Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$58.38
▼ $0.42 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/18 04:49 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$8.28B
Day Range
$57.95 - $59.98
52-Week Range
$30.26 - $65.28
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.09.2026
KMX is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-1.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 694.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$4.60 vs. price $58.38 (-107.9%)
Fair Value
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
43
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
38
Momentum
33
Risk
42
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
41
Institutional
100
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 **CarMax Inc.** highlights its strong financial performance and investor confidence, with recurring themes focusing on its consistent earnings beats and stock outperformance. Analysts anticipate another positive earnings report, noting CarMax’s track record of exceeding expectations. The company is also praised for outperforming tech giants like Nvidia, rising significantly in 2026 despite broader retail industry challenges. Market activity suggests steady investor interest amid broader risk appetite shifts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CarMax Inc. News trend score: 80. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
39
Fundamentals
41
Technical
33
Valuation
38
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, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+9%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+13
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
KMX’s psychology score (30) is dominated by **euphoria**, reflecting a disconnect between its elevated valuation (+24.3% above the 200-day average) and stagnant momentum. Confirmation bias (20) further amplifies this by reinforcing a positive narrative despite flat revenue growth. The absence of panic or herding suggests traders remain detached from recent underperformance, prioritizing long-term potential over short-term volatility. The key question is whether this euphoria persists despite weak momentum or if it will correct when fundamentals align with valuation. The narrative gap (+15) may sustain bias, but momentum divergence could shift focus.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 11:07 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"CarMax (KMX) has an impressive earnings surprise history and currently possesses the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely beat in its next quarterly report."
"CarMax and Lithia Motors Inch Higher"
"More than two thirds of Gen Alpha teens say they are excited about the idea of driving"
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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with scores ranging from a near-total rejection (Peter Lynch’s 0) to cautious mid-cycle neutrality (Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s 64). Lynch and Edgar Lawrence Smith’s ultra-conservative frameworks dismiss it outright, as Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price rule and Smith’s stability criteria aren’t met—suggesting neither would see enough fundamental or long-term tailwind justification. Meanwhile, the more flexible approaches—like Nelson’s mid-cycle stance or Mackay’s mild crowd-excitement warning—lean toward a lukewarm ‘wait-and-see’ position, while the efficient-market camp (Malkiel/Bogle) barely edges toward indifference. At the other extreme, Fisher, Graham, and Marks all flag red flags around valuation, quality, or risk, reinforcing a consensus of skepticism, though Marks’ cycle analysis softens it slightly by placing it ‘in the middle.’ The contrast highlights how even similar scores (e.g., Livermore’s 43 and Housel’s 43) can reflect wildly different principles—Livermore’s trend aversion versus Housel’s patience for ‘holdable’ but unexciting plays.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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)
🟡 60
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 50
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 (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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 45
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 43
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)
🟡 42
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 36
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 36
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 31
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 27
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 22
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 5
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 0
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 8 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 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
10.8%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
1.0%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
4.2%
ROA
0.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.68
Cash
$122.83M
Total Debt
$17.48B
Current Ratio
2.20
Debt/Equity
2.97
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$58.38
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$4.60
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-107.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-4.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -4.4% | $1.19B | $1.09B |
| 2 | -2.6% | $1.16B | $973.97M |
| 3 | -0.9% | $1.15B | $885.23M |
| 4 | 0.8% | $1.16B | $818.51M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.18B | $769.70M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.24B
Terminal Value
$18.68B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$12.14B
Enterprise Value
$16.68B
Net Debt
$17.36B
Equity Value
$-679.63M
*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
$39.89
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$38.91
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 7 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
StockStory · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Zacks · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Stocktwits · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 25.8.2026
Zacks · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 13.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 13.8.2026
CarMax Inc (KMX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 43/100, 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.
KMX currently scores 43/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, KMX's estimated fair value is -$4.60, which is 107.9% below the current price of $58.38. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
KMX's technical score is 33/100, 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: 694.2%; Current ratio: 2.20; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$4.60 vs. price $58.38 (-107.9%); Calmar: -0.17 (3y annualized return -10.9% / max drawdown 65.4%); Revenue growth (last year): -1.8%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for KMX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 9 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shinder Marcella | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| McCreight David W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| Chawla Sona | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| COBB WILLIAM C | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| KESSLER JAMES FRANCIS | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| OShaughnessy Robert | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| Satriano Pietro | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| Bensen Peter J | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| ONeil Mark F | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 3,696 | +3,696 | — |
| Shinder Marcella | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2026 | 574 | +574 | $52.01 |
| Chawla Sona | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $53.39 |
| Shinder Marcella | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2026 | 24,993 | +574 | $52.01 |
| Chawla Sona | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2026 | 21,702 | +2,000 | $53.39 |
| ONeil Mark F | Open Market Purchase | 24.6.2026 | 4,800 | +4,800 | $52.36 |
| ONeil Mark F | Open Market Purchase | 24.6.2026 | 4,800 | +4,800 | $52.36 |
| ONeil Mark F | Open Market Purchase | 24.6.2026 | 29,490 | +4,800 | $52.36 |
| ONeil Mark F | Open Market Purchase | 24.6.2026 | 4,800 | +4,800 | $52.36 |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 14,855 | -14,855 | — |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.6.2026 | 3,618 | -3,618 | $51.91 |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 14,855 | +14,855 | $51.91 |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 227,676 | +14,855 | $51.91 |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.6.2026 | 224,058 | -3,618 | $51.91 |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.6.2026 | 0 | -14,855 | — |
| Bensen Peter J | Open Market Purchase | 22.6.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | $52.20 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,186,795 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 13,797,326 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.2% 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