Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · OTC
$65.21
▲ $0.00 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/18 11:02 AM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$40.60 - $40.60
52-Week Range
$40.60 - $65.21
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
+60.6% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 2/11 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
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 0.0% of price
Risk
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
45
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
3d ago · $65.21
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 14 to -11 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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
26
Risk
58
Sentiment
86
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 Samsung Electronics has primarily focused on its strategic investments and market influence. Notably, Samsung led a $3.49 billion funding round for French AI firm Mistral AI, signaling its expanding role in AI technology. Additionally, Samsung’s planned equity buyback has drawn attention for addressing a significant discount in its preferred shares, while broader market trends highlight its impact on the Kospi index amid rising tech and memory stock valuations. The company’s partnerships, such as its collaboration with Arm on AI accelerators, further underscore its focus on innovation in semiconductor and tech sectors.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
—
Technical
26
Valuation
—
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+0%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+9
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here is dominated by anchoring, where traders appear fixated on a precise support level (0.0% distance), ignoring momentum or sentiment extremes. FOMO and euphoria coexist but lack price validation, suggesting speculative energy without directional conviction. The narrative gap (64 vs. 50) hints at overoptimistic expectations. The key question: will traders break free from the support anchor, or will the zero-momentum environment trap them further?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:25 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Samsung Stock Falls as $18.7 Billion Power Proposal Highlights AI Infrastructure Costs"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 14D 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
Morgan Housel — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 26/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Morgan Housel’s near-perfect score suggests this stock aligns perfectly with his principles of quiet compounding—likely due to steady fundamentals and a business model that rewards long-term patience. In contrast, Howard Marks’ lower score reflects his caution about inflated expectations, while his *Market Cycle* verdict (25) flags potential late-stage risks, hinting at a divergence between his core value discipline and his macro-driven skepticism. Meanwhile, methodologies like Philip Fisher, Benjamin Graham, and Peter Lynch all return mid-range scores (50) because the stock lacks sufficient granular data to apply their rigorous fundamental or growth-based frameworks. The consensus leans toward mixed signals: Housel and Smith’s high scores contrast sharply with Livermore’s outright rejection (negative trend) and Nelson’s overbought warning, illustrating how technical and cyclical perspectives clash with patient, qualitative investors.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 100
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 54
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)
🟡 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%
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 NaN
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 NaN
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 74
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 50
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 NaN
Cycle looks stretched toward 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
🟡 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)
🟡 NaN
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
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)
🔴 26
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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 268 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 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.
The stock is in a trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$65.21
Range Bottom
$65.21
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 |
|---|---|
| 29.6.2026 | $0.279 |
| 30.3.2026 | $0.277 |
| 29.12.2025 | $0.422 |
| 29.9.2025 | $0.276 |
| 27.6.2025 | $0.273 |
| 28.3.2025 | $0.272 |
| 27.12.2024 | $0.270 |
| 27.9.2024 | $0.269 |
| 27.6.2024 | $0.269 |
| 28.3.2024 | $0.269 |
| 27.12.2023 | $0.269 |
| 26.9.2023 | $0.269 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 6 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SSNLF) — 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 SSNLF 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.
SSNLF's technical score is 26/100, 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: 0.0% of price; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — SSNLF 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.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology