Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$137.40
▼ $1.35 (-1.0%)
Market data updated: 09/28 09:57 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/28/2026
News analyzed: 09/28/2026
Market Cap
$3.47B
Day Range
$137.29 - $140.00
52-Week Range
$116.78 - $163.66
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
Support
$136.73
Resistance
$158.61
MHO is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-5.7% (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
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $73.62 vs. price $137.40 (-46.4%)
Fair Value
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
🌱 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
🐂🐻 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
26
Quality
58
Value
43
Momentum
13
Risk
42
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
61
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 M/I Homes, Inc. has focused on its strategic positioning within the homebuilding sector, highlighting its potential to benefit from housing market tailwinds despite affordability and cost challenges. The company was noted alongside peers in industry outlooks, while a notable partnership with Zonda for a 2027 Virtual Concept Home underscored its innovation efforts. Additionally, M/I Homes approved a $250 million share repurchase program, signaling confidence in its financial stability.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about M/I Homes, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 7 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
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
90
Fundamentals
61
Technical
13
Valuation
43
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-15%
Market Narrative
70
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+30
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixated on the 2.5% proximity to support, likely due to recent price stability. Overconfidence (45) persists despite weak momentum, as the stock remains significantly overvalued relative to DCF (+101%), hinting at selective narrative validation. Confirmation bias (25) further supports this, with a narrative-reality gap of +19. The key question is whether traders will hold or adjust positions as the stock remains detached from peer performance and fundamentals. The open question: Will anchoring break if support is tested, or will overconfidence sustain despite valuation disconnects?
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:52 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"better operating leverage and marketing strategies are likely to drive homebuilders like PHM, MHO and CCS"
"Zonda and M/I Homes Partner on the 2027 Virtual Concept Home"
"approved a share repurchase authorization, pursuant to which the Company may purchase up to $250 million of its common shares"
"M/I Homes Insider Sold Shares Worth $2,980,000"
📈 4D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with Samuel Armstrong Nelson standing out as the lone bullish voice—his high score suggests the stock may be near a cyclical low, aligning with his contrarian, oversold-focused approach. In contrast, the majority of investors—including Graham, Marks, and Livermore—flag red flags, with Graham’s mixed verdict and Marks’ caution signaling valuation or risk concerns, while Livermore’s negative trend verdict clashes with his trend-following discipline. Meanwhile, the efficient-market camp and Fisher dismiss it outright, with Fisher’s low score reflecting a lack of the quality/growth traits he prized, while the EMH crowd sees no clear edge over passive indexing. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s cyclical positioning (Nelson’s view) outweighs its perceived risk (Loeb, Marks) or fundamental shortcomings (Graham, Fisher), with even the crowd-behavior watchers (Mackay) noting growing speculative interest as a potential warning.
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 65
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 64
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 63
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)
🟡 62
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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%
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 46
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 41
No clear edge either way
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)
🔴 34
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 30
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 29
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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 25
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 24
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
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 287 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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 downtrend 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
23.0%
Operating Margin
11.5%
Net Margin
9.1%
EBITDA Margin
11.9%
ROE
12.7%
ROA
8.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$15.07
Cash
$689.19M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$137.40
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$73.62
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-46.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.5% | $130.88M | $120.08M |
| 2 | 2.5% | $134.12M | $112.88M |
| 3 | 2.5% | $137.44M | $106.13M |
| 4 | 2.5% | $140.87M | $99.79M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $144.39M | $93.84M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$127.74M
Terminal Value
$2.28B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.48B
Enterprise Value
$2.01B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$2.01B
*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
$115.82
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$115.22
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 12 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
PR Newswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Zacks · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
PR Newswire · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
PR Newswire · 12.8.2026
M/I Homes, Inc. (MHO) 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.
MHO 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, MHO's estimated fair value is $73.62, which is 46.4% below the current price of $137.40. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MHO's technical score is 13/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; P/E: 9.3.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $73.62 vs. price $137.40 (-46.4%); Calmar: 0.44 (3y annualized return 17.8% / max drawdown 40.6%); Revenue growth (last year): -1.9%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MHO.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 11 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOLL BRUCE A | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 215 | +215 | $151.07 |
| SOLL BRUCE A | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 3,315 | +215 | $151.07 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 6,588 | -6,588 | $151.54 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 2,868 | -2,868 | $150.53 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | — |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 544 | -544 | $152.09 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $51.82 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 40,918 | +10,000 | $51.82 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 38,050 | -2,868 | $150.53 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 31,462 | -6,588 | $151.54 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 30,918 | -544 | $152.09 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 0 | -10,000 | — |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $150.13 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 12,000 | +12,000 | $51.82 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 8,000 | +8,000 | $47.59 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 8,000 | -8,000 | — |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $149.00 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 12,000 | -12,000 | — |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 42,918 | +12,000 | $51.82 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 50,918 | +8,000 | $47.59 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 40,918 | -10,000 | $149.00 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 30,918 | -10,000 | $150.13 |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 10,000 | -12,000 | — |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 37,000 | -8,000 | — |
| CREEK PHILLIP G | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $148.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,514,015 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 1,489,824 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 70.7% 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