Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NASDAQ
$88.00
▲ $0.33 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/16 01:25 PM
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$87.64 - $88.99
52-Week Range
$47.14 - $115.34
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+84.2% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 1/13 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.
SOXQ’s **investorScore of 53** reflects a mixed technical and risk profile, tempered by a near-perfect news sentiment score. The stock’s technical indicators show clear contradictions: while it remains above its 200-day average—a bullish long-term signal—it sits below both the 50-day average and its stop-loss (SAR) point, signaling short-term weakness. The negative MACD histogram and RSI of 49.2 further suggest declining momentum, though the %K at 58.0 neutralizes some bearish urgency. Meanwhile, the risk category’s moderate score (50) highlights volatility (3.4% ATR) and a historically volatile track record (Calmar ratio of 1.19), though the 47.2% annualized return over three years underscores its potential for high rewards. The news category’s perfect score (100) is driven by a balanced mix of positive narratives—such as AI sector growth and ETF buying opportunities—counterbalanced by a single negative headline about Broadcom’s stock decline, which may reflect broader sector-specific risks rather than SOXQ’s fundamentals.
The stock exhibits short-term weakness (below 50-day average and SAR) but retains long-term support (above 200-day average), with negative momentum (MACD) and neutral RSI (49.2).
This duality suggests a stock in a consolidation phase, where short-term traders may be cautious despite underlying long-term stability.
Near-uniformly positive sentiment (100 score) with sector-specific headlines (AI boom, ETF buying) and one isolated negative note about Broadcom’s stock.
The overwhelmingly positive tone could attract speculative interest, but the isolated negative headline may introduce sector-wide volatility risks.
Moderate volatility (3.4% ATR) and a historically volatile performance (Calmar 1.19, 39.7% max drawdown), though annualized returns remain high (47.2%).
The volatility metrics indicate potential for significant swings, which may appeal to aggressive investors but could deter risk-averse participants.
StockIQ conclusion
SOXQ presents a nuanced profile with strong long-term fundamentals but immediate technical and volatility challenges. The stock’s resilience above its 200-day average contrasts with short-term weakness, while near-universal positive news sentiment is balanced by isolated risks. High volatility metrics underscore the potential for significant rewards but also elevated drawdowns. Investors should monitor sector trends and technical breakouts to assess whether the current consolidation will resolve in favor of an uptrend or continue as a prolonged range-bound period.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
45
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
23
Risk
50
Sentiment
98
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 the **Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF** has centered on the broader semiconductor sector’s strong performance amid the AI boom, with recurring themes of earnings growth, margin pressures, and market volatility. Headlines highlight a ~60% year-to-date rally in semiconductor ETFs driven by earnings gains, though individual stocks like Broadcom and Marvell face mixed reactions due to softer guidance despite strong AI-related revenue. Nvidia’s dominance and sector-wide margin squeezes from AI-driven demand also shape discussions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF. News trend score: 98. Reason: 13 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
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
43
Fundamentals
—
Technical
23
Valuation
—
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-17%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests detached euphoria—driven by sustained outperformance (+20.5% above 200-day average) and universally positive sentiment—rather than reactive FOMO or anchoring. The narrative gap (65 vs. 50) implies investors may be overestimating durability, while neutral momentum (+0.8% ROC) and moderate RSI (52) keep euphoria tempered. The key question: is this outperformance structurally justified, or is the gap signaling complacency? The absence of panic or herding suggests confidence, but the lack of extreme volume or volatility may limit near-term extremes.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:13 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"AI infrastructure spending, soaring memory demand and strong chip sales are fueling semiconductor growth"
"Broadcom's AI revenues are surging, but softer guidance has weighed on shares"
"ETFs to Buy as Broadcom Slides Despite Better-Than-Expected Q3 Earnings — highlighting ETFs that offer diversified exposure"
"AI-driven memory cost surge is squeezing Nvidia, Broadcom, NetApp & Cisco margins"
📈 7D 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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 19/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among the methodologies, with scores ranging from a cautious 23 to a neutral 100—though many are limited by insufficient data. The highest score, 100 from Edgar Lawrence Smith, stems from his inability to assess dividend/growth due to lack of data, while the efficient-market approach (58) suggests only weak evidence for active picking over passive indexing. Meanwhile, behavioral investors like Charles Mackay (52) detect crowd excitement, contrasting with trend-followers like Jesse Livermore (52), who see no clear direction. The bulk of methodologies—Graham, Fisher, Lynch, and Bagehot—all sit at 50, either due to missing fundamentals or valuation data, while risk-averse voices like Howard Marks (35) and Jack Schwager (36) flag structural concerns, seeing it as either overvalued or lacking disciplined setups. The lowest scores (23–33) from cycle analysts and volatility-focused investors paint a picture of late-cycle risk or overbought conditions, sharply diverging from those who see only speculative potential.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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)
🟡 63
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
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%
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 50
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 43
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 35
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 19
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
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
Based on the last 274 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 bearish · 1 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 22.6.2026 | $0.077 |
| 23.3.2026 | $0.071 |
| 22.12.2025 | $0.062 |
| 22.9.2025 | $0.074 |
| 23.6.2025 | $0.074 |
| 24.3.2025 | $0.069 |
| 23.12.2024 | $0.069 |
| 23.9.2024 | $0.068 |
| 24.6.2024 | $0.061 |
| 18.3.2024 | $0.069 |
| 18.12.2023 | $0.076 |
| 18.9.2023 | $0.064 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 2 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Invesco PHLX Semiconductor ETF (SOXQ) — 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 SOXQ 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.
SOXQ's technical score is 23/100, 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.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; -20.9% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Yes — SOXQ 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.
657,087 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,831,469 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 29.4% 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