend resistance. The contrast underscores whether the stock’s quiet fundamentals (favored by Housel or Marks) justify active picking or if its ambiguity (per the Graham/Fisher reads) makes it better suited for passive strategies.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 89
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 82
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 70
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 68
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 63
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)
🟡 59
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
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%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 30
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
Based on the last 279 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.8.2026 | $0.078 |
| 23.7.2026 | $0.078 |
| 22.7.2026 | $0.078 |
| 23.6.2026 | $0.078 |
| 22.6.2026 | $0.078 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.078 |
| 20.5.2026 | $0.078 |
| 22.4.2026 | $0.078 |
| 21.4.2026 | $0.078 |
| 24.3.2026 | $0.078 |
| 23.3.2026 | $0.078 |
| 20.2.2026 | $0.078 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 6 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 8 articles.
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.8.2026
PR Newswire · 11.8.2026
PR Newswire · 10.7.2026
PR Newswire · 8.6.2026
PR Newswire · 27.5.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for abrdn Income Credit Strategies Fund Common (ACP) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for ACP specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
ACP's technical score is 15/100, 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: ATR: 1.9% of price.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.37 (3y annualized return -13.2% / max drawdown 36.1%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — ACP 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 — 10 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Porter Rahn K | Open Market Purchase | 30.9.2025 | 2,200 | +2,200 | $5.79 |
| Porter Rahn K | Open Market Purchase | 30.9.2025 | 2,200 | +2,200 | $5.79 |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Open Market Purchase | 26.9.2025 | 500 | +500 | $5.93 |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Open Market Purchase | 26.9.2025 | 2,277 | +500 | $5.93 |
| Reit Todd | Open Market Purchase | 23.9.2025 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $5.82 |
| Reit Todd | Open Market Purchase | 23.9.2025 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $5.82 |
| Yao Nancy | Open Market Purchase | 12.5.2025 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $5.77 |
| BIRD STEPHEN | Open Market Purchase | 18.10.2021 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $11.25 |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.6.2021 | 1,333 | -1,333 | — |
| Sievwright John P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.6.2021 | 2,422 | +2,422 | — |
| Takian Randy | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.6.2021 | 612 | +612 | — |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.6.2021 | 444 | +444 | — |
| Takian Randy | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.6.2021 | 1,836 | -1,836 | — |
| Maasbach Nancy Yao | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.6.2021 | 333 | +333 | — |
| Sievwright John P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.6.2021 | 7,266 | -7,266 | — |
| Maasbach Nancy Yao | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.6.2021 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| Maasbach Nancy Yao | Open Market Purchase | 10.3.2020 | 100 | +100 | $10.20 |
| Maasbach Nancy Yao | Open Market Purchase | 23.1.2020 | 900 | +900 | $11.51 |
| Takian Randy | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 19.11.2019 | 503 | -503 | — |
| Sievwright John P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 19.11.2019 | 600 | -600 | — |
| Takian Randy | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 19.11.2019 | 503 | +503 | — |
| Sievwright John P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 19.11.2019 | 600 | +600 | — |
| Sievwright John P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 13.11.2019 | 5,000 | -5,000 | — |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 13.11.2019 | 333 | +333 | — |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 13.11.2019 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
323,570 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 158,219 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
19.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 34.8% 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