Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$41.02
▲ $0.20 (+0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/25 03:45 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/24/2026
News analyzed: 09/25/2026
Market Cap
$11.00B
Day Range
$40.82 - $41.22
52-Week Range
$40.81 - $58.57
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$40.82
Resistance
$54.80
-28.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 0/24 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
No notable strengths identified.
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.02 (3y annualized return 0.7% / max drawdown 36.4%)
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
37
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
40
Quality
50
Value
50
Momentum
6
Risk
42
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
44
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 Fidelity National Financial (FNF) has centered on its stock performance and valuation debates, with analysts noting a potential 10% undervaluation based on cash flow metrics despite a recent 5-year return of 28.4%. However, its shares have declined over six months—down 10.5%—contrasting with broader market gains, raising concerns about mortgage-rate pressures on its housing business. Meanwhile, its subsidiary IPX1031 was recognized for the fifth consecutive year as the top 1031 exchange company, highlighting its expertise in real estate transactions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Fidelity National Financial, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
44
Technical
6
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
-1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (85) reflects traders’ fixation on the 0.8% support level, likely due to its proximity. Low FOMO (10) and herding (32) scores indicate limited contagion or urgency, while negative momentum and neutral RSI (31) rule out panic or euphoria. The key question is whether this support holds or if traders will break free from the anchor. The narrative gap (8) hints at a disconnect between perceived and actual fundamentals, but no clear catalyst is visible.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 06:29 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Fidelity National Financial has delivered a 5 year return that is positive, but the current valuation checks suggest the stock now trades close to what the underlying business might justify"
"Fidelity National Financial’s shares have sunk to $46.22, producing a disappointing 10.5% loss"
"Vanguard bolsters its wealth custody, advisory offerings with a reported $4 billion acquisition for AI-forward platform Altruist"
"IPX1031 Named Best Overall 1031 Exchange Company by Fit Small Business for Fifth Consecutive Year"
📈 5D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with the highest scores coming from cyclical and contrarian investors like Samuel Armstrong Nelson (100) and Charles Mackay (91), who see it as oversold or free of crowd-driven euphoria. Meanwhile, disciplined trend-followers like Jesse Livermore (24) and Peter Lynch (22) dismiss it outright, arguing it violates core rules of momentum or growth valuation. The middle ground is occupied by value-oriented thinkers—Howard Marks (71) and Edgar Lawrence Smith (65)—who see potential in its cyclical positioning or long-term fundamentals, though with caution, while Benjamin Graham’s stricter tests (52) and the Enterprising Investor standard (13) both reject it as insufficiently undervalued. The contrast highlights whether the stock’s appeal lies in its technical or cyclical timing (Nelson, Mackay) or its fundamental flaws (Fisher, Veblen), with efficient-market skeptics (Malkiel/Bogle) simply dismissing it as a suboptimal bet.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 85
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 79
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 70
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 68
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 65
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
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)
🟡 60
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 51
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 49
Moderate risk 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)
🔴 29
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)
🔴 29
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
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 22
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 13
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 11
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 284 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 bearish · 0 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
—
Net Margin
4.2%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
8.1%
ROA
0.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.22
Cash
$2.64B
Total Debt
$4.40B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.59
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 16.9.2026 | $0.520 |
| 16.6.2026 | $0.520 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.520 |
| 17.3.2026 | $0.520 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.520 |
| 17.12.2025 | $0.520 |
| 16.12.2025 | $0.520 |
| 16.9.2025 | $0.482 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.482 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.482 |
| 15.6.2025 | $0.482 |
| 17.3.2025 | $0.482 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$27.29
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.54
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 8 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 37/100, 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.
FNF currently scores 37/100 (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.
FNF's technical score is 6/100, 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: Calmar: 0.02 (3y annualized return 0.7% / max drawdown 36.4%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -52.5%; Net income growth: -52.6%.
Yes — FNF 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 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shea Peter O Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 1,071.476 | +1,071.476 | $47.16 |
| Ammerman Douglas K | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 342.236 | +342.236 | $47.16 |
| Ammerman Douglas K | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 25,491 | +342 | $47.16 |
| Shea Peter O Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 14,112 | +1,071 | $47.16 |
| SADOWSKI PETER T | Open Market Sale | 26.6.2026 | 69,196 | -69,196 | $45.70 |
| Dhanidina Halim | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 9,543 | -9,543 | $418.25 |
| Dhanidina Halim | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 3,643 | -9,543 | $418.25 |
| Nolan Michael Joseph | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 39,542 | +39,542 | — |
| Nolan Michael Joseph | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 601,672 | +39,542 | — |
| SADOWSKI PETER T | Open Market Sale | 8.4.2026 | 473 | -473 | $47.67 |
| SADOWSKI PETER T | Open Market Sale | 8.4.2026 | 0 | -473 | $47.67 |
| Shea Peter O Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 1,077.416 | +1,077.416 | $46.38 |
| Ammerman Douglas K | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 344.134 | +344.134 | $46.38 |
| Ammerman Douglas K | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 25,149 | +344 | $46.38 |
| Shea Peter O Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 13,040 | +1,077 | $46.38 |
| Dhanidina Halim | Open Market Sale | 5.1.2026 | 6,000 | -6,000 | $55.90 |
| Dhanidina Halim | Open Market Sale | 5.1.2026 | 13,186 | -6,000 | $55.90 |
| Ammerman Douglas K | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.12.2025 | 289.619 | +289.619 | $54.59 |
| Fidelity National Financial, Inc. | Other Transaction | 31.12.2025 | 16,280,204 | -16,280,204 | — |
| Shea Peter O Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.12.2025 | 906.742 | +906.742 | $54.59 |
| Ammerman Douglas K | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.12.2025 | 24,805 | +290 | $54.59 |
| Shea Peter O Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.12.2025 | 11,963 | +907 | $54.59 |
| LANE DANIEL D | Open Market Sale | 17.11.2025 | 276,308 | -6,367 | $57.63 |
| SADOWSKI PETER T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.11.2025 | 4,561 | -4,561 | $58.26 |
| QUIRK RAYMOND R | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.11.2025 | 11,807 | -11,807 | $58.26 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
10,433,345 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 9,184,519 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.6% 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