Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · CBOE
$56.05
▲ $0.20 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/17 05:25 PM
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$55.82 - $56.24
52-Week Range
$50.12 - $59.30
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+8.1% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 3/13 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.0% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.40 (3y annualized return 6.6% / max drawdown 16.2%)
Risk
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.
NOBL’s **investorScore of 58** reflects a mixed technical and risk profile, tempered by a strong news sentiment. The stock demonstrates resilience in its long-term positioning, with prices holding above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages—a bullish structural signal. However, technical indicators reveal conflicting signals: while the stock is oversold (%K 6.4) and has recently underperformed relative to its index (-1.8% ROC), the negative MACD histogram and price below the SAR point suggest a weakening momentum and potential downtrend. Risk metrics further complicate the picture, with a modest Calmar ratio (0.45) indicating a higher drawdown sensitivity (16.2% max drawdown) relative to its 7.3% annualized return, and a low ATR (1.0%) signaling limited volatility. Despite these concerns, the news category scores perfectly (100), driven by positive coverage around inflation-resistant ETF strategies and retiree-focused allocations, which may attract passive investors seeking stability or hedges against economic pressures.
The stock holds above key moving averages (50-day and 200-day) but exhibits negative MACD momentum, an oversold %K (6.4), and a price below the SAR point, signaling potential downside pressure.
This duality—structural strength vs. short-term weakness—creates uncertainty for traders relying on technical signals to time entry/exit.
All news mentions are neutral or positive, emphasizing NOBL’s inclusion in ETFs targeting retirees and inflation-resistant strategies, with no negative sentiment.
This high news score suggests institutional or passive investor interest, which could sustain demand regardless of short-term volatility.
The Calmar ratio (0.45) and high max drawdown (16.2%) relative to its 7.3% return indicate a riskier risk-reward profile, while the ATR (1.0%) suggests low volatility.
Investors prioritizing risk-adjusted returns may view this as a higher-risk holding due to the drawdown sensitivity, even if volatility is contained.
StockIQ conclusion
NOBL’s **MODERATE rating** stems from a balanced mix of structural strength and technical/risks concerns, offset by overwhelmingly positive news sentiment. The stock’s resilience above key moving averages and passive investor appeal provide tailwinds, but negative momentum indicators and drawdown sensitivity introduce caution. Investors should monitor whether the oversold conditions translate into a sustainable rebound or if the downtrend persists, as this will determine whether NOBL remains a stable long-term hold or a speculative play. The risk-reward tradeoff hinges on whether the ETF-driven demand can outweigh short-term volatility risks.
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
48
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
78
$58.65
Now
48
$56.05
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
33
Risk
50
Sentiment
86
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 the **ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL)** has framed it as part of broader discussions on dividend-focused ETFs for retirees. Articles highlight its role in diversified income strategies, noting its strong performance relative to broader market ETFs like SPY in 2026, with 29 undervalued holdings and rising dividend growth. The focus also includes its appeal as a "safe" option amid market volatility, particularly as September historically weakens stock portfolios, with retirees urged to consider dividend ETFs for stability. No company-specific developments were detailed.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF. News trend score: 86. Reason: 8 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
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
85
Fundamentals
—
Technical
33
Valuation
—
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+2%
Market Narrative
55
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+5
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
NOBL’s psychology is dominated by anchoring, as traders appear fixated on the 2.8% resistance gap. The narrative-reality gap (12 points) hints at overoptimism, but weak momentum (-1.8% ROC) and neutral volume (0.99x) temper euphoria. The key question is whether traders will break resistance or retreat, given the disconnect between sentiment (100/100) and technical weakness. The absence of panic or herding suggests discipline, but anchoring may prolong indecision until a clear catalyst emerges.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 07:25 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Three ETFs can act as the raise mechanism your retirement income was never built with"
"Dividend Aristocrats (NOBL) nearly match SPY in 2026, with top gainers, rising dividend growth"
"Owning two or three dividend ETFs feels like extra protection, but it can quietly leave retirees paying multiple expense ratios"
"retirees depending on a bull market for income face a shrinking window to reposition into safety"
📈 7D 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
Morgan Housel — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 33/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for NOBL reflects deep contrasts between methodologies prioritizing patience, momentum, and fundamental depth. Morgan Housel’s near-perfect score highlights his affinity for quiet, long-term compounders—here, the stock’s potential for steady growth aligns with his patient, narrative-driven approach. Meanwhile, Samuel Nelson’s moderate score and favorable cycle position suggest a contrarian tilt, where oversold conditions could attract a value-oriented trader. At the opposite end, Jack Schwager’s low score and outright rejection underscore his disciplined, rule-bound framework, dismissing the stock as lacking clear technical or structural setup. Even among value investors like Graham or Loeb, the lack of decisive data leaves room for interpretation—Graham’s neutral stance contrasts with Loeb’s cautious capital-preservation nod, while Fisher, Lynch, and Bagehot’s outright ‘not enough data’ verdicts reveal a shared reluctance to commit without deeper fundamentals. The efficient-market camp’s skepticism further complicates the picture, questioning whether NOBL’s perceived merits justify active selection over passive indexing.
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 99
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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)
🟢 73
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 69
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 53
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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)
🔴 33
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
Based on the last 276 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$55.63
Range Bottom
$59.30
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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 |
|---|---|
| 24.6.2026 | $0.304 |
| 25.3.2026 | $0.256 |
| 24.12.2025 | $0.331 |
| 24.9.2025 | $0.275 |
| 25.6.2025 | $0.275 |
| 26.3.2025 | $0.233 |
| 23.12.2024 | $0.293 |
| 25.9.2024 | $0.261 |
| 26.6.2024 | $0.275 |
| 20.3.2024 | $0.193 |
| 20.12.2023 | $0.328 |
| 20.9.2023 | $0.261 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 10 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 28.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.8.2026
Yahoo · 17.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF (NOBL) — 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 NOBL 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.
NOBL'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: ATR: 1.0% of price; Price is above the 200-day average; +1.7% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.40 (3y annualized return 6.6% / max drawdown 16.2%); Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — NOBL 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.
460,289 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 669,914 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
38.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 28.7% 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