Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$174.36
▼ $6.60 (-3.6%)
Market data updated: 09/17 01:21 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$36.15B
Day Range
$173.02 - $180.00
52-Week Range
$126.01 - $252.03
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
ODFL is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+24.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/28 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
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
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.12 (3y annualized return -5.2% / max drawdown 45.5%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
78/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+6.3%
Median 40D Outcome
58/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
73%
+3.3% … +12.7%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
27%
-7.0% … -3.9%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 73% (95% CI 48%–89%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.6%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
5 occurrence(s) · 80% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.5% | +0.3% … +5.7% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +4.0% | -2.3% … +7.1% | +1.2% |
| 20D | 73% (48%–89%) | +3.6% | -0.2% … +9.4% | +2.2% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +6.3% | -2.9% … +18.8% | +3.8% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +14.9% | -1.3% … +19.1% | +6.8% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-06-07 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +5.9% | +16.1% |
| 2025-01-10 | 77/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +14.4% | -15.9% |
| 2022-09-23 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +5.0% | +17.0% |
| 2025-09-26 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -1.8% | +14.9% |
| 2018-10-19 | 74/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +2.0% | -1.4% |
| 2025-03-20 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -4.6% | -1.0% |
| 2019-06-03 | 73/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +13.9% | +21.2% |
| 2023-05-16 | 72/100 | Downtrend | +7.5% | +37.6% |
| 2025-10-14 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +3.0% | +27.8% |
| 2025-11-19 | 71/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +24.3% | +52.0% |
| 2024-05-22 | 70/100 | Downtrend | +1.4% | +16.0% |
| 2024-12-13 | 70/100 | Consolidation | -6.9% | -19.0% |
| 2022-02-23 | 70/100 | Downtrend | +11.4% | -15.6% |
| 2025-09-12 | 69/100 | Downtrend | -7.3% | +4.7% |
| 2025-08-11 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +3.6% | -1.2% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLI (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
47
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
32
Quality
63
Value
45
Momentum
6
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
74
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING ODFL...
Recent media coverage of Old Dominion Freight Line has centered on its stock performance and financial outlook, with analysts upgrading or adjusting price targets despite recent declines. Citigroup and Bank of America Securities revised their ratings and targets, reflecting optimism tied to operational updates and a Baton Rouge expansion. However, broader market factors like rising diesel costs and freight stock volatility also influenced investor sentiment. Sustainability reporting was briefly noted but not emphasized.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Old Dominion. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 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)
42
Psychology
62
Fundamentals
74
Technical
6
Valuation
45
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-17%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a **narrative-reality disconnect**—extreme positive sentiment (100/100) clashes with weak momentum (-8.1% ROC) and oversold conditions (RSI 29). Loss aversion (23) and confirmation bias (17) dominate, as traders cling to narratives despite deteriorating fundamentals. The absence of a dominant state implies indecision, with no clear catalyst to resolve the tension. Key question: Will sentiment-driven volume sustain, or will fundamentals force a re-evaluation?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:10 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"Citigroup Upgrades Old Dominion Freight Line to 'Buy' From Neutral, Adjusts PT to $223 From $231"
"Down 12.1% in 4 Weeks, Here's Why You Should Buy the Dip in Old Dominion (ODFL)"
"Old Dominion Freight Line Stock May Trade At A Premium As Baton Rouge Expansion Starts"
"Old Dominion Freight Line Releases 2025 Sustainability Data Supplement"
📈 7D 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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing it as a high-potential opportunity while others dismiss it outright. The top scorers—Samuel Armstrong Nelson (96) and Jack Schwager (88)—highlight technical or cyclical tailwinds, suggesting the stock may be oversold or offer a disciplined, high-reward setup. Meanwhile, the Graham-based approaches (20–26) reject it entirely, arguing it lacks the defensive or statistical value required for conservative investing. Moderate scorers like Howard Marks (59) and Philip Fisher (48) strike a cautious balance, noting potential but also warning of overvaluation or missing key growth traits. The contrast reflects a tension between cyclical/technical optimism and fundamental skepticism, with no clear consensus on whether this stock is a buy, hold, or avoid.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 78
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟢 75
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 69
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 59
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 57
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 48
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 48
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 33
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 26
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 20
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 bearish · 0 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
—
Operating Margin
24.8%
Net Margin
18.6%
EBITDA Margin
31.4%
ROE
23.7%
ROA
18.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.86
Cash
$120.09M
Total Debt
$20.00M
Current Ratio
1.44
Debt/Equity
0.00
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 2.9.2026 | $0.290 |
| 3.6.2026 | $0.290 |
| 2.6.2026 | $0.290 |
| 4.3.2026 | $0.290 |
| 3.3.2026 | $0.290 |
| 3.12.2025 | $0.280 |
| 2.12.2025 | $0.280 |
| 3.9.2025 | $0.280 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.280 |
| 4.6.2025 | $0.280 |
| 3.6.2025 | $0.280 |
| 5.3.2025 | $0.280 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$20.37
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$20.37
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 5 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Barrons.com · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Barrons.com · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Barchart · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Investing.com · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Old Dominion (ODFL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ODFL currently scores 47/100 (Moderate) 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.
ODFL's technical score is 6/100, 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; Return on equity (ROE): 23.7% — strong; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.12 (3y annualized return -5.2% / max drawdown 45.5%); Revenue growth (last year): -5.5%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -11.7%.
Yes — ODFL 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 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overbey Cecil E. Jr. | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 22,746 | -19,952 | $198.39 |
| Overbey Cecil E. Jr. | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 19,952 | -19,952 | $198.39 |
| CONGDON DAVID S | Gift | 27.5.2026 | 295,670 | -295,670 | — |
| CONGDON DAVID S | Gift | 27.5.2026 | 0 | -295,670 | — |
| Gantt Greg C | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| Kasarda John D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| Stallings Wendy T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| Gabosch Bradley R | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| Smith Albert Randolph II | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| MILLER CHERYL | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| Davis Andrew Stephen | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| Aaholm Sherry A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| Stith Thomas A. III | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| CONGDON JOHN R JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 859 | +859 | — |
| Davis Andrew Stephen | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 3,635 | +859 | — |
| CONGDON JOHN R JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 2,683 | +859 | — |
| MILLER CHERYL | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 2,683 | +859 | — |
| Kasarda John D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 16,223 | +859 | — |
| Gantt Greg C | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 89,410 | +859 | — |
| Aaholm Sherry A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 12,739 | +859 | — |
| Gabosch Bradley R | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 12,137 | +859 | — |
| Stallings Wendy T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 7,817 | +859 | — |
| CONGDON DAVID S | Gift | 19.5.2026 | 73,730 | -73,730 | — |
| CONGDON DAVID S | Gift | 19.5.2026 | 606,299 | -73,730 | — |
| CONGDON EARL E | Gift | 18.5.2026 | 7,370 | -7,370 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,707,790 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,734,497 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.7% 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