Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$19.44
▲ $0.04 (+0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/22 02:24 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/22/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$13.96B
Day Range
$19.40 - $19.59
52-Week Range
$17.40 - $21.14
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$18.45
Resistance
$20.23
-9.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/22 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.5% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.01 (3y annualized return 0.4% / max drawdown 26.7%)
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
50
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
38
Quality
50
Value
60
Momentum
36
Risk
50
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
46
Institutional
95
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 Ares Capital Corporation (ARCC) has centered on its high dividend yield—now near **9.6% to 10%**—and its trading dynamics, including a **4% premium to net asset value (NAV)**. Analysts highlight its status as a top **business development company (BDC)**, praising strong dividend coverage and a **$1.5 billion backlog** that could drive earnings growth. However, concerns have emerged over a **rising non-accrual rate**, signaling potential credit risks. Tax efficiency for high-yield investors is also discussed, as holding ARCC in taxable accounts may incur significant long-term costs.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Ares Capital Corporation - Closed End Fund. News trend score: 92. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
49
Fundamentals
46
Technical
36
Valuation
60
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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 sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+9%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ARCC’s psychology is dominated by anchoring (81), where traders appear fixated on the 0.9% resistance gap, potentially limiting upside moves. Herding (45) and FOMO (27) indicate relative strength and speculative momentum, but euphoria (20) is muted by the proximity to resistance. The narrative gap (12) suggests optimism may outpace fundamentals. The key question: will traders break resistance or retreat if momentum stalls?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 09:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Ares Capital remains a top BDC pick with a 9.6% yield"
"Holding high-yield REITs and BDCs in a taxable brokerage triggers a recurring annual tax bill"
"Ares Capital Corporation currently trades at a 4% premium to NAV"
"Ares Capital's non-accrual rate is rising"
📈 3D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 87/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 9/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for ARCC reflects deep contrasts in methodology priorities. Benjamin Graham’s defensive investor sees it as an attractive bargain—likely due to strong valuation metrics relative to his net-current-asset framework—while his enterprising counterpart remains more cautious, suggesting the stock doesn’t meet the stricter ‘net-net’ threshold. Meanwhile, growth-focused investors like Philip Fisher and Peter Lynch dismiss it outright, with Lynch’s low score implying the stock fails his ‘growth at a reasonable price’ test, while Fisher lacks sufficient fundamentals to justify a deeper analysis. On the other end, cyclical or market-timing approaches—like Marks’ late-cycle warning or Nelson’s overbought signal—flag potential risks, contrasting sharply with the more valuation-driven optimism of Graham’s traditional framework. Even ‘efficient market’ proponents see limited edge, highlighting the tension between fundamental value and market efficiency.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 87
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 76
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)
🟢 72
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
🟢 69
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 62
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 55
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
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
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%
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 50
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 37
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 29
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: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 28
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)
🔴 16
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 9
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
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 (2 bullish · 7 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 uptrend 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
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
9.1%
ROA
4.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.86
Cash
$638.00M
Total Debt
$15.99B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
1.12
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.9.2026 | $0.480 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.480 |
| 14.6.2026 | $0.480 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.480 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.480 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.480 |
| 14.12.2025 | $0.480 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.480 |
| 14.9.2025 | $0.480 |
| 13.6.2025 | $0.480 |
| 12.6.2025 | $0.480 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.480 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$20.48
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$20.48
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 11 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Ares Capital Corporation - Closed End Fund (ARCC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ARCC currently scores 50/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
ARCC's technical score is 36/100, 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: 1.5% of price; Price is above the 200-day average; +5.1% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.01 (3y annualized return 0.4% / max drawdown 26.7%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -23.8%; Net income growth: -14.7%.
Yes — ARCC 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 — 20 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 22 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARKOWICZ JANA | Open Market Purchase | 9.2.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $19.20 |
| MARKOWICZ JANA | Open Market Purchase | 9.2.2026 | 25,176 | +15,000 | $19.20 |
| Lem Scott C | Open Market Purchase | 6.2.2026 | 5,186 | +5,186 | $19.29 |
| Lem Scott C | Open Market Purchase | 6.2.2026 | 39,463 | +5,186 | $19.29 |
| HENSON MARY BETH | Open Market Purchase | 5.2.2026 | 4,000 | +4,000 | $19.14 |
| SCHNABEL MICHAEL KORT | Open Market Purchase | 5.2.2026 | 12,500 | +12,500 | $19.13 |
| SCHNABEL MICHAEL KORT | Open Market Purchase | 5.2.2026 | 40,500 | +12,500 | $19.13 |
| HENSON MARY BETH | Open Market Purchase | 5.2.2026 | 31,913 | +4,000 | $19.14 |
| SCHNABEL MICHAEL KORT | Open Market Purchase | 5.2.2026 | 40,500 | +12,500 | $19.13 |
| SCHNABEL MICHAEL KORT | Open Market Purchase | 31.10.2025 | 13,000 | +13,000 | $20.39 |
| SCHNABEL MICHAEL KORT | Open Market Purchase | 31.10.2025 | 28,000 | +13,000 | $20.39 |
| Miller James Robert | Open Market Purchase | 3.3.2025 | 40,000 | +40,000 | $23.32 |
| Arougheti Michael J | Gift | 18.2.2025 | 300,172 | -300,172 | — |
| Bates Ann Torre | Open Market Purchase | 11.2.2025 | 6,000 | +6,000 | $22.75 |
| ARES MANAGEMENT LLC | Open Market Sale | 25.9.2024 | 125,000 | -125,000 | $1,076.40 |
| SCHNABEL MICHAEL KORT | Open Market Purchase | 2.5.2023 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $17.84 |
| ROLL PENELOPE F | Open Market Purchase | 16.3.2023 | 3,000 | +3,000 | $17.44 |
| ROLL PENELOPE F | Open Market Purchase | 15.3.2023 | 3,000 | +3,000 | $17.50 |
| ROLL PENELOPE F | Open Market Purchase | 14.9.2022 | 2,500 | +2,500 | $19.04 |
| HENSON MARY BETH | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2022 | 9,000 | +9,000 | $19.77 |
| ROLL PENELOPE F | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2022 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $19.77 |
| McKeever Steven B. | Open Market Purchase | 15.6.2022 | 2,775 | +2,775 | $17.95 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
41,225,461 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 41,180,886 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 64.9% 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