Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · OTC
$94.77
▲ $1.34 (+1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/18 08:47 AM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$94.62 - $95.71
52-Week Range
$76.86 - $106.71
Beta
—
Next Earnings
23.10.2026
+14.8% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 2/13 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 200
Price is above the 200-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is below the 50-day average
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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
53
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
34
Risk
50
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Safran S.A. has focused on its role in the aerospace and defense sectors, particularly its involvement in inflight entertainment and connectivity systems, alongside broader industry trends. Notable events include a demonstration of 5G-powered positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) interoperability with NextNav, while wildfires in France threatened its defense and aerospace facilities. Analysts also revised Safran’s stock fair value upward, reflecting positive guidance and half-year results. The company’s engines, like GE Aerospace’s LEAP, remain critical for commercial aviation growth.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Safran S.A.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 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)
50
Psychology
19
Fundamentals
—
Technical
34
Valuation
—
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Price (3M)
-1%
Market Narrative
61
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
SAFRY’s psychology score (20) is driven by **euphoria**, where detached optimism persists despite weak momentum (-4.8% ROC) and neutral RSI (43). The +6.5% distance above the 200-day average, combined with extreme positive sentiment (98/100), suggests investors may be ignoring recent underperformance. The lack of dominant panic or FOMO signals—despite low volume (0.57x avg)—implies a narrative gap where optimism outweighs technical caution. The key question: *Is this euphoria anchored in fundamentals, or will it collapse under further negative momentum?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 03:44 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Safran lifts guidance on strong demand for civil engines"
"LEAP Engine Deliveries Jumped 41% This Year"
"NextNav and Safran Electronics & Defense announce agreement to demonstrate 5G-Powered PNT interoperability"
"Safran (ENXTPA:SAF) Stock Fair Value Rises After Analyst Target Revisions"
📈 12D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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 — 78/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 43/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for SAFRY reflects a clash between cyclical momentum and fundamental uncertainty. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score (88) suggests the stock’s cycle position is near oversold, aligning with his preference for buying dips in established trends. Meanwhile, methodologies like Jesse Livermore’s (35) and Jack Schwager’s (29) reject the stock outright, dismissing it as a contrarian misfit or lacking a clear technical setup. The middle ground—where Morgan Housel (69) sees quiet compounding potential and Howard Marks (47) acknowledges a strong business but warns of inflated expectations—highlights the tension between growth optimism and valuation caution. Meanwhile, the near-unanimous ‘not enough data’ verdicts from Graham, Fisher, and Lynch underscore how limited fundamental visibility leaves most traditional value and growth investors hesitant, while cyclical and behavioral approaches swing toward either bullish or bearish extremes.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 78
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)
🟢 69
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 66
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 66
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 58
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)
🟡 57
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 45
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Based on the last 269 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 7 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$90.58
Range Bottom
$105.34
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 27.5.2026 | $0.984 |
| 28.5.2025 | $0.829 |
| 29.5.2024 | $0.592 |
| 30.5.2023 | $0.367 |
| 31.5.2022 | $0.131 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 5 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
MarketBeat · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Motley Fool · 28.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 19.8.2026
MarketBeat · 12.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 31.7.2026
The Wall Street Journal · 30.7.2026
Simply Wall St. · 30.7.2026
Business Wire · 29.7.2026
Motley Fool · 29.7.2026
GuruFocus.com · 28.7.2026
The Wall Street Journal · 28.7.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Safran S.A. (SAFRY) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for SAFRY specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
SAFRY's technical score is 34/100, 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: Price is above the 200-day average; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; -0.9% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Yes — SAFRY 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 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
101,230 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 187,756 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
31.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 30.5% 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