Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$20.75
▲ $0.08 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/27 09:48 AM
News analyzed: 09/27/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$20.54 - $20.87
52-Week Range
$16.41 - $21.17
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$19.50
Resistance
$21.17
+8.4% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 8/13 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
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
Relative strength vs. S&P 500
-2.3% over the last 3 months relative to the index
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
73/100
Similarity
7
Historical Matches
71/100
Analog Quality
+5.3%
Median 40D Outcome
74/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
71%
+2.8% … +8.9%
🟡 Base
14%
+0.4% … +0.4%
🔴 Bearish
14%
-6.5% … -6.5%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 20 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 7 similar historical cases for this stock, 71% (95% CI 36%–92%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +2.8%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
2 occurrence(s) · 100% 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% | -0.9% … +2.9% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 57% (25%–84%) | +1.8% | -0.3% … +3.4% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 71% (36%–92%) | +2.8% | +0.7% … +7.3% | +1.8% |
| 40D | 100% (65%–100%) | +5.3% | +2.9% … +7.0% | +3.6% |
| 60D | 86% (49%–97%) | +3.8% | +2.5% … +11.1% | +5.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-22 | 73/100 | Uptrend | +0.4% | -1.2% |
| 2026-05-21 | 67/100 | Uptrend | +1.0% | +2.9% |
| 2026-03-05 | 60/100 | Consolidation | -6.5% | +10.9% |
| 2026-06-05 | 54/100 | Uptrend | +2.8% | +3.8% |
| 2026-03-25 | 49/100 | Downtrend | +9.5% | +16.0% |
| 2026-05-04 | 48/100 | Uptrend | +5.7% | +2.1% |
| 2026-04-09 | 39/100 | Consolidation | +8.9% | +11.4% |
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.
CSQ’s overall investor score of 70 reflects a balanced profile with notable technical strength but moderate concerns in news sentiment and risk metrics. The technical indicators are overwhelmingly positive, with the stock trading above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a bullish MACD histogram, and an RSI of 61.4, signaling healthy upward momentum. However, the %K reading of 88.4 suggests the stock is overbought, which could indicate potential short-term volatility or a pullback. News sentiment remains neutral, with no major positive or negative catalysts emerging from recent filings or distributions, while risk metrics highlight a low average true range (ATR of 1.3%) and a Kauffman index (0.49) with a 25.1% historical drawdown, underscoring volatility sensitivity. These factors create a mixed outlook where technical momentum supports bullishness, but overbought conditions and risk exposure temper optimism.
The stock exhibits strong bullish momentum, trading above key moving averages (50-day and 200-day), with a positive MACD histogram and RSI of 61.4, though it is currently overbought (%K 88.4).
Technical strength suggests near-term upward pressure, but overbought conditions may signal impending consolidation or reversal.
All recent news items are neutral, focusing on fund distributions, ratings, and private placements without any material positive or negative catalysts.
Lack of news-driven catalysts means the stock’s performance hinges on fundamentals and technicals rather than external narratives.
The ATR of 1.3% indicates low volatility, but the Kalmar ratio (0.49) and historical 25.1% drawdown suggest vulnerability to sharp corrections.
While low volatility may seem favorable, the risk profile highlights potential for significant downturns during market stress.
StockIQ conclusion
CSQ demonstrates a strong technical foundation with clear bullish signals, but its overall score of 70 is tempered by overbought conditions and moderate risk exposure. The absence of news-driven catalysts means investor confidence relies heavily on fundamentals and technical trends. While the low volatility and positive momentum are encouraging, the potential for drawdowns and short-term pullbacks remains a key consideration. The stock’s performance will likely continue to depend on whether technical support holds and whether broader market conditions remain stable.
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
65
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
Not enough data yet to generate this synthesis.
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
72
Risk
58
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
69
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 Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund - Closed End Fund. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 0 vs. 0 out of the last 9 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
5
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
60
Fundamentals
—
Technical
72
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)
+4%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-6
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring bias reflects traders’ fixation on the near-term resistance at 0.4% above current price, despite modest momentum and neutral sentiment. Herding is present but weak, as the stock marginally outperformed peers. The narrow narrative gap (-4) hints at a cautious, data-driven environment rather than extreme optimism or panic. The key question is whether traders will break resistance or retreat, given the lack of euphoric or panic signals.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 09:37 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"announce Monthly Distributions and Required Notifications of Sources of Distribution"
"KBRA assigns and affirms ratings for mandatory redeemable preferred shares"
"Announce Private Placements Totaling $248.25 Million of Mandatory Redeemable Preferred Shares"
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
Charles Mackay — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 26/100
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 88
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 82
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
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
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)
🟢 68
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 53
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 51
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
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%
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 44
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 2 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$19.50
Range Bottom
$21.17
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 |
|---|---|
| 14.9.2026 | $0.135 |
| 14.8.2026 | $0.135 |
| 14.7.2026 | $0.135 |
| 12.6.2026 | $0.123 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.123 |
| 14.4.2026 | $0.123 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.123 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.123 |
| 30.12.2025 | $0.123 |
| 12.12.2025 | $0.103 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.103 |
| 15.10.2025 | $0.103 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 9 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 9 articles.
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Business Wire · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
PR Newswire · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
CNW Group · 20.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Calamos Strategic Total Return Fund - Closed End Fund (CSQ) — 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 CSQ 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.
CSQ's technical score is 72/100, 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: ATR: 1.5% of price; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: -2.3% over the last 3 months relative to the index; ROC 12 days: -0.5%.
Yes — CSQ 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 — 11 purchases and 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Other Transaction | 24.8.2026 | 600,000 | -600,000 | $25.00 |
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Other Transaction | 24.8.2026 | 0 | -600,000 | $25.00 |
| Herman Thomas E | Open Market Purchase | 30.1.2025 | 11,507 | +11,507 | $18.39 |
| Herman Thomas E | Open Market Purchase | 29.1.2025 | 11,683 | +11,683 | $18.23 |
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Other Transaction | 6.9.2024 | 148,000 | -148,000 | — |
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Other Transaction | 6.9.2024 | 148,000 | -148,000 | — |
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Other Transaction | 6.9.2024 | 160,000 | -160,000 | — |
| THRIVENT FINANCIAL FOR LUTHERANS | Other Transaction | 6.9.2024 | 660,000 | +660,000 | $25.00 |
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Other Transaction | 6.9.2024 | 1,044,000 | -1,044,000 | — |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Sale | 6.12.2023 | 100 | -100 | $14.17 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Sale | 6.12.2023 | 1,191 | -1,191 | $14.17 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Sale | 6.12.2023 | 912 | -912 | $14.19 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Sale | 6.12.2023 | 1,731 | -1,731 | $14.18 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Sale | 6.12.2023 | 9,476 | -9,476 | $14.16 |
| THRIVENT FINANCIAL FOR LUTHERANS | Other Transaction | 6.9.2022 | 180,000 | -180,000 | $25.01 |
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Other Transaction | 6.9.2022 | 652,000 | -652,000 | — |
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Open Market Purchase | 24.5.2022 | 320,000 | +320,000 | $25.00 |
| MetLife Investment Management, LLC | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2021 | 600,000 | +600,000 | $25.00 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Purchase | 12.2.2021 | 35 | +35 | $16.78 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Purchase | 12.2.2021 | 266 | +266 | $16.77 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Purchase | 12.2.2021 | 100 | +100 | $16.76 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Purchase | 12.2.2021 | 150 | +150 | $16.74 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Purchase | 12.2.2021 | 187 | +187 | $16.78 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Purchase | 12.2.2021 | 615 | +615 | $16.79 |
| Koudounis John S. | Open Market Purchase | 12.2.2021 | 2,807 | +2,807 | $16.80 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
107,533 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 96,952 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
50.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 31.9% 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