Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Telecommunications · ·
$19.70
▲ $0.17 (+0.9%)
Market data updated: 09/26 09:29 PM
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$4.75B
Day Range
$19.59 - $19.82
52-Week Range
$17.13 - $24.58
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.11.2026
Support
$17.52
Resistance
$20.13
+1.9% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 6/13 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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 200
Price is below the 200-day average
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
as of 09/16/202661
This Week
76
7D Ago
↓ -15
Weakening
Technical
59
7D Ago: 85
↓ -26
News
68
7D Ago: 62
↑ +6
Risk
58
7D Ago: 58
→ 0
Biggest Improvements
Biggest Declines
📊 Score History
61
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
61 / 100
🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 16, 2026
Then
76
$19.84
Now
61
$19.70
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
59
Risk
58
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of KT Corporation highlights its strategic pivot toward digital infrastructure and AI investments, with analysts praising its bullish potential in these areas. The company faced regulatory scrutiny after a $37.4 million fine for a personal data breach, while its dividend yield and financial stability were also discussed. KT SAT’s expansion into space solutions and Q1 earnings challenges—marking revenue struggles—were key themes. Overall, the focus remains on its evolving role beyond connectivity.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about KT Corporation. News trend score: 68. Reason: 4 of the last 9 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
11
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
56
Fundamentals
—
Technical
59
Valuation
—
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+12%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
KT’s psychology is dominated by anchoring, as traders appear fixated on the near resistance (0.9% away). FOMO and herding are present but muted, with FOMO driven by moderate momentum and Bollinger Band positioning, while herding lags peers. Euphoria is minimal, despite positive sentiment, due to lack of extreme overvaluation. The key question is whether traders will break resistance or retreat, given the narrow narrative-reality gap (4 points).
Updated: 09/05/2026, 01:12 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"KT Corporation’s (KT) AI Investment Plan Tests Its Shift From Connectivity to Digital Infrastructure"
"South Korea fines KT Corp $37.4 million for personal data leak"
"KT Corp passes ChartMill's Best Dividend screen with a 4.62% yield"
"Navigating Revenue Challenges and Strategic Shifts"
📈 9D 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
Charles Mackay — 79/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some approaches leaning cautiously optimistic while others outright dismiss it. Patient, long-term thinkers like Morgan Housel (73) and Charles Mackay (70) see little crowd-driven hype or speculative risk, suggesting it could fit a quiet, compounding strategy—though neither would call it a slam dunk. Meanwhile, Howard Marks (66) and Gerald Loeb (65) acknowledge reasonable risk pricing and capital preservation, but their scores dip slightly, hinting at lingering uncertainty. On the opposite end, Jesse Livermore (62) and Samuel Nelson (6) outright reject it—Livermore’s lack of clear trend and Nelson’s overbought cycle warning signal a contrarian stance. The majority of methodologies, however, are stymied by data gaps (Graham, Fisher, Lynch, Bagehot) or outright dismiss it as unworthy of active selection (Schwager, Efficient Market), framing it as either too murky or too risky to justify deviation from broader market exposure.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ 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)
🟢 79
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 76
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 66
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟢 65
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 40
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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)
🟡 38
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 28
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)
🔴 10
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 287 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 4 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 30.7.2025 | $0.216 |
| 29.7.2025 | $0.216 |
| 31.3.2025 | $0.209 |
| 30.3.2025 | $0.209 |
| 28.2.2025 | $0.175 |
| 27.2.2025 | $0.175 |
| 30.9.2024 | $0.181 |
| 29.9.2024 | $0.181 |
| 28.6.2024 | $0.180 |
| 27.6.2024 | $0.180 |
| 27.3.2024 | $0.182 |
| 26.3.2024 | $0.182 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 4 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 9 articles.
ChartMill · 25.9.2026
ChartMill · 6.8.2026
Zacks · 30.7.2026
Reuters · 29.7.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 7.7.2026
PR Newswire · 21.5.2026
GuruFocus.com · 12.5.2026
MarketBeat · 12.5.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for KT Corporation (KT) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for KT specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
KT's technical score is 59/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; ATR: 1.7% of price; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 200-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — KT 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 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,958,860 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 4,686,190 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 55.5% 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