Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Utilities · ·
$95.59
▲ $0.60 (+0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/18 05:49 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$11.59B
Day Range
$95.02 - $95.84
52-Week Range
$85.70 - $111.16
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
PNW is a stock from the Utilities sector — Electricity, water, and residential gas — steady demand and heavy regulation, considered a defensive, dividend-paying sector.
+11.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 1/28 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
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.6% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
88/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
+3.8%
Median 40D Outcome
74/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+3.0% … +7.1%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.4% … +0.8%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-7.0% … -5.1%
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, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.7%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
4 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%) | +1.8% | -0.5% … +2.6% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.9% | -1.2% … +3.2% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.7% | -3.4% … +6.1% | +0.4% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +3.8% | +0.0% … +10.0% | +0.7% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.8% | -1.4% … +8.4% | +1.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-12 | 88/100 | Downtrend | +6.4% | +4.4% |
| 2025-12-11 | 84/100 | Downtrend | +3.4% | +16.0% |
| 2021-02-23 | 82/100 | Downtrend | +5.8% | +13.2% |
| 2025-01-14 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +6.9% | +8.5% |
| 2023-09-07 | 81/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -5.1% | -1.2% |
| 2019-07-22 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +1.7% | +0.3% |
| 2021-09-01 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -7.0% | -16.1% |
| 2018-08-29 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -1.8% | +11.0% |
| 2018-09-27 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +8.1% | +8.3% |
| 2019-10-18 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -6.7% | -1.4% |
| 2025-06-11 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +2.1% | -1.5% |
| 2021-09-29 | 78/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -7.1% | -4.8% |
| 2025-06-27 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +0.2% | -1.6% |
| 2025-09-02 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +1.0% | +0.8% |
| 2025-09-25 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +7.5% | +1.4% |
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 XLU (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
44
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
48
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
16
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
45
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING PNW...
Recent media coverage of Pinnacle West Capital (PNW) has centered on its stock performance, earnings outlook, and ties to Arizona’s growth. Analysts highlight its strong year-to-date return (10.8%) and robust 2026 EPS guidance ($4.55–$4.75), driven by Arizona’s expanding demand. The company’s recent stock dip (down 4.1% since earnings) and mixed valuation signals have sparked debate among investors. Some also mention PNW as a wind energy-related stock, though its focus remains on utilities and regional growth.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Pinnacle West Capital. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 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
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
79
Fundamentals
45
Technical
16
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
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.
Price (3M)
-7%
Market Narrative
62
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+26
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 1.7% support level, ignoring weaker momentum (-1.3% ROC) and neutral RSI (41). The narrative gap (63 vs. 36) hints at overly optimistic expectations, while low FOMO (score 10) and muted volume (0.76x avg) imply limited urgency. Herding (score 44) may reflect relative underperformance vs. peers (+0.5% vs. +0.0%). The key question: will traders break free from support or double down on the anchor?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:38 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Management expressed confidence in reaching the upper end of EPS guidance, driven by robust load growth in Arizona."
"Pinnacle West Capital’s share price return of 10.8% ahead of the broader utilities group."
"Pinnacle West Capital has been highlighted in Zacks.com’s Screen of The Week article."
📈 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 — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s documented principles, the model estimates the stock is in a favorable cycle position, while Charles Mackay’s view sees no crowd mania, both yielding relatively high scores. In contrast, Jack Schwager and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) assign mid‑range scores, indicating the stock sits ambiguously in the middle of the cycle with no clear edge. The efficient‑market, Morgan Housel, Howard Marks (general), and other moderate‑scoring investors flag mixed or moderate assessments, pointing to concerns about valuation, stability, and risk that prevent a strong endorsement. The most bearish scores—from Benjamin Graham, Jesse Livermore, Philip Fisher, Peter Lynch, and Walter Bagehot—reflect failures to meet defensive, growth‑at‑a‑reasonable‑price, or liquidity criteria, leading those methodologies to view the stock very unfavorably.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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)
🟢 75
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 60
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 43
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 39
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 37
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 32
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 24
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 20
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 12
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 11
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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 · 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
20.0%
Net Margin
11.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
8.8%
ROA
2.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$5.15
Cash
$6.60M
Total Debt
$9.81B
Current Ratio
0.54
Debt/Equity
1.50
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 3.8.2026 | $0.910 |
| 2.8.2026 | $0.910 |
| 4.5.2026 | $0.910 |
| 3.5.2026 | $0.910 |
| 2.2.2026 | $0.910 |
| 1.2.2026 | $0.910 |
| 3.11.2025 | $0.910 |
| 2.11.2025 | $0.910 |
| 1.8.2025 | $0.895 |
| 31.7.2025 | $0.895 |
| 5.5.2025 | $0.895 |
| 4.5.2025 | $0.895 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$58.28
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$53.52
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 28.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Zacks · 25.8.2026
Zacks · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
Zacks · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Barchart · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Pinnacle West Capital (PNW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 44/100, 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.
PNW currently scores 44/100 (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.
PNW's technical score is 16/100, 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: 1.6% of price.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.54; Calmar: 0.40 (3y annualized return 6.5% / max drawdown 16.5%).
Yes — PNW 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blankenship Elizabeth A | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 980 | -980 | $99.17 |
| Blankenship Elizabeth A | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 10,886 | -980 | $99.17 |
| Esparza Jose Luis Jr | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 1,800 | -1,800 | $102.01 |
| Esparza Jose Luis Jr | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 4,910 | -1,800 | $102.01 |
| TREVATHAN JAMES E JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| Butler Ronald Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| Sims Paula J | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | $99.77 |
| EICHER CAROL S | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| BRYAN GLYNIS | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| Svinicki Kristine L | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| de la Melena Gonzalo A Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| SPENCE WILLIAM H | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | $99.77 |
| Flanagan Susan T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| SPENCE WILLIAM H | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 6,291 | +1,665 | $99.77 |
| TREVATHAN JAMES E JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| BRYAN GLYNIS | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| Sims Paula J | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 11,032 | +1,665 | $99.77 |
| EICHER CAROL S | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| Svinicki Kristine L | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| de la Melena Gonzalo A Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| Butler Ronald Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| Flanagan Susan T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,665 | +1,665 | — |
| Tetlow Jacob | Open Market Sale | 13.5.2026 | 41 | -41 | $99.01 |
| Tetlow Jacob | Open Market Sale | 13.5.2026 | 6,526 | -6,526 | $99.00 |
| Tetlow Jacob | Open Market Sale | 13.5.2026 | 6,675 | -6,526 | $99.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,743,079 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,307,458 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.1% 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