Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$242.72
▼ $1.52 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/15 01:15 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/15/2026
News analyzed: 09/15/2026
Market Cap
$96.83B
Day Range
$241.48 - $245.32
52-Week Range
$176.88 - $258.96
Beta
—
Next Earnings
15.10.2026
PNC is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
+20.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/23 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 20.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is below the 50-day average
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
85/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-2.3%
Median 40D Outcome
32/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+3.0% … +14.1%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.6% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-14.0% … -6.8%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.6%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
2 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.5% | -3.0% … +2.4% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.5% | -5.5% … +4.3% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.6% | -10.0% … +4.7% | +1.1% |
| 40D | 33% (15%–58%) | -2.3% | -9.9% … +6.6% | +2.2% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -1.8% | -13.5% … +9.9% | +3.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-02-18 | 85/100 | Consolidation | -36.6% | -36.1% |
| 2024-06-07 | 84/100 | Consolidation | +3.6% | +17.0% |
| 2021-12-15 | 84/100 | Consolidation | +14.3% | -7.4% |
| 2018-06-13 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -5.2% | -1.8% |
| 2025-01-06 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.7% | -17.5% |
| 2018-05-04 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.6% | -0.5% |
| 2020-01-30 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -16.3% | -30.1% |
| 2024-02-20 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +2.3% | +10.0% |
| 2025-08-15 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +5.9% | -3.2% |
| 2025-09-29 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -8.4% | +5.0% |
| 2024-06-27 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +19.3% | +21.8% |
| 2022-02-11 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -11.6% | -22.0% |
| 2021-08-23 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -1.8% | +9.8% |
| 2026-06-01 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +14.0% | +13.2% |
| 2025-02-18 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -11.8% | -9.5% |
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 XLF (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
54
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
65
Quality
50
Value
55
Momentum
46
Risk
58
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
56
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING PNC...
Recent media coverage on **PNC Financial Services** has been limited but highlights its upcoming third-quarter earnings report, scheduled for October 15, 2026, with CEO William S. Demchak and CFO Robert Q. Reilly addressing investors. No substantive financial or operational developments were explicitly reported in the provided sources, so no broader trends or notable events can be summarized beyond this announcement.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about PNC Financial Services. 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
4
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
51
Fundamentals
56
Technical
46
Valuation
55
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.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+3%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
PNC’s psychology is dominated by **anchoring**, as traders appear fixated on the 3.6% distance from support, ignoring broader momentum weakness. The **euphoria** score (19) reflects detached optimism—positive sentiment (98/100) persists despite flat price action and underperformance relative to peers. The **narrative gap** (25) widens reality (38) from narrative (63), implying traders may overlook technical signals. Key question: Will traders break free from support anchoring, or will euphoria sustain despite weak momentum?
Updated: 09/07/2026, 08:14 PM
What could change this?
📈 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 — 89/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 32/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for PNC show a sharp divide between those leaning cautiously optimistic and those dismissing it outright. Mackay, Lynch, and Nelson—all scoring in the mid-60s—suggest the stock exhibits signs of momentum, undervaluation relative to cycles, or at least reasonable growth potential, though Lynch notes the price may already reflect much of that upside. In contrast, Graham’s strict valuation tests, Fisher’s high-quality bar, and Livermore’s trend-following rule all reject the stock outright, with Livermore and Schwager’s wizards outright calling it a no-go. Meanwhile, the efficient-market camp and Marks’ cycle analysis treat it as a neutral or middling play, questioning whether active selection adds value or if expectations are already baked in. The gap between Nelson’s cyclical optimism and Graham’s skepticism highlights whether PNC’s fundamentals justify a premium—or if it’s simply a case of moderate interest without clear conviction.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 89
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 66
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 64
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 60
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 59
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 59
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 57
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 56
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 56
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 55
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 53
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 52
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 50
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 48
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 43
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 32
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
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 (3 bullish · 5 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
30.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
11.5%
ROA
1.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$16.60
Cash
$39.71B
Total Debt
$57.10B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.94
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 20.7.2026 | $2.000 |
| 19.7.2026 | $2.000 |
| 14.4.2026 | $1.700 |
| 13.4.2026 | $1.700 |
| 20.1.2026 | $1.700 |
| 19.1.2026 | $1.700 |
| 14.10.2025 | $1.700 |
| 13.10.2025 | $1.700 |
| 15.7.2025 | $1.700 |
| 14.7.2025 | $1.700 |
| 16.4.2025 | $1.600 |
| 15.4.2025 | $1.600 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$152.99
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$125.32
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 9 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 13.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Barchart · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
PR Newswire · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
PNC Financial Services (PNC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
PNC currently scores 54/100 (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.
PNC's technical score is 46/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 20.7%; ATR: 1.8% of price; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 50-day average; -0.4% over the last 3 months relative to the index; ROC 12 days: -0.8%.
Yes — PNC 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 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juchno Stacy M. | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 3,354 | -3,354 | $255.84 |
| Juchno Stacy M. | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 18,800 | -3,354 | $255.84 |
| Deborah Guild | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | $252.20 |
| Deborah Guild | Gift | 22.7.2026 | 72 | -72 | — |
| Deborah Guild | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 36,527 | -1,200 | $252.20 |
| Deborah Guild | Gift | 22.7.2026 | 36,455 | -72 | — |
| HESSE DANIEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 156 | +156 | $251.62 |
| Feldstein Andrew T | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 392 | +392 | $251.62 |
| Khator Renu | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 204 | +204 | $251.62 |
| CAFARO DEBRA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 303 | +303 | $251.62 |
| Salesky Bryan Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 184 | +184 | $251.62 |
| HARSHMAN RICHARD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 91 | +91 | $251.62 |
| Dachille Douglas A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 51 | +51 | $251.62 |
| NIBLOCK ROBERT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 102 | +102 | $251.62 |
| HARSHMAN RICHARD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2,288 | +91 | $251.62 |
| CAFARO DEBRA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 9,640 | +303 | $251.62 |
| NIBLOCK ROBERT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2,011 | +102 | $251.62 |
| HESSE DANIEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 5,061 | +156 | $251.62 |
| Feldstein Andrew T | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 21,216 | +392 | $251.62 |
| Dachille Douglas A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 274 | +51 | $251.62 |
| Khator Renu | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 3,627 | +204 | $251.62 |
| Salesky Bryan Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2,372 | +184 | $251.62 |
| Thomas Michael Duane | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $238.14 |
| Thomas Michael Duane | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 5,059 | -1,500 | $238.14 |
| Overstrom Alexander E. C. | Open Market Sale | 8.6.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $227.97 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,003,678 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,197,185 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 37.8% 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