Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$324.13
▲ $3.63 (+1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/26 05:44 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$6.46B
Day Range
$317.32 - $326.83
52-Week Range
$170.07 - $408.26
Beta
—
Next Earnings
19.11.2026
Support
$246.55
Resistance
$408.26
IESC is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+70.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/30 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 51.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.3% of price
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
65
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
6d ago · $322.16
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 5 to 31 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
71
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
47
Risk
62
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
77
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 IES Holdings, Inc. (IESC) has centered on its strategic expansion through a $650 million acquisition of DBM Global from INNOVATE Corp., marking its largest deal yet and reshaping its portfolio. Analysts like Jim Cramer have praised the company’s resilience amid data center market challenges, highlighting strong financial performance—including a 12.6x five-year return—and robust year-to-date gains. Discussions also revolved around valuation debates, margin trends, and its growing exposure to data center growth, positioning IESC as a standout investment in the sector.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about IES Holdings, Inc.. 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
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
77
Technical
47
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-9%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+22
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
IESC’s psychology is dominated by loss aversion, as the 3-month decline (-10.5%) and elevated volume align with risk-averse behavior. The narrative gap (13 points) hints at a disconnect between market sentiment (optimistic) and fundamentals, but no single bias dictates action. Herding and FOMO signals are muted by weak momentum and peer underperformance. The key question: will traders prioritize recent losses or dismiss them as noise amid positive news?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 02:18 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"$650 million acquisition of DBM Global announced (Articles 2, 8, 10, 11)"
"Jim Cramer calls IES Holdings 'a good one' (Articles 5, 6)"
"CEO highlights 'data center boom' and margin trends (Articles 8, 10, 12)"
"84.18% 1-year total shareholder return (Article 8)"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 6D 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
Peter Lynch — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 22/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that Peter Lynch sees IESC as a strong growth candidate, reflected in a 91 score, while Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria flag it as unsuitable with only 38. Investors focused on liquidity and long‑term stability such as Walter Bagehot (73) and Edgar Lawrence Smith (69) give moderately high marks, indicating confidence in the firm’s ability to endure stress and be a decade‑hold. Mid‑cycle and quality‑oriented thinkers like Howard Marks, Philip Fisher, and Charles Mackay land in the 50‑60 range, showing mixed views that the business is solid but perhaps already priced for growth or lacking exceptional quality. The most contrarian, statistically‑driven approaches (Graham‑Enterprising, Schwager) assign low scores (28 and 22), concluding the stock does not meet their safety or setup thresholds, leading to a overall spread of opinions.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 91
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 73
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 69
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 60
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 59
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 59
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 47
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 44
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 38
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
🔴 28
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 22
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 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 5 bearish · 3 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 uptrend 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
25.5%
Operating Margin
11.4%
Net Margin
9.1%
EBITDA Margin
12.8%
ROE
34.6%
ROA
19.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$15.22
Cash
$127.17M
Total Debt
$0
Current Ratio
1.71
Debt/Equity
0.00
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$43.80
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$36.39
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 6 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 29.8.2026
Yahoo · 29.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 29.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
MarketBeat · 27.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
IES Holdings, Inc. (IESC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 65/100, 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.
IESC currently scores 65/100 (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.
IESC's technical score is 47/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: 51.9%; Net income growth: 39.6%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.3% of price; Price is below the 50-day average; -15.1% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for IESC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 13 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fouts John Louis | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 69 | +69 | — |
| Koshkin Joe D | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 39 | +39 | — |
| Janzen Kelly | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 34 | +34 | — |
| Gendell David B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 34 | +34 | — |
| Cleveland Todd M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 37 | +37 | — |
| Baldock Jennifer A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 36 | +36 | — |
| Koshkin Joe D | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 44,895 | +39 | — |
| Baldock Jennifer A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 5,615 | +36 | — |
| Gendell David B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 70,821 | +34 | — |
| Fouts John Louis | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 8,488 | +69 | — |
| Cleveland Todd M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 60,911 | +37 | — |
| Janzen Kelly | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 263 | +34 | — |
| GENDELL JEFFREY L ET AL | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 4 | -4 | $752.18 |
| Cleveland Todd M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | $762.01 |
| GENDELL JEFFREY L ET AL | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 6,720 | -6,720 | $764.54 |
| Cleveland Todd M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | $761.31 |
| GENDELL JEFFREY L ET AL | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 2,509 | -2,509 | $761.73 |
| Cleveland Todd M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 1,100 | -1,100 | $760.41 |
| GENDELL JEFFREY L ET AL | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 7,491 | -7,491 | $758.74 |
| GENDELL JEFFREY L ET AL | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 19,996 | -19,996 | $750.24 |
| Cleveland Todd M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $763.35 |
| GENDELL JEFFREY L ET AL | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $760.47 |
| Cleveland Todd M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 64,774 | -1,100 | $760.41 |
| Cleveland Todd M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 63,574 | -1,200 | $761.31 |
| Cleveland Todd M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 62,374 | -1,200 | $762.01 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,205,028 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 1,225,405 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
67.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 67.6% 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