Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$353.05
▼ $2.90 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 02:39 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$95.48B
Day Range
$349.84 - $355.72
52-Week Range
$306.77 - $400.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
Support
$349.83
Resistance
$400.00
GD is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+8.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/30 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 23.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $250.81 vs. price $353.05 (-29.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
78/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+3.6%
Median 40D Outcome
81/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+2.1% … +5.2%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.5% … +0.8%
🔴 Bearish
20%
-5.2% … -3.9%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 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 +2.1%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
4 occurrence(s) · 75% 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.1% | -0.3% … +2.6% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.0% | -0.1% … +3.3% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.1% | +0.6% … +4.0% | +1.0% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.6% | -1.6% … +5.2% | +2.0% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +6.4% | -2.8% … +8.4% | +3.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-10 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.5% | +1.9% |
| 2023-02-09 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -3.4% | -7.9% |
| 2017-11-17 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +0.3% | +14.0% |
| 2018-05-09 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +0.9% | -3.5% |
| 2018-06-26 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +7.8% | +7.4% |
| 2023-05-16 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +2.2% | +9.3% |
| 2024-12-03 | 76/100 | Downtrend | -5.9% | -9.6% |
| 2026-04-21 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +4.5% | +13.2% |
| 2026-06-02 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +7.5% | +12.6% |
| 2019-10-25 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +5.4% | +6.4% |
| 2018-06-11 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -4.4% | -3.8% |
| 2023-03-23 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +2.2% | -2.1% |
| 2022-05-25 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +1.0% | +6.6% |
| 2024-07-10 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +1.9% | +6.3% |
| 2025-12-01 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +2.1% | +7.4% |
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. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLI (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
49
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
73
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
9
Risk
64
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
63
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING GD...
Recent media coverage of General Dynamics has centered on its strong financial performance and strategic defense contracts. Analysts highlight its 98% stock return over five years, suggesting undervaluation despite high valuations, while a $194.1 million Navy contract for sea-launched cruise missile support underscores its expanding role in defense. However, some observers, like Jim Cramer, favor competitors like Lockheed Martin amid rising defense demand, indicating mixed market sentiment.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about General Dynamics. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
87
Fundamentals
63
Technical
9
Valuation
38
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
71
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+34
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme anchoring (score 98) suggests traders are fixated on the 0.1% support level, ignoring broader negative momentum and valuation disconnects. The narrative gap (30) hints at a disconnect between optimistic sentiment (98/100) and technical weakness, while overconfidence and euphoria (scores 38/29) imply overvaluation may be rationalized. The key question: will traders break free from the support anchor, or will the gap widen as fundamentals diverge further from price?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 02:43 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"General Dynamics' $194.1M Navy contract modification strengthens its role in sea-launched cruise missile support"
"General Dynamics stock has almost doubled investors' money over the past five years, yet current valuation checks point to a company that still screens cheap"
"Jim Cramer prefers Lockheed Martin over General Dynamics as defense demand accelerates"
📈 11D 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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between bullish and cautious views on GD, reflecting stark differences in their core principles. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score and 'oversold' verdict suggest a cyclical, momentum-driven approach sees this stock as undervalued relative to its historical range, while Morgan Housel and Jack Schwager’s high scores imply a focus on patient, long-term compounding and disciplined setups—both aligning with a buy-and-hold or methodical accumulation strategy. Meanwhile, the middle tier—including Edgar Lawrence Smith, Charles Mackay, and Gerald M. Loeb—cautiously endorses the stock as a 'buy-and-hold' or 'moderate-risk' play, though with growing crowd interest or cyclical uncertainty. On the other end, the Graham methodologies and Philip Fisher’s low scores reject it outright, prioritizing deep value or quality/growth traits that aren’t apparent here. Even the efficient-market camp dismisses it, while Livermore’s negative trend verdict and Lynch’s failure to meet his 'growth-at-a-reasonable-price' bar highlight a disconnect between this stock’s fundamentals and their respective growth or trend-following frameworks.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 85
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 71
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 69
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 67
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 45
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 42
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 39
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 23
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 20
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
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 · 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.
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
10.2%
Net Margin
8.0%
EBITDA Margin
12.0%
ROE
16.4%
ROA
7.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$15.65
Cash
$2.33B
Total Debt
$8.01B
Current Ratio
1.44
Debt/Equity
0.31
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 2.7.2026 | $1.590 |
| 1.7.2026 | $1.590 |
| 10.4.2026 | $1.590 |
| 9.4.2026 | $1.590 |
| 16.1.2026 | $1.500 |
| 15.1.2026 | $1.500 |
| 10.10.2025 | $1.500 |
| 9.10.2025 | $1.500 |
| 3.7.2025 | $1.500 |
| 2.7.2025 | $1.500 |
| 11.4.2025 | $1.500 |
| 10.4.2025 | $1.500 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$353.05
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$250.81
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-29.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.1% | $4.36B | $4.00B |
| 2 | 8.2% | $4.72B | $3.97B |
| 3 | 6.3% | $5.01B | $3.87B |
| 4 | 4.4% | $5.23B | $3.71B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $5.36B | $3.49B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$3.96B
Terminal Value
$84.59B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$54.98B
Enterprise Value
$74.01B
Net Debt
$5.68B
Equity Value
$68.33B
*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
$94.05
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$11.89
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 6 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
General Dynamics (GD) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
GD currently scores 49/100 (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, GD's estimated fair value is $250.81, which is 29.0% below the current price of $353.05. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
GD's technical score is 9/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 23.9%; ATR: 1.9% of price; Debt/equity: 0.31.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $250.81 vs. price $353.05 (-29.0%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — GD 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 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rayha Mark | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 19 | -19 | $358.07 |
| Deep Danny | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.8.2026 | 5,833 | -5,833 | $395.05 |
| Deep Danny | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.8.2026 | 17,070 | -17,070 | $395.07 |
| Deep Danny | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 25,070 | -25,070 | — |
| Deep Danny | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 25,070 | +25,070 | $165.47 |
| Deep Danny | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 8,530 | +8,530 | $167.61 |
| Deep Danny | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 8,530 | -8,530 | — |
| Smith Robert Edward | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 35,010 | +35,010 | $165.47 |
| Smith Robert Edward | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 35,010 | -35,010 | — |
| Smith Robert Edward | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 9,430 | -9,430 | — |
| Smith Robert Edward | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.8.2026 | 6,755 | -6,755 | $390.99 |
| Smith Robert Edward | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 9,430 | +9,430 | $189.00 |
| Smith Robert Edward | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.8.2026 | 23,930 | -23,930 | $390.66 |
| DE LEON RUDY F | Gift | 11.8.2026 | 128 | -128 | — |
| DE LEON RUDY F | Gift | 11.8.2026 | 5,717 | -128 | — |
| Kuryea Kimberly A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 28,300 | +28,300 | $223.93 |
| Kuryea Kimberly A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 28,300 | -28,300 | — |
| Wall Peter A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 1,990 | -1,990 | — |
| Wall Peter A | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 1,990 | -1,990 | $396.43 |
| Wall Peter A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 1,990 | +1,990 | $223.93 |
| Kuryea Kimberly A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 21,557 | -21,557 | $395.59 |
| Kuryea Kimberly A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 115,381 | +28,300 | $223.93 |
| Kuryea Kimberly A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 0 | -28,300 | — |
| Kuryea Kimberly A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 93,824 | -21,557 | $395.59 |
| Wall Peter A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 5,959 | +1,990 | $223.93 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,757,624 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,438,407 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. 47.7% 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