Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Utilities · ·
$67.72
▼ $1.27 (-1.8%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:50 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$25.51B
Day Range
$67.68 - $68.67
52-Week Range
$63.45 - $76.57
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$67.06
Resistance
$76.57
ES is a stock from the Utilities sector — Electricity, water, and residential gas — steady demand and heavy regulation, considered a defensive, dividend-paying sector.
+6.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/30 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
🟡 Mixed
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: 100.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$77.73 vs. price $67.72 (-214.8%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (79/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (43/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+4.2%
Median 40D Outcome
70/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+3.1% … +9.8%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.9% … -0.9%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-4.5% … -1.6%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.1%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
2 occurrence(s) · 50% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
7 occurrence(s) · 57% 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 | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.5% | -0.1% … +4.3% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +4.3% | -0.6% … +6.6% | +0.5% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.1% | -1.2% … +8.7% | +0.5% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +4.2% | -0.4% … +12.0% | +1.0% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +5.5% | +0.7% … +7.4% | +1.1% |
Sample size: 15 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-02-18 | 84/100 | Downtrend | +2.1% | +8.7% |
| 2020-12-23 | 81/100 | Downtrend | +8.9% | +1.9% |
| 2026-05-15 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +3.1% | +6.5% |
| 2026-06-01 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +8.5% | +7.6% |
| 2018-01-18 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -3.7% | -1.9% |
| 2018-05-23 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -1.5% | +11.9% |
| 2021-11-30 | 77/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +10.1% | -0.6% |
| 2021-05-05 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -1.7% | +3.2% |
| 2020-09-17 | 77/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +11.1% | +4.7% |
| 2025-09-08 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +15.7% | +5.5% |
| 2026-04-22 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +3.0% | +10.4% |
| 2024-11-11 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -0.9% | -1.0% |
| 2024-12-11 | 76/100 | Downtrend | -6.9% | -0.9% |
| 2025-06-25 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +6.3% | +7.3% |
| 2026-01-07 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +3.2% | +5.8% |
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. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLU (this stock's sector).
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.
🗓️ 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
46
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
79
Quality
42
Value
43
Momentum
13
Risk
36
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
49
Institutional
11
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING ES...
Recent media coverage of **Eversource Energy** has centered on its financial strategy and investor sentiment, particularly its **$26.5 billion grid modernization plan** through 2030, aimed at upgrading infrastructure, expanding transmission, and strengthening earnings. The company’s transition to a **pure-play utility model** following a **$1.7 billion water assets sale** was highlighted, alongside reaffirmed growth guidance. Analysts have noted its **high dividend yield** as a stable investment during market turbulence, though some remain cautious due to underperformance compared to broader indices. Price targets and grid modernization’s role in long-term growth were also key discussion points.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Eversource Energy. News trend score: 86. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
81
Fundamentals
49
Technical
13
Valuation
43
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.
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)
-3%
Market Narrative
54
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+18
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** behavior suggests traders are aligning with peer movements (+0.6% vs. +0.5%) rather than acting on individual conviction. The **anchoring** score (47) further implies traders may be fixated on the 2.6% support level, reinforcing group behavior. Meanwhile, the **narrative-reality gap** (9-point difference) hints at a disconnect between market expectations and fundamentals, though no extreme bias (e.g., FOMO or panic) is evident. The key question: *Will traders sustain herding behavior if momentum diverges further from peers?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:57 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"investors turn to dividend-yielding stocks with high cash flow"
"$26.5B investment plan through 2030 targets grid upgrades"
"JPMorgan Adjusts Price Target on Eversource Energy to $73 From $75"
"Dividend Discount Model suggests shares trade at a premium while traditional multiples point the other way"
📈 16D 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 — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 3/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep philosophical and methodological splits among the investors. Charles Mackay’s high score suggests no obvious crowd-driven frenzy, while Peter Lynch’s growth-focused optimism contrasts sharply with Benjamin Graham’s and Walter Bagehot’s extreme caution—Graham’s Enterprising Investor framework dismisses it outright, and Bagehot flags liquidity risks as a red flag. Meanwhile, the middle-ground thinkers like Howard Marks (both cycles and general) and Morgan Housel see it as a ‘holdable’ but unexceptional bet, while Philip Fisher and Jack Schwager hesitate due to lack of standout quality or edge. The divergence between Lynch’s growth enthusiasm and Graham’s valuation skepticism highlights a core tension: whether to bet on momentum or seek structural safety, while the consensus of mid-range scores (e.g., Nelson, Livermore) underscores a lack of consensus on whether this stock is a cyclical play or a speculative gamble.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 77
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)
🟢 73
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 68
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 57
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 56
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 52
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 51
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 42
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 23
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 22
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 3
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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 (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.
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
22.1%
Net Margin
12.5%
EBITDA Margin
39.8%
ROE
10.5%
ROA
2.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.56
Cash
$135.40M
Total Debt
$28.27B
Current Ratio
0.65
Debt/Equity
1.75
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.5.2026 | $0.788 |
| 17.5.2026 | $0.788 |
| 5.3.2026 | $0.788 |
| 4.3.2026 | $0.788 |
| 17.12.2025 | $0.753 |
| 16.12.2025 | $0.753 |
| 22.9.2025 | $0.753 |
| 21.9.2025 | $0.753 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.753 |
| 14.5.2025 | $0.753 |
| 4.3.2025 | $0.753 |
| 3.3.2025 | $0.753 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$67.72
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$77.73
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-214.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
3.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.6% | $-46.70M | $-42.84M |
| 2 | 3.3% | $-48.24M | $-40.60M |
| 3 | 3.0% | $-49.70M | $-38.38M |
| 4 | 2.8% | $-51.07M | $-36.18M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-52.35M | $-34.02M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-45.10M
Terminal Value
$-825.52M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-536.53M
Enterprise Value
$-728.56M
Net Debt
$28.13B
Equity Value
$-28.86B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$43.63
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$32.22
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 8 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
MT Newswires · 19.8.2026
Benzinga · 18.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 15.8.2026
Zacks · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
Motley Fool · 8.8.2026
Yahoo · 7.8.2026
Barchart · 7.8.2026
Yahoo · 7.8.2026
Yahoo · 5.8.2026
Eversource Energy (ES) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, 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.
ES currently scores 46/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, ES's estimated fair value is -$77.73, which is 214.8% below the current price of $67.72. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ES's technical score is 13/100, 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: 100.9%; Free cash flow growth: 98.1%; Net income growth: 107.5%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$77.73 vs. price $67.72 (-214.8%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.65.
Yes — ES 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 — 2 purchases and 17 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conner Penelope M | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 7,556 | -1,500 | $71.50 |
| Conner Penelope M | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $71.50 |
| Conner Penelope M | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 9,056 | -1,500 | $71.10 |
| Conner Penelope M | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $71.10 |
| BUTLER GREGORY B | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2026 | 7,000 | -7,000 | $69.88 |
| BUTLER GREGORY B | Open Market Sale | 4.6.2026 | 56,179 | -7,000 | $69.88 |
| BUTH JAY S. | I | 14.5.2026 | 407.231 | -407.231 | $68.81 |
| BUTH JAY S. | I | 14.5.2026 | 0 | -407 | $68.81 |
| Mudge W Robert | Open Market Purchase | 8.5.2026 | 750 | +750 | $66.49 |
| Mudge W Robert | Open Market Purchase | 8.5.2026 | 2,150 | +750 | $66.49 |
| NOLAN JOSEPH R JR | Gift | 6.3.2026 | 94,981 | -94,981 | — |
| NOLAN JOSEPH R JR | Gift | 6.3.2026 | 76,240 | -94,981 | — |
| Conner Penelope M | Open Market Sale | 4.3.2026 | 1,400 | -1,400 | $75.00 |
| Conner Penelope M | Open Market Sale | 4.3.2026 | 10,394 | -1,400 | $75.00 |
| CLEVELAND COTTON M | Open Market Sale | 24.2.2026 | 2,581 | -2,581 | $74.87 |
| CLEVELAND COTTON M | Open Market Sale | 24.2.2026 | 79,364 | -2,581 | $74.87 |
| Kim John Y | Open Market Sale | 23.2.2026 | 6,339 | -6,339 | $74.49 |
| Kim John Y | Open Market Sale | 23.2.2026 | 0 | -6,339 | $74.49 |
| Kim John Y | Open Market Sale | 20.2.2026 | 6,000 | -6,000 | $73.56 |
| Kim John Y | Open Market Sale | 20.2.2026 | 6,339 | -6,000 | $73.56 |
| Kim John Y | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.2.2026 | 3,339 | +3,339 | — |
| Kim John Y | Open Market Sale | 19.2.2026 | 6,000 | -6,000 | $73.57 |
| Moreira John M. | Open Market Sale | 19.2.2026 | 7,800 | -7,800 | $73.90 |
| Kim John Y | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.2.2026 | 18,339 | +3,339 | — |
| Kim John Y | Open Market Sale | 19.2.2026 | 12,339 | -6,000 | $73.57 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,186,477 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,791,332 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
67.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 73.0% 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