Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Communication Services · ·
$10.21
▼ $0.41 (-3.9%)
Market data updated: 09/21 08:29 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$10.94B
Day Range
$10.12 - $10.62
52-Week Range
$7.62 - $20.86
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$7.62
Resistance
$11.28
PSKY is a stock from the Communication Services sector — Telecom, media, and internet/social platforms — revenue from advertising and subscriptions.
-42.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/27 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 232.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -18.0% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
-12.4%
Median 40D Outcome
64/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
13%
+3.9% … +4.2%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.7% … -0.2%
🔴 Bearish
67%
-13.5% … -5.3%
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, 13% (95% CI 4%–38%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -4.6%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
1 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 | 20% (7%–45%) | -1.9% | -3.8% … -1.0% | -0.2% |
| 10D | 27% (11%–52%) | -0.6% | -3.6% … +1.1% | -0.3% |
| 20D | 13% (4%–38%) | -4.6% | -11.4% … -0.7% | -0.7% |
| 40D | 27% (11%–52%) | -12.4% | -18.2% … -0.1% | -2.2% |
| 60D | 33% (15%–58%) | -11.5% | -17.9% … +4.8% | -3.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-18 | 81/100 | Downtrend | -13.8% | +10.8% |
| 2023-08-14 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -9.5% | -14.0% |
| 2023-03-09 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +3.8% | -27.5% |
| 2026-06-03 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -0.6% | +4.1% |
| 2021-07-14 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -2.6% | -4.9% |
| 2024-11-26 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -1.9% | +5.5% |
| 2026-05-13 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +0.2% | -11.5% |
| 2023-07-21 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -4.6% | -21.0% |
| 2022-09-16 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -17.4% | -13.5% |
| 2023-12-29 | 73/100 | High Volatility | -7.5% | -20.9% |
| 2021-09-20 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -0.8% | -23.8% |
| 2022-08-31 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -19.0% | -14.9% |
| 2023-10-02 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -12.6% | +19.1% |
| 2024-09-06 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +4.3% | +8.8% |
| 2024-02-13 | 72/100 | Downtrend | -10.2% | +0.6% |
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 XLC (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
36
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
2d ago · $10.21
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 10 to -17 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
2d ago · $10.21
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 0 to 36 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
40
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
37
Risk
34
Sentiment
20
Fundamental
26
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING PSKY...
Recent media coverage of **Paramount Skydance Corporation (PSKY)** has centered on its CEO, David Ellison, securing regulatory approval for his $110 billion bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) in 68 countries, while a lawsuit from 12 state attorneys general—led by California—remains unresolved. Market sentiment remains optimistic, with PSKY’s stock surging 25.2% since its last earnings report, and investors assigning near 85% odds to the deal’s completion despite legal hurdles.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Paramount Skydance Corporation. News trend score: 20. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 6 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
34
Fundamentals
26
Technical
37
Valuation
50
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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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)
+3%
Market Narrative
23
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
-12
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** behavior reflects PSKY’s relative outperformance amid peer underperformance, suggesting traders are aligning with tech sector trends rather than independent analysis. **FOMO** and **overconfidence** signals are present but muted, as momentum lacks extreme overbought conditions or valuation extremes. **Anchoring** may play a role near resistance, while **panic selling** remains a minor counterbalance. The key question: *Is this herding driven by fundamentals or speculative momentum?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 06:28 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"California Attorney General Rob Bonta... remains the final obstacle"
"Paramount Skydance (PSKY) reported earnings... stock up 25.2%"
"Wall Street Is Putting Close to 85% Odds of Paramount-Warner Deal Getting Done"
"David Ellison Is Promising at Least 30 Movies a Year. Hollywood Is Skeptical."
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 14D 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
Peter Lynch — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with some models seeing it as a rare opportunity and others flagging it as a high-risk speculative bet. Benjamin Graham’s *Enterprising Investor* approach scores it highly (78) due to its statistical discount, suggesting it meets deep-value criteria, while his traditional framework (50) remains neutral, indicating mixed signals. Meanwhile, Charles Mackay (76) and Howard Marks (67) view it cautiously but not as a manic or cyclically risky play, contrasting sharply with Peter Lynch (8) and Thorstein Veblen (21), who dismiss it outright—Lynch for lacking growth potential and Veblen for signaling unchecked speculative fervor. The middle ground, represented by investors like Morgan Housel (48) and Jack Schwager (50), acknowledges it’s holdable but not a slam dunk, while efficiency-market skeptics like Bogle (41) and Loeb (31) warn of structural risks or overvaluation. The split reflects whether the stock’s valuation or momentum aligns with patient, disciplined investing (Graham, Marks) or if it’s better avoided as a speculative gamble (Lynch, Veblen).
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)
🟢 88
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 78
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 68
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 57
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)
🟡 55
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 45
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 33
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 32
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 24
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)
🔴 21
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)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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 · 8 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 uptrend 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
-18.0%
Net Margin
-21.2%
EBITDA Margin
-16.7%
ROE
-37.9%
ROA
-13.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$9.34
Cash
$2.66B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.30
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.9.2026 | $0.050 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.050 |
| 14.6.2026 | $0.050 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.050 |
| 15.3.2026 | $0.050 |
| 18.12.2025 | $0.050 |
| 17.12.2025 | $0.050 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.050 |
| 14.9.2025 | $0.050 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.050 |
| 15.6.2025 | $0.050 |
| 17.3.2025 | $0.050 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$10.21
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$10.58
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+3.7%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-1.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1.5% | $481.76M | $441.98M |
| 2 | -0.5% | $479.42M | $403.52M |
| 3 | 0.5% | $481.87M | $372.09M |
| 4 | 1.5% | $489.12M | $346.50M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $501.35M | $325.84M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$489.00M
Terminal Value
$7.91B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.14B
Enterprise Value
$7.03B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$7.03B
*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
$24.58
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$5.13
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 3 neutral, 11 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Paramount Skydance Corporation (PSKY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 36/100, 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.
PSKY currently scores 36/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, PSKY's estimated fair value is $10.58, which is 3.7% above the current price of $10.21. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PSKY's technical score is 37/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 232.7%; Price is above the 50-day average; +0.7% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -18.0% (negative); Net margin: -21.2% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
Yes — PSKY 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 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gill Charest Katherine | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.9.2026 | 4,069 | -4,069 | $10.97 |
| Gill Charest Katherine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 7,969 | +7,969 | — |
| Gill Charest Katherine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 7,969 | -7,969 | — |
| Ellison David Ferris | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 250,000 | -250,000 | — |
| Ellison David Ferris | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| Ellison David Ferris | Tax Withholding in Shares | 7.8.2026 | 127,200 | -127,200 | $9.19 |
| Brandon-Gordon Andrew Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 200,000 | -200,000 | — |
| Brandon-Gordon Andrew Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | — |
| Brandon-Gordon Andrew Mark | Tax Withholding in Shares | 7.8.2026 | 101,760 | -101,760 | $9.19 |
| Ellison David Ferris | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 636,159 | +250,000 | — |
| Brandon-Gordon Andrew Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 519,057 | +200,000 | — |
| Brandon-Gordon Andrew Mark | Tax Withholding in Shares | 7.8.2026 | 417,297 | -101,760 | $9.19 |
| Brandon-Gordon Andrew Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 3,200,000 | -200,000 | — |
| Ellison David Ferris | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 4,000,000 | -250,000 | — |
| Ellison David Ferris | Tax Withholding in Shares | 7.8.2026 | 508,959 | -127,200 | $9.19 |
| Campion Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.7.2026 | 17,433 | -17,433 | — |
| Campion Andrew | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.7.2026 | 46,893 | +46,893 | — |
| Byrne Barbara M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.7.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | — |
| Byrne Barbara M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| CATZ SAFRA | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.7.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | — |
| Byrne Barbara M | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.7.2026 | 46,893 | +46,893 | — |
| Campion Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.7.2026 | 17,433 | +17,433 | — |
| Hamill Justin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.7.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | — |
| Hamill Justin | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.7.2026 | 46,893 | +46,893 | — |
| CATZ SAFRA | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.7.2026 | 46,893 | +46,893 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
76,422,806 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 86,885,985 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
66.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.3% 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