Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$2.65
▲ $0.02 (+0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/24 10:01 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/24/2026
Market Cap
$1.58B
Day Range
$2.55 - $2.69
52-Week Range
$0.84 - $3.34
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$2.13
Resistance
$3.15
KOS is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+55.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 2/26 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 200
Price is above the 200-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -54.3% (negative)
Fundamental
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
42
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
10d ago · $3.02
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 58)
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
32
Quality
50
Value
50
Momentum
36
Risk
20
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
25
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 Kosmos Energy Ltd. has centered on its analyst upgrades and strong year-to-date performance compared to the broader oil and energy sector. The company was upgraded to a "Buy" (Zacks Rank #2) due to improved earnings expectations, signaling growing optimism. While some sources note its unprofitability and market volatility tied to crude oil price fluctuations, others highlight it as a standout international exploration and production (E&P) stock worth monitoring. No substantive operational or financial details beyond these trends are provided.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Kosmos Energy Ltd. Common Shares (DE). News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 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)
38
Psychology
30
Fundamentals
25
Technical
36
Valuation
50
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.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+22%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+21
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior here is subtle, reflecting cautious peer alignment rather than aggressive momentum chasing. The narrative gap (+17) and confirmation bias (score 22) suggest investors may be cherry-picking positive signals while ignoring weak revenue growth. The stock’s underperformance relative to peers today (+2.5% vs. +4.5%) hints at delayed participation rather than herd-driven euphoria. The key open question is whether the narrative gap will persist or if reality (e.g., earnings) will narrow it, potentially shifting behavior from selective confirmation to broader reassessment.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 03:28 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Zacks upgraded Kosmos Energy to a Rank #2 (Buy), reflecting stronger sentiment about its prospects and improving earnings outlook"
"Kosmos Energy has shown very large year-to-date outperformance versus the broader Oils-Energy sector"
"Kosmos Energy (KOS) is highlighted as one of the bright spots in the Zacks Oil and Gas - International E&P industry"
"Kosmos Energy stocks traded down alongside crude oil price retreat due to profit-taking and sanctions concerns"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 17D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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 — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s scores reveal a stark divide between cautious, defensive investors and those who prioritize growth or trend-following. Defensive minds like Benjamin Graham, Edgar Lawrence Smith, and Walter Bagehot—who demand stability, liquidity, and statistical undervaluation—overwhelmingly reject it, scoring near zero or negative, as the stock fails their core criteria for safety and long-term viability. Meanwhile, more neutral or cyclical thinkers like Howard Marks (Market Cycle) and Samuel Armstrong Nelson see it as mid-cycle, neither strongly bullish nor bearish, suggesting it’s neither a clear buy nor a red flag. Even Charles Mackay’s crowd psychology lens finds no mania, while Burton Malkiel and John Bogle’s efficient-market view leans skeptical but not outright dismissive, questioning whether active selection adds value. The contrast is sharpest between the ultra-defensive (Graham, Fisher, Lynch) and the more flexible (Mackay, Marks-cycle), illustrating how the same stock can be either a red flag for risk-averse investors or a neutral case for those who tolerate mid-cycle volatility.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 61
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
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 37
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
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 21
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 12
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 8
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 8
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 7 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 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
-54.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-132.4%
ROA
-14.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.47
Cash
$91.52M
Total Debt
$3.05B
Current Ratio
0.75
Debt/Equity
5.78
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$1.11
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.11
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
StockStory · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
StockStory · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
StockStory · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
StockStory · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Zacks · 25.8.2026
Kosmos Energy Ltd. Common Shares (DE) (KOS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, 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.
KOS currently scores 42/100 (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.
KOS's technical score is 36/100, 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: Price is above the 200-day average; +20.3% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -54.3% (negative); ATR: 5.7% of price; Current ratio: 0.75.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for KOS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 9 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glass Ronald W. | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 12,128 | -12,128 | $2.05 |
| Shah Nealesh D. | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 45,980 | -45,980 | $2.05 |
| Marion Josh R. | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 24,969 | -24,969 | $2.05 |
| INGLIS ANDREW G | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 85,935 | -85,935 | $2.05 |
| INGLIS ANDREW G | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 4,678,043 | -85,935 | $2.05 |
| Glass Ronald W. | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 358,700 | -12,128 | $2.05 |
| Shah Nealesh D. | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 1,935,410 | -45,980 | $2.05 |
| Marion Josh R. | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 233,404 | -24,969 | $2.05 |
| Glass Ronald W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 31,196 | +31,196 | — |
| Shah Nealesh D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 118,329 | +118,329 | — |
| INGLIS ANDREW G | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 221,171 | +221,171 | — |
| Marion Josh R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 64,248 | +64,248 | — |
| INGLIS ANDREW G | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 4,763,978 | +221,171 | — |
| Glass Ronald W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 370,828 | +31,196 | — |
| Shah Nealesh D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,981,390 | +118,329 | — |
| Marion Josh R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 258,373 | +64,248 | — |
| Moraeus Hanssen Maria | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 62,044 | +62,044 | $2.74 |
| STICE J MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 62,044 | +62,044 | $2.74 |
| Ogunlesi Adebayo O. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 62,044 | +62,044 | $2.74 |
| GOODWIN DEANNA L | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 62,044 | +62,044 | $2.74 |
| Franklin Roy A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 62,044 | +62,044 | $2.74 |
| Franklin Roy A. | Open Market Sale | 28.5.2026 | 43,466 | -43,466 | $2.73 |
| Sterin Steven | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 62,044 | +62,044 | $2.74 |
| Grant John Douglas Kelso | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 62,044 | +62,044 | $2.74 |
| Sterin Steven | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 393,339 | +62,044 | $2.74 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
24,690,679 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 26,713,443 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 37.6% 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