Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$116.96
▼ $1.57 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/17 01:25 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$4.13B
Day Range
$115.22 - $118.93
52-Week Range
$85.96 - $847.70
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
-24.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/26 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
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: 50.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -7.6% (negative)
Fundamental
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
43
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
60
Quality
55
Value
50
Momentum
10
Risk
32
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
45
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.
Recent media coverage of Avis Budget Group, Inc. has centered on its stock performance and valuation, highlighting mixed investor sentiment. Analysts note its profitability and strong long-term fundamentals—such as a 57.4% five-year return—but also flag recent volatility, weaker short-term returns, and concerns about sustained cash generation. Some view the stock as a potential bargain, while others warn of risks tied to market expectations and regulatory scrutiny, like New York’s crackdown on hidden rental fees. Overall, discussions emphasize both its value potential and lingering uncertainties.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Avis Budget Group, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
70
Fundamentals
45
Technical
10
Valuation
50
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-38%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant psychological state appears rooted in **loss aversion**, as the 21.5% three-month decline and elevated volume suggest traders are prioritizing damage control over speculative bets. **Confirmation bias** also plays a role, with a narrative gap of +15 reinforcing selective attention to positive narratives despite stagnant revenue. Meanwhile, **anchoring** near support (3.7% above) hints at hesitation to accept further losses, while weak momentum (-1.9% ROC) and neutral volatility (0.78x ATR) dampen euphoric or panicked extremes. The key open question: *Will traders exit to lock in gains or hold for a rebound, given the gap between narrative and fundamentals?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 09:03 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Avis Budget Stock A Rare Bargain Or A Value Trap After Its 80% Drop"
"Avis Budget (CAR) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues."
"Zohran Mamdani warns car rental companies against consumer protection probe, urges them to be transparent about pricing policies."
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: the bullish growth-oriented models and the cautious, risk-averse frameworks. Investors like Nelson, Lynch, and Veblen—who prioritize cyclical positioning, growth potential, and alignment with real economic value—all score this stock highly (84, 70, and 70 respectively), suggesting it fits their criteria for undervalued or accelerating momentum. Conversely, the more conservative and risk-focused approaches, such as Fisher, Livermore, and Loeb, reject it outright (scores of 0, 32, and 34), flagging issues like trend resistance, liquidity risks, or lack of quality. Even Graham’s traditional and enterprising tests fail, while efficient-market theorists and stability-focused analysts like Smith and Bagehot see little justification for active selection over passive strategies or long-term stability. The divide highlights whether the stock’s perceived growth justifies its risks or if its volatility and speculative traits make it a poor fit for disciplined, low-risk investing.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 87
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 86
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 70
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 70
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 61
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 36
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 33
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat 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)
🔴 32
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 15
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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.
High 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
-7.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
28.4%
ROA
-2.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$25.25
Cash
$519.00M
Total Debt
$6.07B
Current Ratio
0.72
Debt/Equity
-1.94
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.12.2023 | $10.000 |
| 13.12.2023 | $10.000 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
-$88.89
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$137.70
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 8 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 29.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 29.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 29.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Zacks · 27.8.2026
Trefis · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Zacks · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.8.2026
Yahoo · 18.8.2026
StockStory · 18.8.2026
Avis Budget Group, Inc. (CAR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 43/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CAR currently scores 43/100 (Weak) 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.
CAR's technical score is 10/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 50.7%; Net income growth: 51.2%; Return on equity (ROE): 28.4% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -7.6% (negative); ATR: 5.0% of price; Current ratio: 0.72.
Yes — CAR 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 12 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 276 | -276 | $140.27 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 1,490 | -1,490 | $139.53 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 2,936 | -2,936 | $138.27 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 20,576 | -2,936 | $138.27 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 19,086 | -1,490 | $139.53 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 18,810 | -276 | $140.27 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.7.2026 | 8,155 | -8,155 | $159.48 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.7.2026 | 16,878 | -16,878 | — |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.7.2026 | 913 | -913 | — |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.7.2026 | 17,791 | +17,791 | — |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.7.2026 | 31,667 | +17,791 | — |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.7.2026 | 23,512 | -8,155 | $159.48 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.7.2026 | 0 | -913 | — |
| Cunha Daniel Crestian | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 969 | -969 | — |
| Cunha Daniel Crestian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.7.2026 | 304 | -304 | $159.04 |
| Cunha Daniel Crestian | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 969 | +969 | — |
| Cunha Daniel Crestian | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 969 | +969 | — |
| Cunha Daniel Crestian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.7.2026 | 665 | -304 | $159.04 |
| Cunha Daniel Crestian | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,940 | -969 | — |
| Linnen Edward P | Open Market Sale | 30.4.2026 | 2,400 | -2,400 | $183.10 |
| Linnen Edward P | Open Market Sale | 30.4.2026 | 7,083 | -7,083 | $182.05 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Open Market Sale | 30.4.2026 | 3,469 | -3,469 | $184.09 |
| Linnen Edward P | Open Market Sale | 30.4.2026 | 40,332 | -7,083 | $182.05 |
| Linnen Edward P | Open Market Sale | 30.4.2026 | 37,932 | -2,400 | $183.10 |
| Simhambhatla Ravi | Open Market Sale | 30.4.2026 | 13,876 | -3,469 | $184.09 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,805,990 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,542,005 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
81.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 81.2% 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