Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$24.65
▲ $0.06 (+0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 08:21 AM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$24.59 - $24.75
52-Week Range
$20.91 - $28.60
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.10.2026
Support
$23.98
Resistance
$27.09
+1.5% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 2/13 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: 2.0% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.38 (3y annualized return 11.8% / max drawdown 31.1%)
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
38
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
26
Risk
50
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
53
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 Virtus Artificial Intelligence & Technology Opportunities Fund has primarily focused on its financial performance and investor appeal. The fund has announced distributions and disclosed their sources, while also highlighting portfolio management adjustments. It was included among top closed-end funds (CEFs) offering high yields (near 10%) and discounts, alongside broader commentary on AI-driven investment opportunities and strong monthly income potential.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Virtus Artificial Intelligence & Technology Opportunities Fund Common Shares of Beneficial Interest. News trend score: 62. Reason: 4 of the last 10 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
14
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
46
Fundamentals
—
Technical
26
Valuation
—
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior suggests traders are synchronizing actions based on relative underperformance rather than extreme sentiment or momentum. The low FOMO/Panic scores indicate no panic or urgency, while anchoring near resistance hints at a potential reference point for future decisions. The narrative gap (-5) implies a slight disconnect between market perception and fundamentals, but no clear bias dominates. Key uncertainty remains: whether traders will react to the 4.4% resistance gap or remain passive as peers outperform.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 07:29 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Announces Distribution"
"Portfolio Management Refinements"
"Artificial Intelligence is driving a new infrastructure and an internet revolution"
"10%+ yields, 7.7% NAV discounts"
📈 4D 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 — 90/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 29/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing potential while others flag it as a high-risk or speculative bet. The highest-scoring approaches—like those of **Edgar Lawrence Smith** (100) and **Charles Mackay** (92)—either dismiss it outright due to insufficient data or rule out crowd-driven mania, suggesting a lack of obvious hype. Meanwhile, **Thorstein Veblen** (80) and **Morgan Housel** (74) lean positive, praising its growth alignment with real value or its quiet, patient-friendly nature, implying a long-term, fundamental appeal. Conversely, **Jesse Livermore** (27) and **Jack Schwager** (8) reject it entirely, citing a negative trend or a complete lack of disciplined setup, while **efficient-market theorists** (40) question whether active selection adds value over passive indexing. The middle-ground thinkers—like **Howard Marks** (67) and **Samuel Armstrong Nelson** (66)—balance risk and cycle positioning, acknowledging some merit but not enough to be aggressive.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 90
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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)
🟢 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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 72
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 67
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 58
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
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
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%
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 48
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Based on the last 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 8 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 |
|---|---|
| 14.9.2026 | $0.180 |
| 13.8.2026 | $0.180 |
| 13.7.2026 | $0.180 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.180 |
| 11.5.2026 | $0.150 |
| 13.4.2026 | $0.150 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.150 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.150 |
| 12.1.2026 | $0.150 |
| 29.12.2025 | $1.191 |
| 11.12.2025 | $0.150 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.150 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 10 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Business Wire · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 29.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Business Wire · 27.8.2026
Business Wire · 10.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 25.7.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.7.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Virtus Artificial Intelligence & Technology Opportunities Fund Common Shares of Beneficial Interest (AIO) — 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 AIO 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.
AIO's technical score is 26/100, 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: 2.0% of price; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.38 (3y annualized return 11.8% / max drawdown 31.1%); Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — AIO 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 9 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KASS JUSTIN | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 0 | -29,482 | $26.27 |
| Chen James C. K. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 0 | -250 | $26.21 |
| Chen James C. K. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 7,632 | -3,853 | $26.12 |
| Jue Stephen B | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 4,682 | -5,318 | $26.36 |
| Chen James C. K. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 250 | -7,382 | $26.16 |
| Jue Stephen B | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 0 | -4,682 | $26.25 |
| Chen James C. K. | Disposition to the Company | 10.8.2026 | 7,382 | -7,382 | $26.16 |
| Jue Stephen B | Disposition to the Company | 10.8.2026 | 5,318 | -5,318 | $26.36 |
| Chen James C. K. | Disposition to the Company | 10.8.2026 | 250 | -250 | $26.21 |
| Chen James C. K. | Disposition to the Company | 10.8.2026 | 3,853.259 | -3,853.259 | $26.12 |
| KASS JUSTIN | Disposition to the Company | 10.8.2026 | 29,481.584 | -29,481.584 | $26.27 |
| Jue Stephen B | Disposition to the Company | 10.8.2026 | 4,682 | -4,682 | $26.25 |
| BRADLEY WILLIAM PATRICK III | Open Market Sale | 20.3.2026 | 0 | -2,000 | $21.56 |
| BRADLEY WILLIAM PATRICK III | Open Market Sale | 20.3.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $21.56 |
| BRADLEY WILLIAM PATRICK III | Open Market Purchase | 29.7.2025 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $24.79 |
| MCDANIEL CONNIE D | Open Market Purchase | 11.12.2023 | 2,925 | +2,925 | $17.10 |
| BURKE DONALD C | Open Market Purchase | 28.6.2023 | 831.541 | +831.541 | $18.04 |
| DeCotis Deborah A | Open Market Purchase | 3.3.2022 | 1,117 | +1,117 | $21.87 |
| McLoughlin Philip R | Open Market Purchase | 25.2.2022 | 500 | +500 | $21.60 |
| Cogan Sarah E | Open Market Purchase | 13.1.2022 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $25.37 |
| AYLWARD GEORGE R | Open Market Purchase | 21.12.2021 | 3,685 | +3,685 | $27.14 |
| MACLEOD JAMES S | Open Market Purchase | 1.10.2021 | 2,050 | +2,050 | $26.83 |
| Drummond F Ford | Open Market Purchase | 29.4.2021 | 360 | +360 | $27.80 |
| Rappaport Alan | Open Market Purchase | 27.4.2021 | 1,500 | +1,500 | $27.76 |
| Allianz Global Investors U.S. LLC | Open Market Sale | 20.1.2021 | 5,573 | -5,573 | $28.05 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
44,142 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,496 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 35.8% 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