Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$86.27
▼ $0.29 (-0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 12:13 PM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$437.91B
Day Range
$85.34 - $86.48
52-Week Range
$52.18 - $98.71
Beta
—
Next Earnings
14.02.2027
Support
$79.05
Resistance
$98.71
BHP is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+65.3% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 1/13 factors positiveRisk: High
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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 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
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.34 (3y annualized return 14.3% / max drawdown 41.6%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
42
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
75
$98.69
Now
42
$86.27
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
29
Risk
42
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of BHP Group Limited’s American Depositary Shares has centered on two main items: a class‑action lawsuit filed by an Australian mining union over recent public‑holiday shift changes, and broader market movements that saw ADRs decline in a week when European equities were traded in the U.S. Additionally, reports noted that BHP’s partnership with Wheaton Precious Metals contributed to the latter’s record‑breaking half‑year revenues. No other significant BHP‑specific events were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about BHP Group Limited American Depositary Shares (Each representing two Ordinary Shares). News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 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
15
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
16
Fundamentals
—
Technical
29
Valuation
—
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
BHP’s psychology is *neutral* (35 score) with no dominant state, but the data suggests **lagging peer performance** is the key dynamic. The stock’s modest outperformance (+1.7%) against peers (+4.4%) contradicts herding, while weak momentum and neutral RSI (54) rule out euphoria or panic. The narrative gap (-2) hints at slight misalignment, but no extreme behavioral bias is active. The open question: *Is this underperformance structural (sector lag) or tactical (positioning)?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:01 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"BHP Group Limited’s Chief Commercial Officer Ragnar ‘Rag’ Udd named as Albemarle’s next CEO"
"BHP appoints Worley for SA copper project expansion services"
"BHP prepares workforce for closure of Australian coal mine"
"BHP acknowledges media speculation over WA Iron Ore Partnership"
📈 15D 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 — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for BHP reflects deep methodological divides between investors prioritizing qualitative vs. quantitative signals. Edgar Lawrence Smith’s near-perfect score of 100—despite the ‘not enough data’ caveat—suggests his focus on dividend growth and long-term fundamentals might have found BHP’s mining sector stability compelling, even if historical records lack granularity. Meanwhile, Thorstein Veblen’s low score (20) and verdict highlight his skepticism toward growth-driven investments, flagging BHP’s expansion as ‘pattern[s] pursued for its own sake,’ a critique rooted in his critique of conspicuous consumption. In the middle, Charles Mackay’s 77-score and lack of crowd-mania signals align with his caution against speculative bubbles, while Jack Schwager’s 36 and Jack Schwager’s ‘no setup’ verdict reflect a disciplined, rule-based approach that dismisses BHP as lacking clear technical or systematic edge. Even the ‘efficient-market’ camp (46) questions BHP’s stock-picking merit, contrasting with Howard Marks’ mixed 54-score, which balances the company’s business quality against potentially inflated expectations—a tension that splits value-oriented investors (like Graham at 50) from those wary of overvaluation.
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)
🟢 88
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)
🟢 74
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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%
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)
🟡 47
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 47
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 44
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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)
🟡 37
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 20
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
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
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 7 bearish · 3 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.
Medium 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 |
|---|---|
| 4.9.2026 | $1.980 |
| 6.3.2026 | $1.460 |
| 5.3.2026 | $1.460 |
| 7.3.2025 | $1.000 |
| 6.3.2025 | $1.000 |
| 13.9.2024 | $1.480 |
| 12.9.2024 | $1.480 |
| 7.3.2024 | $1.440 |
| 6.3.2024 | $1.440 |
| 7.9.2023 | $1.600 |
| 6.9.2023 | $1.600 |
| 9.3.2023 | $1.800 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 8 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
InvestorsHub · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for BHP Group Limited American Depositary Shares (Each representing two Ordinary Shares) (BHP) — 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 BHP 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.
BHP's technical score is 29/100, 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: Calmar: 0.34 (3y annualized return 14.3% / max drawdown 41.6%); Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — BHP 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 2 sales out of the last 14 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stone Emma Kate | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 4,716 | -6,774 | $46.57 |
| Stone Emma Kate | Conversion of Derivative Security | 21.8.2026 | 11,490 | +7,774 | — |
| Stone Emma Kate | Conversion of Derivative Security | 21.8.2026 | 0 | -7,774 | — |
| Stone Emma Kate | Conversion of Derivative Security | 21.8.2026 | 7,774 | -7,774 | — |
| Stone Emma Kate | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 6,774 | -6,774 | $46.57 |
| Stone Emma Kate | Conversion of Derivative Security | 21.8.2026 | 7,774 | +7,774 | — |
| Stone Emma Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 32 | +32 | $40.74 |
| Stone Emma Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 32 | +32 | — |
| Stone Emma Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 3,684 | +32 | $40.74 |
| Stone Emma Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 3,716 | +32 | — |
| Stone Emma Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.4.2026 | 37 | +37 | — |
| Stone Emma Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.4.2026 | 37 | +37 | $34.47 |
| Stone Emma Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.4.2026 | 3,615 | +37 | $34.47 |
| Stone Emma Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.4.2026 | 3,652 | +37 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
18,469,769 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 19,356,177 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. 47.9% 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