Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$10.43
▲ $0.08 (+0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/18 08:01 AM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$10.41 - $10.50
52-Week Range
$8.76 - $10.85
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+10.6% (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: 1.2% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is below the 50-day average
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
70/100
Similarity
7
Historical Matches
69/100
Analog Quality
+2.9%
Median 40D Outcome
76/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
57%
+2.0% … +5.5%
🟡 Base
14%
+0.9% … +0.9%
🔴 Bearish
29%
-5.7% … -3.7%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 7 similar historical cases for this stock, 57% (95% CI 25%–84%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.9%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 100% 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 | 43% (16%–75%) | +0.7% | -1.9% … +1.6% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 29% (8%–64%) | -0.8% | -2.4% … +1.1% | +0.4% |
| 20D | 57% (25%–84%) | +1.9% | -0.9% … +3.0% | +1.9% |
| 40D | 71% (36%–92%) | +2.9% | +1.5% … +6.7% | +3.1% |
| 60D | 100% (65%–100%) | +3.8% | +2.9% … +5.7% | +3.8% |
Sample size: 7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-11 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +0.9% | +4.1% |
| 2026-05-22 | 64/100 | Uptrend | -2.7% | +2.0% |
| 2026-04-02 | 54/100 | Consolidation | +9.8% | +10.1% |
| 2026-05-05 | 53/100 | Uptrend | +2.0% | +2.8% |
| 2026-03-04 | 51/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -6.7% | +3.1% |
| 2026-03-18 | 44/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.0% | +7.3% |
| 2026-04-17 | 39/100 | Uptrend | +1.9% | +3.8% |
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.
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.
AOD’s **investorScore of 69** reflects a balanced but cautious outlook, driven primarily by mixed technical signals and modest risk metrics. The stock demonstrates solid near-term strength, with its price firmly above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages—a bullish technical backdrop. However, the **negative MACD histogram** signals weakening momentum, counterbalancing the RSI’s neutral-to-positive reading (53.0). Risk metrics are moderately favorable, with a low ATR (1.1% of price) indicating stability, though the Calmar ratio (0.55) suggests a history of volatility, as evidenced by a 18.5% max drawdown over three years. News sentiment remains neutral, with no recent catalysts, which keeps the narrative unexciting but low-risk. The overall score leans moderate due to the tension between technical resilience and emerging momentum weakness, alongside a lack of compelling news drivers.
The stock sits above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, showing sustained uptrend support, but the negative MACD histogram indicates momentum is fading despite an RSI of 53.0 (neutral-positive).
This duality—strong trend vs. weakening momentum—creates a mixed technical picture that could influence near-term direction.
The only recent news item is a neutral commentary from abrdn’s Total Dynamic Dividend Fund, with no specific bullish or bearish catalysts for AOD.
Lack of news-driven catalysts means the stock’s trajectory relies heavily on technical and fundamental factors rather than external narratives.
The ATR (1.1% of price) suggests low volatility, but the Calmar ratio (0.55) reveals a history of significant drawdowns (18.5% max) relative to returns (10.2% annualized).
While volatility is contained, the risk-adjusted return profile hints at potential downside during market stress.
StockIQ conclusion
AOD’s **moderate investorScore (69)** stems from a blend of technical stability and emerging momentum concerns, tempered by neutral news and moderate risk metrics. While the stock holds above key moving averages and exhibits low volatility, the negative MACD signals caution, and historical drawdowns underscore potential downside risks. Without fresh catalysts, the outlook remains dependent on technical resilience and risk management. Investors should monitor momentum trends and news for clarity on future direction.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
41
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
29
Risk
58
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 Total Dynamic Dividend Fund** highlights its underperformance relative to its benchmark over the three-month period ending July 31, 2026, despite an overall stock increase. The underperformance was primarily attributed to weaker stock selection within the IT sector. No further details or recent major developments were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about abrdn Total Dynamic Dividend Fund Common Shares of Beneficial Interest. News trend score: 62. Reason: 2 of the last 4 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
10
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
60
Fundamentals
—
Technical
29
Valuation
—
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)
+0%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-5
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for AOD strongly suggests **anchoring**, as the stock’s proximity to resistance (1.3% away) dominates sentiment. Herding is present but muted, given the stock’s underperformance relative to peers. Low FOMO and neutral volatility indicate no panic or euphoria, while the slight narrative gap (-5) hints at a minor disconnect between investor perceptions and reality. The key question is whether traders will treat resistance as a ceiling or a breakout trigger—no other bias is actively shaping behavior here.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 08:23 PM
What could change this?
📈 3D 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
Morgan Housel — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 45/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for AOD reflects a divide between methodologies that prioritize qualitative patience and those that demand quantitative precision. Morgan Housel’s near-perfect score highlights the stock’s potential as a ‘quiet compounder,’ aligning with his emphasis on long-term, patient investing—where even limited data can suggest suitability for a disciplined holder. Meanwhile, methodologies like Jesse Livermore’s and Jack Schwager’s wizards’ approach—rooted in trend-following and disciplined setups—reject the stock outright, scoring poorly due to perceived negative momentum or lack of clear technical signals. The middle ground, represented by investors like Gerald Loeb and Howard Marks, acknowledges reasonable risk-reward but avoids strong bullishness, while the Graham, Fisher, and Lynch frameworks remain neutral due to insufficient fundamental or valuation data. This tension underscores whether the stock’s appeal lies in its qualitative narrative (for Housel or Mackay) or its structural weaknesses (for Livermore or Schwager’s wizards).
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 93
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
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 72
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟢 66
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟢 65
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 59
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 57
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 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)
🟡 45
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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 (1 bullish · 7 bearish · 3 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$10.22
Range Bottom
$10.85
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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 | $0.100 |
| 23.7.2026 | $0.110 |
| 23.6.2026 | $0.110 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.100 |
| 22.4.2026 | $0.100 |
| 24.3.2026 | $0.110 |
| 20.2.2026 | $0.100 |
| 23.1.2026 | $0.100 |
| 31.12.2025 | $0.100 |
| 21.11.2025 | $0.100 |
| 24.10.2025 | $0.100 |
| 23.9.2025 | $0.100 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 4 articles.
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.9.2026
PR Newswire · 11.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for abrdn Total Dynamic Dividend Fund Common Shares of Beneficial Interest (AOD) — 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 AOD 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.
AOD's technical score is 29/100, 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: 1.2% of price; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; -1.8% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Yes — AOD 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 — 12 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 12 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Open Market Purchase | 26.9.2025 | 500 | +500 | $9.48 |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Open Market Purchase | 26.9.2025 | 1,500 | +500 | $9.48 |
| Sievwright John P. | Open Market Purchase | 1.8.2025 | 350 | +350 | $8.81 |
| Yao Nancy | Open Market Purchase | 12.5.2025 | 200 | +200 | $8.49 |
| Reit Todd | Open Market Purchase | 7.1.2025 | 250 | +250 | $8.52 |
| Reit Todd | Open Market Purchase | 11.7.2023 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $8.19 |
| BIRD STEPHEN | Open Market Purchase | 18.10.2021 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $9.99 |
| Maasbach Nancy Yao | Open Market Purchase | 2.3.2020 | 500 | +500 | $7.80 |
| GILBERT MARTIN JAMES | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2019 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $8.21 |
| MALONE PETER GERALD | Open Market Purchase | 29.11.2018 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $8.08 |
| Sievwright John P. | Open Market Purchase | 7.11.2018 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $8.25 |
| Maasbach Nancy Yao | Open Market Purchase | 22.10.2018 | 500 | +500 | $8.25 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,384,316 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 761,316 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.1% 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