Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NYSE
$64.48
▲ $0.45 (+0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/18 10:11 AM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$63.46 - $64.52
52-Week Range
$42.35 - $66.17
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+42.6% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 6/13 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
MACD
MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-2.5%
Median 40D Outcome
66/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+2.4% … +4.4%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.5% … -0.3%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-10.1% … -2.2%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 60 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.7%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
12 occurrence(s) · 33% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 67% 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.4% | -1.3% … +1.6% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -3.0% … +3.6% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.7% | -2.9% … +2.7% | +1.0% |
| 40D | 33% (15%–58%) | -2.5% | -6.5% … +2.7% | +1.0% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -3.4% | -7.3% … +5.3% | +1.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-05-30 | 84/100 | Uptrend | -1.3% | -3.4% |
| 2023-09-19 | 83/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -0.1% | -9.8% |
| 2025-11-20 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -0.7% | +24.2% |
| 2021-06-23 | 81/100 | Uptrend | -10.8% | -9.6% |
| 2026-03-10 | 81/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +4.4% | +5.7% |
| 2024-04-15 | 80/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -1.7% | -5.2% |
| 2025-09-09 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +2.2% | +4.9% |
| 2022-04-21 | 79/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +4.2% | -7.4% |
| 2021-10-29 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -2.7% | +13.5% |
| 2024-12-02 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -9.4% | -7.1% |
| 2025-06-26 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +1.6% | +2.2% |
| 2020-01-06 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -13.0% | -54.6% |
| 2023-08-22 | 76/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +3.2% | -3.4% |
| 2024-07-25 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -3.1% | -1.7% |
| 2026-01-12 | 75/100 | Uptrend | +15.6% | +23.7% |
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.
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.
The overall investor score of 69 for XLE reflects a mixed but cautiously optimistic technical foundation tempered by modest news sentiment and moderate risk exposure. The technical category dominates with a near-perfect score of 91, driven by consistent bullish signals: the stock price remains firmly above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, signaling sustained uptrend strength. The MACD histogram’s positive trend and RSI of 63.1 further validate healthy momentum, though the %K value of 65.3 suggests neutral short-term positioning. However, the news category’s low score of 20 highlights conflicting sector-specific narratives, with recent reports depicting mixed energy sector performance—some positive but predominantly negative or neutral—potentially indicating volatility or uncertainty. Risk metrics, while not extreme, reveal a Calmar ratio of 0.54, reflecting a moderate risk-adjusted return profile with a notable historical drawdown of 22.1%. The ATR of 1.8% suggests relatively stable volatility, though this could shift with broader market conditions. Overall, the data suggests a stock with strong technical underpinnings but vulnerable to external sector or macroeconomic developments.
The stock exhibits strong bullish technicals, with prices above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a positive MACD histogram, and an RSI of 63.1 indicating healthy upward momentum. The %K value of 65.3 remains neutral, suggesting no imminent overbought conditions.
Strong technical indicators often precede sustained price appreciation, making this a critical strength for long-term positioning.
News sentiment is predominantly neutral to negative, with recent reports highlighting mixed energy sector performance—some positive but mostly negative or neutral—potentially signaling sector-specific challenges.
Negative or conflicting news can introduce uncertainty, potentially impacting investor confidence or short-term volatility.
The stock’s ATR of 1.8% indicates low volatility, but the Calmar ratio of 0.54 and a 22.1% historical drawdown suggest moderate risk-adjusted returns with potential for significant drawdowns.
A lower Calmar ratio implies that while returns are positive, they come with higher relative risk, which may deter risk-averse investors.
StockIQ conclusion
XLE demonstrates a strong technical foundation with clear bullish signals, supported by low volatility and positive momentum indicators. However, its overall score is moderated by mixed sector news and moderate risk-adjusted returns, which introduce potential vulnerabilities. The stock’s performance remains dependent on broader energy sector dynamics and macroeconomic conditions, neither of which are fully captured in current technical or news data. Investors should monitor sector-specific developments and volatility trends, as these could meaningfully influence the stock’s trajectory.
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
71
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 · $65.49
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -22 to 12 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
75
$62.06
Now
71
$64.48
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 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
64
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 on the **State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLE)** has been limited and indirect, focusing instead on broader sector trends. The available sources highlight a **late-afternoon dip in energy stocks** on September 4, 2026, with the NYSE Energy Sector Index falling by **0.6–0.7%**, alongside mixed ETF performance amid market volatility. No direct updates on XLE’s performance or specific news about the fund itself were found.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 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
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
33
Fundamentals
—
Technical
64
Valuation
—
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+19%
Market Narrative
67
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+17
🔀 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 fixated on the 2.3% resistance gap, likely treating it as a near-term psychological barrier. While FOMO and euphoria signals exist, they’re muted by neutral sentiment and RSI, indicating cautious optimism rather than reckless speculation. The narrative gap (-17) hints at a disconnect where traders may overestimate recent strength relative to fundamentals. The key question is whether the resistance break will trigger a shift from anchoring to momentum-driven behavior—or if traders remain anchored despite technical progress.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 10:42 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Energy stocks declined late Friday afternoon, with the NYSE Energy Sector Index decreasing 0.7% (Yahoo, article 2)"
"Stocks rose after the monthly jobs report pushed traders to price a coin-flip chance of a Federal Reserve rate hike (Benzinga, article 11)"
"Energy stocks were falling pre-bell Friday, with the State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLE) underperforming (Yahoo, article 12)"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 9D 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 — 63/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 36/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for XLE reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. The highest-scoring approaches—like **Morgan Housel’s (72) and Charles Mackay’s (70) principles**—focus on patient, long-term holding or avoiding speculative bubbles, both deeming it a stable, unexciting but reliable pick. Meanwhile, **Howard Marks (64) and Gerald Loeb (65)** temper enthusiasm, noting potential overvaluation or high expectations, while **Jesse Livermore (63)**’s neutral stance stems from his preference for clear market trends, which aren’t present here. The lower-scoring methodologies—especially **Nelson (27) and Schwager (41)**—highlight cyclical overbought conditions or a lack of decisive technical signals, contrasting sharply with the more qualitative, growth-oriented critiques from **Veblen (50)**, who questions whether earnings justify the stock’s trajectory. The consensus among the rest—**Graham, Fisher, Lynch, and Bagehot**—hinges on insufficient data, underscoring how XLE’s mixed performance across quantitative and qualitative lenses creates a fractured debate.
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 57
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)
🟡 54
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 53
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 51
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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%
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 48
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 41
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 3 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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low 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 | $0.385 |
| 23.3.2026 | $0.385 |
| 22.12.2025 | $0.373 |
| 22.9.2025 | $0.375 |
| 23.6.2025 | $0.359 |
| 24.3.2025 | $0.358 |
| 23.12.2024 | $0.350 |
| 23.9.2024 | $0.364 |
| 24.6.2024 | $0.358 |
| 18.3.2024 | $0.367 |
| 18.12.2023 | $0.401 |
| 18.9.2023 | $0.337 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 1 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for State Street Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF (XLE) — 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 XLE 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.
XLE's technical score is 64/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; RSI 54.5 — healthy positive momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend; CMF 20 days: -0.12.
Yes — XLE 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.
64,992,392 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 60,621,650 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.0% 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