Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$10.94
▼ $0.13 (-1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:16 AM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$27.24B
Day Range
$10.73 - $10.95
52-Week Range
$6.09 - $11.49
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.11.2026
Support
$9.70
Resistance
$11.49
+66.3% (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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
MACD
MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum
Technical
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.
Mizuho Financial Group (MFG) exhibits a robust overall score of 84, driven primarily by its strong technical indicators and overwhelmingly positive news sentiment. The technical category, scoring 82, highlights a clear bullish bias with the stock price positioned above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, reinforcing a sustained uptrend. The MACD histogram’s positive trend and an RSI of 66.8—indicating healthy upward momentum—further support this strength, though the overbought %K (91.8) suggests potential near-term consolidation. Meanwhile, the news category achieves a perfect score of 100, with predominantly bullish headlines emphasizing Mizuho’s momentum and strategic advantages, despite minor negative mentions tied to unrelated third-party events (e.g., PayPal). However, the risk category drags the score down to 58, as the ATR (2.0%) and volatility metrics (e.g., 29.6% max drawdown over three years) signal moderate volatility and potential short-term volatility risks, which could impact near-term stability.
The stock price is firmly above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a positive MACD histogram and an RSI of 66.8 indicating strong upward momentum, though the %K at 91.8 suggests overbought conditions.
This technical alignment typically signals sustained bullish momentum, but overbought conditions may prompt traders to anticipate a pullback or consolidation.
The news sentiment is overwhelmingly positive, with multiple articles highlighting Mizuho’s momentum and strategic positioning, despite two identical negative mentions unrelated to the company’s core operations.
Positive news sentiment can drive investor confidence and demand, while isolated negative mentions may reflect external market noise rather than intrinsic risks.
The ATR stands at 2.0% of the stock price, and volatility metrics reveal a 29.6% maximum drawdown over three years with a 49.6% annualized return, indicating moderate volatility and potential for short-term fluctuations.
Higher volatility and drawdown risks may introduce uncertainty for investors seeking stability, particularly in near-term trading horizons.
StockIQ conclusion
Mizuho Financial Group (MFG) demonstrates a balanced profile with strong technical indicators and overwhelmingly positive news sentiment, contributing to its high overall score of 84. However, moderate volatility and overbought conditions introduce near-term risks that may temper investor enthusiasm. The company’s long-term performance potential remains robust, but short-term traders should monitor volatility and technical signals closely to navigate potential pullbacks.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
73
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
1d ago · $10.87
Evidence: 5 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
2d ago · $11.07
Evidence: 7 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
2d ago · $10.93
Evidence: 9 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
3d ago · $11.15
Evidence: 8 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
4d ago · $11.15
Evidence: 8 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
5d ago · $11.37
Evidence: 9 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
6d ago · $11.45
Evidence: 9 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
7d ago · $11.45
Evidence: 9 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
9d ago · $11.05
Evidence: 9 bullish / 1 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
10d ago · $10.98
Evidence: 9 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
11d ago · $11.20
Evidence: 9 bullish / 2 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
12d ago · $11.23
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 13 to 53 day-over-day
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 2, 2026
Then
73
$10.74
Now
73
$10.94
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
67
Risk
50
Sentiment
100
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 Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. has primarily centered on its strong financial performance, with reports highlighting a **39.1% surge in net income** and a **record 12.5% return on equity (ROE)** in Q1 2027, alongside an upward revision of its full-year earnings forecast. The bank also briefly commented on broader market risks, such as the withdrawal of a potential takeover bid for PayPal (PYPL) by Stripe and Advent Capital, though its focus remained on its own robust financial results. No direct Mizuho-related controversies or major operational shifts were noted in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Sponosred ADR (Japan). News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
—
Technical
67
Valuation
—
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+6%
Market Narrative
66
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+16
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests traders are fixated on a near-term resistance level (anchoring), while euphoria and FOMO coexist due to strong momentum and extreme sentiment. The narrative-reality gap (26) hints at overoptimism, but the key question is whether traders will break resistance or adjust expectations. Herding remains muted, as the stock underperformed peers. The dominant anchoring may persist until price tests or confirms resistance.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:56 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Mizuho Financial Group Inc (MFG) reports a 39.1% surge in net income and a record 12.5% ROE"
"significant upward revision of its full-year forecast"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 12D 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 — 62/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 25/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The divergence in verdicts for MFG reflects stark contrasts between methodologies that prioritize growth, patience, and fundamental rigor versus those skeptical of timing, valuation, or market psychology. Morgan Housel’s high score and positive verdict highlight his preference for quiet, long-term compounders—where even limited data might suggest steady, patient-friendly growth. In contrast, methodologies like Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s and Howard Marks’ market-cycle approach flag the stock as overbought or late-cycle, dismissing it outright due to perceived speculative excesses. Meanwhile, the mid-tier scores from Gerald Loeb and Jesse Livermore hint at cautious but not outright dismissive views, while the majority of traditional fundamentalists (Graham, Fisher, Lynch) and behavioral economists (Mackay, Schwager) either lack sufficient data or see red flags—whether in valuation gaps, crowd behavior, or cyclical risks. The split underscores whether the stock’s potential lies in patient accumulation (Housel) or whether its risks—be they cyclical, overvalued, or speculative—outweigh its fundamentals.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 71
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 62
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 56
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 55
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 51
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 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%
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 26
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 25
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 2 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 31.3.2025 | $0.103 |
| 30.3.2025 | $0.103 |
| 30.9.2024 | $0.087 |
| 29.9.2024 | $0.087 |
| 27.3.2024 | $0.070 |
| 26.3.2024 | $0.070 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 5 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Stocktwits · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 24.8.2026
CNW Group · 24.8.2026
PR Newswire · 24.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
MT Newswires · 20.8.2026
Bloomberg · 19.8.2026
PR Newswire · 12.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Mizuho Financial Group, Inc. Sponosred ADR (Japan) (MFG) — 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 MFG 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.
MFG's technical score is 67/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; RSI 52.1 — healthy positive momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — MFG 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitomi Makoto | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,680 | +3,680 | — |
| Tezuka Masahiko | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 490 | +490 | — |
| Yagi Minako | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,858 | +3,858 | — |
| Shiraishi Shiro | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 540 | +540 | — |
| Tsujimori Hideki | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,680 | +3,680 | — |
| Shinohara Hiromichi | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 490 | +490 | — |
| Kihara Masahiro | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 1,680 | +1,680 | — |
| Samejima Makoto | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 480 | +480 | — |
| Koyama Takeshi | Other Transaction | 24.7.2026 | 881 | +881 | — |
| Tsujimori Hideki | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 540 | +540 | — |
| Koyama Takeshi | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 500 | +500 | — |
| Kihara Masahiro | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 15,391 | +15,391 | — |
| Kurosawa Tatsuya | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,513 | +3,513 | — |
| Matsuura Shuji | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 610 | +610 | — |
| Yonezawa Takefumi | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 570 | +570 | — |
| Kurosawa Tatsuya | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 520 | +520 | — |
| Kojima Keiji | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 490 | +490 | — |
| Yonezawa Takefumi | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,858 | +3,858 | — |
| Akita Natsumi | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 540 | +540 | — |
| Matsuura Shuji | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,680 | +3,680 | — |
| Yagi Minako | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 570 | +570 | — |
| Akita Natsumi | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,858 | +3,858 | — |
| Hitomi Makoto | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 1,440 | +1,440 | — |
| Shiraishi Shiro | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,680 | +3,680 | — |
| Samejima Makoto | Other Transaction | 24.7.2026 | 1,028 | +1,028 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,405,924 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,795,198 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 60.3% 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