Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$25.28
▼ $0.04 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:40 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$586.87M
Day Range
$25.28 - $25.28
52-Week Range
$24.24 - $25.85
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$24.80
Resistance
$25.72
+0.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/15 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 53.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.10 (3y annualized return 0.8% / max drawdown 8.4%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
77/100
Similarity
6
Historical Matches
69/100
Analog Quality
-0.3%
Median 40D Outcome
95/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
17%
+1.4% … +1.4%
🟡 Base
50%
-0.9% … -0.8%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-1.3% … -1.2%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 6 similar historical cases for this stock, 17% (95% CI 3%–56%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.9%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 0% (0%–39%) | -0.9% | -1.5% … -0.7% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 17% (3%–56%) | +0.0% | -0.7% … +0.3% | +0.0% |
| 20D | 17% (3%–56%) | -0.9% | -1.0% … -0.7% | +0.3% |
| 40D | 17% (3%–56%) | -0.3% | -0.6% … +0.0% | -0.1% |
| 60D | 17% (3%–56%) | +0.2% | -0.9% … +0.4% | +0.4% |
Sample size: 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-17 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.6% | -1.3% |
| 2026-06-08 | 66/100 | Consolidation | +1.4% | +1.2% |
| 2026-06-24 | 64/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -1.0% | +0.4% |
| 2026-05-13 | 63/100 | Consolidation | -0.9% | -0.1% |
| 2026-04-22 | 61/100 | Consolidation | -1.4% | -1.2% |
| 2026-04-08 | 56/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -1.1% | +0.4% |
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.
AOMN’s overall investor score of 58 reflects a mixed but cautiously optimistic profile, where technical and growth metrics provide some strength, while fundamental and risk factors introduce notable concerns. The technical score of 73 is bolstered by the stock’s position above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, alongside positive momentum indicators like a rising MACD histogram and an RSI of 55.0, suggesting short-term bullishness. However, the growth score of 66, driven by exceptional EPS and net income growth (both ~53%), indicates robust profitability expansion, though this is partially offset by a debt-heavy balance sheet (debt/equity of 8.51) and a recent underperformance relative to the index. The fundamental score of 47 is dragged down by weak ROA (1.6%) and high leverage, while the valuation score of 55—with a modest P/E of 14.1 and NAV per share of $11.00—suggests moderate affordability. Risk remains elevated, with a low Calmar ratio (0.11) and significant drawdown risk (8.4% max), alongside the stock’s current position below its SAR point, signaling a potential downtrend. The lack of recent news (score: 50) and quality concerns (also 50) further dilute confidence, though the technical resilience and growth momentum provide some counterbalance.
The stock shows strong short-term momentum with a price above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a positive MACD histogram, and an RSI of 55.0, indicating healthy upward momentum.
This suggests near-term bullishness and potential for continued upward price movement, which is critical for traders focusing on technical trends.
While the company demonstrates reasonable ROE (16.5%), its ROA (1.6%) is weak, and the debt-to-equity ratio is extremely high at 8.51, indicating leverage risk.
High leverage and weak asset efficiency could strain profitability and increase financial vulnerability during economic downturns.
EPS and net income growth are both exceptionally high at 53.8% and 53.1%, respectively, signaling strong profitability expansion.
This rapid growth is a positive signal for investors seeking companies with accelerating earnings potential.
The P/E ratio is moderate at 14.1, and the NAV per share stands at $11.00, suggesting the stock is reasonably priced relative to its fundamentals.
A lower P/E may indicate undervaluation, but it must be balanced against the company’s high debt and growth sustainability.
There are no recent news items or events highlighted in the data, leaving sentiment and market reaction uninformed by recent developments.
Lack of news can obscure potential catalysts or risks, making it harder to assess future performance.
The high debt-to-equity ratio (8.51) is the primary quality concern, signaling potential financial instability or risk of default.
High leverage can erode shareholder value and increase volatility, particularly in volatile market conditions.
The ATR is low at 0.8% of price, but the Calmar ratio is poor at 0.11, with a 3-year annualized return of 0.9% and a max drawdown of 8.4%, indicating high risk-adjusted volatility.
These metrics suggest the stock is prone to significant drawdowns, making it a higher-risk investment with limited risk-adjusted returns.
StockIQ conclusion
AOMN presents a mixed profile with notable strengths in growth and technical momentum, but its high debt levels, elevated risk metrics, and lack of recent news create significant concerns. The stock’s position above key moving averages and strong earnings growth suggest potential for short-term gains, but the high leverage and volatility make it a speculative choice. Investors should carefully weigh the growth opportunities against the financial risks before considering exposure.
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
56
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
66
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
61
Risk
50
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
50
Institutional
57
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.
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
2
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
65
Fundamentals
50
Technical
61
Valuation
50
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-5
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior at 69 suggests traders are fixating on the 1.5% gap below resistance, likely treating it as a near-term ceiling. The absence of extreme momentum, volatility, or euphoric sentiment keeps herding and FOMO subdued. The narrow narrative gap (-5) implies a modest disconnect between market perception and fundamentals, but anchoring remains the primary psychological anchor. The key question is whether the stock can break resistance or if traders will hold firm near this psychological level.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 08:15 PM
What could change this?
📈 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
Peter Lynch — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 37/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some investors seeing strong potential while others flag significant red flags. Charles Mackay and Peter Lynch both score highly, suggesting minimal crowd-driven hype and a growth opportunity where the stock price hasn’t yet reflected its fundamentals. However, Veblen and Marks raise caution, questioning whether the growth translates to sustainable profits or if expectations are already inflated. Meanwhile, Graham’s strict valuation criteria and Smith’s long-term stability demands lead to near-rejection, while Bagehot and Fisher lack sufficient data to form a confident view. The middle-ground thinkers—like Housel and Loeb—acknowledge it’s holdable but not without risk, while Livermore, Schwager, and Nelson see no clear trend to act on, leaving the stock in a contentious gray area.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 100
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 91
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 76
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: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 69
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 63
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 60
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 57
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
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%
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
🟡 45
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: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 41
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 37
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
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
Based on the last 300 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 · 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$24.80
Range Bottom
$25.72
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.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
—
ROA
—
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.85
Cash
$41.62M
Total Debt
$2.28B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
Angel Oak Mortgage REIT, Inc. 9.500% Senior Notes due 2029 (AOMN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
AOMN currently scores 56/100 (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.
AOMN's technical score is 61/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 53.8%; Net income growth: 53.1%; ATR: 0.7% of price.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.10 (3y annualized return 0.8% / max drawdown 8.4%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; -1.2% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AOMN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 4 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 16 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MINAMI W D | Open Market Purchase | 10.9.2026 | 6,800 | +6,800 | $8.10 |
| Filson Brandon | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 82,024 | +82,024 | — |
| Filson Brandon | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 20,303 | +20,303 | $9.03 |
| MINAMI W D | Open Market Purchase | 22.5.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $8.15 |
| DAVIDSON KEMPNER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP | Disposition to the Company | 19.5.2026 | 1,794,353 | -1,794,353 | $8.36 |
| Savarese Noelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 11,737 | +11,737 | $8.52 |
| Morgan Jonathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 11,737 | +11,737 | $8.52 |
| JONES CRAIG B | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 11,737 | +11,737 | $8.52 |
| MINAMI W D | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 11,737 | +11,737 | $8.52 |
| Parsons Landon | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 11,737 | +11,737 | $8.52 |
| DAVIDSON KEMPNER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP | Open Market Sale | 20.3.2026 | 481,537 | -481,537 | $7.87 |
| MINAMI W D | Open Market Purchase | 18.11.2025 | 3,441 | +3,441 | $8.32 |
| Filson Brandon | Open Market Sale | 17.9.2025 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $9.78 |
| Filson Brandon | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.8.2025 | 25,290 | +25,290 | — |
| DAVIDSON KEMPNER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2025 | 595,000 | -595,000 | $9.75 |
| Morgan Jonathan | Open Market Purchase | 7.8.2025 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $9.03 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
892 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 635 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
33.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 27.4% 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