Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$118.94
▲ $0.68 (+0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/15 01:14 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/15/2026
News analyzed: 09/15/2026
Market Cap
$22.30B
Day Range
$116.93 - $119.81
52-Week Range
$108.49 - $144.50
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
PHM is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-13.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/27 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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $149.02 vs. price $118.94 (+25.3%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.42 (3y annualized return 16.0% / max drawdown 38.3%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
86/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
+2.3%
Median 40D Outcome
56/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+6.7% … +12.9%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.5% … -0.5%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-4.2% … -3.0%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.9%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
4 occurrence(s) · 75% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
2 occurrence(s) · 50% 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.1% | -1.3% … +5.9% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.4% | -1.2% … +8.3% | +1.0% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.9% | -2.6% … +9.4% | +2.0% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.3% | -7.9% … +9.0% | +3.9% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +6.3% | -7.3% … +14.9% | +5.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-08-02 | 86/100 | Downtrend | -2.3% | -16.2% |
| 2018-09-13 | 85/100 | Downtrend | -13.2% | -4.8% |
| 2018-06-21 | 84/100 | Downtrend | +6.7% | -8.6% |
| 2025-10-15 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -3.2% | +6.9% |
| 2026-03-25 | 82/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +10.5% | +6.3% |
| 2021-06-16 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -3.0% | -9.8% |
| 2019-03-21 | 82/100 | Downtrend | +15.6% | +24.2% |
| 2024-07-03 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +23.1% | +36.3% |
| 2021-09-17 | 81/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -0.5% | +13.1% |
| 2024-11-04 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +3.5% | -15.7% |
| 2021-07-19 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +7.3% | -6.0% |
| 2024-04-19 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +12.9% | +15.5% |
| 2026-05-14 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +8.2% | +16.3% |
| 2025-12-26 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +3.9% | -0.9% |
| 2023-08-25 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -4.2% | +14.4% |
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 XLY (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
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.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
37
Quality
55
Value
67
Momentum
24
Risk
48
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
63
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING PHM...
Recent media coverage on PulteGroup focuses on favorable analyst ratings, stock valuation, and shareholder payouts. Analysts, including StoneX, have recently initiated coverage on
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about PulteGroup. News trend score: 56. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
20
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
30
Fundamentals
63
Technical
24
Valuation
67
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-5%
Market Narrative
24
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
-15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme anchoring (95) at a 0.2% distance from support suggests traders are fixating on this near-term level, likely due to its proximity. Herding (82) hints at relative peer comparison, but the lack of extreme volume or volatility rules out panic or FOMO. The narrative gap (+6) and stagnant revenue imply mild confirmation bias, but the dominant focus remains on the support level. The key question is whether this anchoring persists or breaks, given the stock’s underperformance and negative momentum.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 09:27 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"StoneX analyst Michael Rindos initiates coverage on PulteGroup (NYSE:PHM) with a Buy rating and announces Price Target of $148"
"PulteGroup stock has delivered a strong long-term gain... yet the latest valuation checks suggest the current share price may still sit below the company’s own cash flow based intrinsic value estimate"
"PulteGroup (PHM) has affirmed its capital return plans, with the Board declaring a quarterly dividend of $0.26 per share"
📈 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
Charles Mackay — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 14/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for PHM reflects deep methodological contrasts: defensive value investors like Benjamin Graham and Edgar Lawrence Smith see it as a long-term hold, scoring high (79 and 67) because its fundamentals align with their patience-for-compounding principles. Meanwhile, cyclical and trend-following approaches—such as Jesse Livermore’s (12) and Jack Schwager’s (52)—reject it outright, with Livermore’s low score flagging a downtrend and Schwager’s neutrality suggesting no clear edge. Even within value frameworks, Samuel Armstrong Nelson (98) and Howard Marks (67) agree on its cyclical attractiveness, but Marks’ lower score hints at cautious risk awareness, while Philip Fisher (25) and Peter Lynch (20) dismiss it for lacking the growth or quality they prioritize. The efficient-market camp (36) further complicates the debate by questioning whether PHM’s idiosyncrasies justify active selection over passive indexing, illustrating how philosophical assumptions about market efficiency clash with bottom-up stock-picking.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
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: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 99
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 91
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 79
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 73
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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)
🟢 67
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 60
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 36
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 36
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 23
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 14
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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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 downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High 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
—
Net Margin
12.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
17.1%
ROA
12.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$11.21
Cash
$1.98B
Total Debt
$43.90M
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.00
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 16.6.2026 | $0.260 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.260 |
| 17.3.2026 | $0.260 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.260 |
| 16.12.2025 | $0.260 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.260 |
| 16.9.2025 | $0.220 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.220 |
| 17.6.2025 | $0.220 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.220 |
| 18.3.2025 | $0.220 |
| 17.3.2025 | $0.220 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$118.94
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$149.02
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+25.3%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.9% | $1.80B | $1.65B |
| 2 | 2.8% | $1.85B | $1.56B |
| 3 | 2.7% | $1.90B | $1.47B |
| 4 | 2.6% | $1.95B | $1.38B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.00B | $1.30B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.75B
Terminal Value
$31.47B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$20.45B
Enterprise Value
$27.80B
Net Debt
$-1.94B
Equity Value
$29.74B
*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
$65.08
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$64.74
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 9 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Barrons.com · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
StockStory · 12.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
CNBC · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
CNBC · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Fintel · 5.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
PulteGroup (PHM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
PHM currently scores 48/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, PHM's estimated fair value is $149.02, which is 25.3% above the current price of $118.94. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PHM's technical score is 24/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $149.02 vs. price $118.94 (+25.3%); SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.42 (3y annualized return 16.0% / max drawdown 38.3%); Revenue growth (last year): -3.5%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -24.3%.
Yes — PHM 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 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLAIR BRYCE | Gift | 30.7.2026 | 7,639 | -7,639 | — |
| BLAIR BRYCE | Gift | 30.7.2026 | 7,639 | +7,639 | — |
| HENRY KEVIN A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.6.2026 | 2,093 | -2,093 | $126.02 |
| HENRY KEVIN A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.6.2026 | 12,580 | -2,093 | $126.02 |
| Koart Matthew William | Open Market Sale | 27.5.2026 | 7,457 | -7,457 | $120.00 |
| Koart Matthew William | Open Market Sale | 27.5.2026 | 28,100 | -7,457 | $120.00 |
| Koart Matthew William | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 6,861 | -6,861 | $111.77 |
| Koart Matthew William | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 35,557 | -6,861 | $111.77 |
| Snyder Lila | Open Market Sale | 8.5.2026 | 3,339 | -3,339 | $117.18 |
| Snyder Lila | Open Market Sale | 8.5.2026 | 3,540 | -3,339 | $117.18 |
| GANNON KRISTIN F. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| Peshkin John R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| GRISE CHERYL W | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| Hawaux Andre J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| BLAIR BRYCE | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| Schall Benjamin | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| POWERS SCOTT F | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| Snyder Lila | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| Actis-Grande Kristen | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| BLAIR BRYCE | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 134,372 | +1,507 | — |
| FOLLIARD THOMAS J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 31,730 | +1,507 | — |
| Peshkin John R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 31,050 | +1,507 | — |
| Schall Benjamin | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 1,507 | +1,507 | — |
| Snyder Lila | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 6,879 | +1,507 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,197,844 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,187,963 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.6% 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