Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$85.18
▼ $2.91 (-3.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:33 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$41.05B
Day Range
$84.32 - $87.93
52-Week Range
$55.58 - $88.75
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$75.77
Resistance
$88.75
ADM is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
+40.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $101.13 vs. price $85.18 (+18.7%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.05 (3y annualized return 2.5% / max drawdown 47.4%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+1.7%
Median 40D Outcome
68/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+5.8% … +10.6%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.6% … -0.4%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-4.7% … -3.5%
📌 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
15 occurrence(s) · 40% 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 | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.1% | -2.3% … +1.5% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.5% | -2.1% … +3.4% | +0.5% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.7% | -3.7% … +6.6% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.7% | -3.9% … +8.3% | +2.1% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +6.6% | +0.3% … +11.7% | +3.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-18 | 82/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -3.1% | +13.2% |
| 2026-04-08 | 82/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +8.8% | +8.7% |
| 2021-01-26 | 80/100 | Uptrend | +12.1% | +12.8% |
| 2020-09-21 | 78/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +8.2% | +6.6% |
| 2025-10-13 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -9.1% | -0.7% |
| 2025-10-27 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -5.3% | +9.0% |
| 2026-06-05 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -3.4% | +4.5% |
| 2026-02-03 | 77/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -0.3% | +10.6% |
| 2026-05-19 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -3.6% | +1.3% |
| 2018-10-10 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -3.7% | -14.8% |
| 2022-01-20 | 76/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +11.3% | +40.0% |
| 2020-10-28 | 76/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +2.0% | +5.4% |
| 2025-09-03 | 76/100 | Uptrend | -4.0% | -1.9% |
| 2022-11-09 | 75/100 | Uptrend | -0.7% | -11.2% |
| 2026-02-18 | 73/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +5.0% | +20.6% |
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 XLP (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
63
Today
58
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🔎 What Changed (vs. 30 days ago)
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
25d ago · $76.20
Evidence: המניה במגמת ירידה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
25d ago · $78.16
Evidence: -3.2pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
25d ago · $78.16
Evidence: 4 bullish / 6 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
26d ago · $78.18
Evidence: -3.1pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
26d ago · $78.12
Evidence: 4 bullish / 6 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
26d ago · $80.30
Evidence: 5 bullish / 5 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
27d ago · $80.30
Evidence: 5 bullish / 5 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
28d ago · $80.30
Evidence: 5 bullish / 5 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
28d ago · $80.30
Evidence: 7 bullish / 4 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
31d ago · $80.76
Evidence: -3.0pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
31d ago · $81.97
Evidence: 9 bullish / 3 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
32d ago · $82.77
Evidence: 5 bullish / 6 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
🐂🐻 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 18, 2026
Then
54
$82.09
Now
63
$85.18
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
40
Quality
55
Value
57
Momentum
89
Risk
48
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
45
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING ADM...
Recent media coverage of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) has primarily focused on its aggressive cost-cutting initiative, targeting $500 million to $750 million in savings, with early indications of efficiency gains and stronger profitability. The company has also been compared to peers in the consumer staples sector, where its stock performance has outpaced some competitors this year. No other substantive details about ADM’s operations or strategy are explicitly mentioned in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Archer Daniels Midland. News trend score: 92. Reason: 11 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
22
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
51
Fundamentals
45
Technical
89
Valuation
57
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price (3M)
+13%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ADM’s psychology is fragmented, with **herding** (39) and **confirmation bias** (26) as dominant forces. Herding reflects relative underperformance vs. peers, while confirmation bias stems from a narrative-reality disconnect (+20 gap). FOMO (38) persists due to momentum, volume, and extreme sentiment, though oversold RSI (62) and Bollinger %B (0.92) suggest caution. Euphoria (19) is muted by valuation gaps, and overconfidence (7) is limited by EPS underperformance. The key question: *Will the narrative gap close with earnings or revenue data, or will herding persist despite lagging peers?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 06:24 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"ADM's cost-cutting drive targets $500-$750 million in savings, with early progress and stronger profits signaling efficiency gains."
📈 21D 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
Morgan Housel — 68/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 19/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for ADM split sharply between bullish, cautious, and outright bearish views, reflecting starkly different priorities. Morgan Housel and Edgar Lawrence Smith’s high scores (69 and 65) highlight ADM as a patient-holder’s quiet compounder or decade-long hold, emphasizing stability and long-term fundamentals. In contrast, Fisher (36), Schwager (33), and Lynch (19) dismiss it outright—Fisher and Lynch because it lacks the growth or valuation discipline they demand, while Schwager’s systematic approach sees no clear trade setup. The middle ground, where Marks (62 vs. 29 in cycle mode) and Graham (45 vs. 22) waver, suggests ADM’s strengths (business quality) are offset by risks (valuation, liquidity, or timing), while Veblen (19) and Nelson (9) warn of speculative excess or overbought conditions. The divide underscores whether ADM’s stability justifies its valuation—or if it’s already priced for perfection.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 68
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 65
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 64
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 60
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 59
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 49
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)
🟡 45
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 44
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 42
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 37
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 36
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 22
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 19
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 19
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
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 (9 bullish · 0 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.
Gross Margin
6.3%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
1.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
4.7%
ROA
2.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.23
Cash
$1.01B
Total Debt
$7.61B
Current Ratio
1.37
Debt/Equity
0.33
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 19.8.2026 | $0.520 |
| 20.5.2026 | $0.520 |
| 19.5.2026 | $0.520 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.520 |
| 16.2.2026 | $0.520 |
| 19.11.2025 | $0.510 |
| 18.11.2025 | $0.510 |
| 20.8.2025 | $0.510 |
| 19.8.2025 | $0.510 |
| 21.5.2025 | $0.510 |
| 20.5.2025 | $0.510 |
| 18.2.2025 | $0.510 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$85.18
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$101.13
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+18.7%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $3.99B | $3.66B |
| 2 | -3.1% | $3.87B | $3.26B |
| 3 | -1.2% | $3.82B | $2.95B |
| 4 | 0.6% | $3.84B | $2.72B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.94B | $2.56B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$4.20B
Terminal Value
$62.14B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$40.39B
Enterprise Value
$55.54B
Net Debt
$6.60B
Equity Value
$48.95B
*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
$46.98
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$33.05
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 5 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 63/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ADM currently scores 63/100 (Moderate) 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, ADM's estimated fair value is $101.13, which is 18.7% above the current price of $85.18. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ADM's technical score is 89/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $101.13 vs. price $85.18 (+18.7%); Free cash flow growth: 242.6%; Debt/equity: 0.33.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.05 (3y annualized return 2.5% / max drawdown 47.4%); Revenue growth (last year): -6.2%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -38.9%.
Yes — ADM 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burke Michael S | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 121.2 | +121.2 | — |
| Schlitz Lei Zhang | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 109.51 | +109.51 | — |
| McMurray Michael C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 5.43 | +5.43 | — |
| CREWS TERRELL K | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 412.27 | +412.27 | — |
| Collins James C. Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 79.15 | +79.15 | — |
| Harrison Suzan F. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 120.37 | +120.37 | — |
| de Brabander Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 66.68 | +66.68 | — |
| COLBERT THEODORE III | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 111.06 | +111.06 | — |
| MOORE PATRICK J | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 615.93 | +615.93 | — |
| Sandler Debra A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 183.75 | +183.75 | — |
| McAtee David R II | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 36.49 | +36.49 | — |
| WESTBROOK KELVIN R | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 214.52 | +214.52 | — |
| Jones Regina | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 1,706 | -1,706 | $84.61 |
| Rowe Jeffrey D | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 259,935 | +259,935 | — |
| Patolawala Monish D | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 6,720 | -6,720 | $79.27 |
| Patolawala Monish D | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 218,253 | -6,720 | $79.27 |
| CREWS TERRELL K | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 878.057 | +878.057 | — |
| Collins James C. Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 765.531 | +765.531 | — |
| Schlitz Lei Zhang | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 715.519 | +715.519 | — |
| Harrison Suzan F. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 796.788 | +796.788 | — |
| COLBERT THEODORE III | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 715.519 | +715.519 | — |
| de Brabander Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 715.519 | +715.519 | — |
| Burke Michael S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 829.296 | +829.296 | — |
| McMurray Michael C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 715.519 | +715.519 | — |
| McAtee David R II | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 715.519 | +715.519 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
14,442,218 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,328,721 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.1% 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