Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$17.76
▼ $0.11 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/18 08:10 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$875.99M
Day Range
$17.65 - $18.29
52-Week Range
$17.51 - $21.97
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$17.51
Resistance
$19.89
-13.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/23 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 43.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.12 (3y annualized return -2.9% / max drawdown 23.2%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
🐂🐻 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
70
Quality
No data available
Value
60
Momentum
20
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
53
Institutional
0
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.
Everyone's writing about Assurant, Inc. 5.25% Subordinated Notes due 2061. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 0 vs. 0 out of the last 1 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
59
Fundamentals
53
Technical
20
Valuation
60
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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)
-5%
Market Narrative
28
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme anchoring (92) suggests traders are fixated on the stock’s near-support level (0.4% away), ignoring its deep valuation gap (-97% vs. DCF) and weak momentum. Herding (34) hints at relative underperformance relative to peers, but no extreme deviation. The narrative gap (-9) implies traders may be overestimating fundamentals or underestimating risks. The key question: will traders break free from the support anchor, or will the stock remain trapped in a low-volatility, low-momentum consolidation?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:10 PM
What could change this?
📈 8D 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 36/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two stark camps: the value and cycle-focused investors see it as a near-universal opportunity, while the growth and contrarian traders remain far more cautious. Benjamin Graham and his enterprising variant, along with Charles Mackay and Samuel Armstrong Nelson, all score it perfectly, framing it as a deep-value or oversold cyclical play—ideal for defensive or patient investors. Even Morgan Housel and Howard Marks (in his risk-focused approach) agree it’s a disciplined, low-risk setup, though Marks’ cycle-specific take is slightly more reserved. Meanwhile, Peter Lynch and Edgar Lawrence Smith lean toward growth potential, though their scores dip slightly, suggesting they see it as a solid but not exceptional long-term hold. The divide widens with Fisher and Bagehot, who dismiss it as lacking the exceptional quality or balance-sheet strength they demand, while Jesse Livermore’s outright rejection—based on a perceived negative trend—stands as the lone outlier. The contrast highlights whether the stock’s current valuation reflects a true bargain (for value investors) or merely a speculative growth bet (for those skeptical of its fundamentals).
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 92
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 78
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)
🟢 77
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 72
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 70
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟢 66
A real, well-supported case — deviating from a broad index may be justified here
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 64
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 51
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 36
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 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 bearish · 1 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.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
6.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
14.9%
ROA
2.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$17.14
Cash
$1.83B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 1.7.2026 | $0.328 |
| 1.4.2026 | $0.328 |
| 31.12.2025 | $0.328 |
| 1.10.2025 | $0.328 |
| 1.7.2025 | $0.328 |
| 1.4.2025 | $0.328 |
| 31.12.2024 | $0.328 |
| 1.10.2024 | $0.328 |
| 1.7.2024 | $0.328 |
| 28.3.2024 | $0.328 |
| 28.12.2023 | $0.328 |
| 28.9.2023 | $0.328 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$17.76
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$557.72
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
7.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.9% | $1.73B | $1.58B |
| 2 | 6.6% | $1.84B | $1.55B |
| 3 | 5.2% | $1.93B | $1.49B |
| 4 | 3.9% | $2.01B | $1.42B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.06B | $1.34B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.60B
Terminal Value
$32.47B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$21.11B
Enterprise Value
$28.49B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$28.49B
*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
$114.93
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$52.92
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 1 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 1 articles.
Fintel · 1.9.2026
Assurant, Inc. 5.25% Subordinated Notes due 2061 (AIZN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
AIZN currently scores 47/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
AIZN's technical score is 20/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 43.8%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 17.1%; Net income growth: 14.8%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.12 (3y annualized return -2.9% / max drawdown 23.2%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — AIZN 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 5 sales out of the last 15 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biju Nair | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 3,931 | -3,931 | $302.46 |
| Lonergan Robert | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 7,000 | -7,000 | $262.71 |
| DiRienzo Dimitry | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $255.68 |
| WARREN KEVIN M | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| Redzic Ognjen | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| Carter J Braxton II | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| EDELMAN HARRIET | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| Reilly Paul J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| ROSEN ELAINE | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| Blake Lynn S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| Granat Sari Beth | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| Basu Rajiv | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 668 | +668 | — |
| MEIER KEITH | Open Market Sale | 15.5.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | $254.31 |
| Rosenblum Jay | Open Market Sale | 14.5.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $251.77 |
| Lumsden Ryan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 557 | -557 | $216.33 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
649 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 15,528 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
27.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 24.8% 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