Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$134.94
▼ $1.09 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/17 04:19 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$36.55B
Day Range
$134.63 - $136.35
52-Week Range
$120.33 - $146.07
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
HIG is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
+3.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/26 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $345.90 vs. price $134.94 (+156.3%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: -0.2%
Growth
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
87/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
+1.9%
Median 40D Outcome
72/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+2.5% … +7.6%
🟡 Base
27%
-0.8% … -0.5%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-8.3% … -3.1%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 60 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.0%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.8% | -1.4% … +2.6% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.4% | -2.7% … +2.9% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.0% | -2.0% … +3.6% | +1.1% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.9% | -0.2% … +4.1% | +2.1% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +2.7% | -0.9% … +12.0% | +3.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-21 | 87/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.0% | +18.2% |
| 2018-07-02 | 84/100 | Downtrend | +2.7% | -3.1% |
| 2020-01-31 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -10.4% | -33.6% |
| 2018-10-04 | 84/100 | Downtrend | -7.6% | -12.4% |
| 2019-10-10 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.5% | +2.7% |
| 2024-06-04 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -1.0% | +15.5% |
| 2022-09-14 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -3.0% | +14.0% |
| 2023-10-27 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +11.4% | +23.7% |
| 2026-01-09 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +2.3% | +1.9% |
| 2023-06-28 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +8.2% | +3.8% |
| 2023-05-03 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -0.6% | +3.7% |
| 2023-09-08 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.7% | +10.0% |
| 2023-08-15 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.0% | +1.2% |
| 2026-03-24 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +2.0% | -5.3% |
| 2026-05-15 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -3.1% | +2.6% |
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 XLF (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
53
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
62
Quality
55
Value
67
Momentum
26
Risk
64
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
60
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING HIG...
Recent media coverage of The Hartford Insurance Group (HIG) highlights its strong financial performance and strategic initiatives. The company has been praised for its **123% stock return over five years**, with analysts debating whether its valuation still reflects its growth potential despite recent price gains. Additionally, HIG has partnered with UC Berkeley’s Bakar Labs to support **energy and materials startups**, positioning itself as an innovator in emerging tech insurance. Investors are encouraged to hold due to solid underwriting profits, rising investment income, and capital returns, though risks like catastrophes and leverage remain noted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Hartford (The). News trend score: 68. Reason: 8 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
6
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
42
Fundamentals
60
Technical
26
Valuation
67
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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)
+5%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
-3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior in HIG reflects relative underperformance today, where traders appear to align with peer movements rather than fundamental or momentum signals. Anchoring at 3.0% above support hints at a potential psychological barrier, while the narrow narrative-reality gap (2 points) suggests no extreme misalignment. The absence of panic or euphoria signals—despite modest volume and neutral RSI—implies a cautious, consensus-driven environment. The key question remains whether the stock’s underperformance will deepen or if traders will pivot toward rebalancing.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:56 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Hartford Insurance Group has returned about 122.9% over the past 5 years"
"the stock still screens as undervalued on broad valuation checks"
"HIG's strong underwriting, rising investment income and capital returns"
"outperformed the market over the past 5 years by 4.32% on an annualized basis"
📈 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
Charles Mackay — 89/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 22/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for this stock reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors approach valuation, risk, and market psychology. Defensive value investors like Benjamin Graham and Gerald M. Loeb see strong potential due to its perceived safety and undervaluation, scoring high (87 and 76, respectively), while growth-oriented thinkers such as Peter Lynch (86) and Thorstein Veblen (81) highlight its upside potential tied to future earnings. Meanwhile, more skeptical or cyclical frameworks—like Jesse Livermore’s (42) and Jack Schwager’s (33)—flag structural weaknesses, dismissing it as either trending downward or lacking a clear technical setup. Even within Graham’s own camp, the Enterprising Investor variant (31) rejects it as statistically insufficiently cheap, illustrating how nuanced interpretations of the same data can lead to polar opposite conclusions.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 98
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 89
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 88
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 86
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 84
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 81
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 79
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)
🟢 78
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 76
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 65
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 49
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 37
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 32
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 26
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)
🔴 22
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 (1 bullish · 8 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
$131.84
Range Bottom
$146.07
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.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
13.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
20.2%
ROA
4.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$13.51
Cash
$177.00M
Total Debt
$4.37B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.23
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 1.9.2026 | $0.600 |
| 1.6.2026 | $0.600 |
| 31.5.2026 | $0.600 |
| 2.3.2026 | $0.600 |
| 1.3.2026 | $0.600 |
| 1.12.2025 | $0.600 |
| 30.11.2025 | $0.600 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.520 |
| 1.9.2025 | $0.520 |
| 2.6.2025 | $0.520 |
| 1.6.2025 | $0.520 |
| 3.3.2025 | $0.520 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$134.94
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$345.90
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+156.3%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
8.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.3% | $6.23B | $5.71B |
| 2 | 6.8% | $6.65B | $5.60B |
| 3 | 5.4% | $7.01B | $5.41B |
| 4 | 3.9% | $7.29B | $5.16B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $7.47B | $4.85B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$5.75B
Terminal Value
$117.78B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$76.55B
Enterprise Value
$103.29B
Net Debt
$4.19B
Equity Value
$99.10B
*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
$66.24
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$57.60
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 7 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Barchart · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Zacks · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
StockStory · 26.8.2026
Hartford (The) (HIG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, 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.
HIG currently scores 53/100 (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, HIG's estimated fair value is $345.90, which is 156.3% above the current price of $134.94. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HIG's technical score is 26/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $345.90 vs. price $134.94 (+156.3%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 28.7%; Net income growth: 23.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Free cash flow growth: -0.2%; Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — HIG 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Swift Christopher | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 35,088 | -35,088 | — |
| Swift Christopher | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 41,569 | -35,088 | — |
| FETTER TREVOR | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 61,537 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| JAMES DONNA | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 11,885 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| FETTER TREVOR | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 62,714 | +1,177 | $140.14 |
| Bartlett Thomas A | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,356 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| Ruesterholz Virginia P | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 17,097 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| De Shon Larry D | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,356 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| Dominguez Carlos | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,068 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| Dominguez Carlos | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,889 | +821 | $140.14 |
| Winter Matthew E | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 7,578 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| Winters Kathleen A | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 4,692 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| Rippert Annette | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 4,526 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| Roseborough Teresa Wynn | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,356 | +1,356 | $140.14 |
| Winter Matthew E | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
| JAMES DONNA | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
| Winters Kathleen A | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
| Dominguez Carlos | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 820.608 | +820.608 | $140.14 |
| Dominguez Carlos | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
| FETTER TREVOR | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,177.394 | +1,177.394 | $140.14 |
| FETTER TREVOR | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
| Bartlett Thomas A | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
| De Shon Larry D | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
| Rippert Annette | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
| Roseborough Teresa Wynn | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 1,355.787 | +1,355.787 | $140.14 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,081,019 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,735,209 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
33.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 37.1% 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