Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$63.06
▲ $0.22 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/20 05:51 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$128.81B
Day Range
$62.20 - $63.06
52-Week Range
$42.52 - $68.64
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
Support
$56.78
Resistance
$68.64
BMY is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+38.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/29 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $80.17 vs. price $63.06 (+27.1%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.07 (3y annualized return 2.5% / max drawdown 33.0%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
85/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-0.8%
Median 40D Outcome
71/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+1.7% … +6.6%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.3% … +0.1%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-2.6% … -1.8%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.2%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
5 occurrence(s) · 40% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
3 occurrence(s) · 33% historical success
Echo #3 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 0% 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%) | +0.4% | -0.8% … +2.0% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.2% | -2.6% … +3.3% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.2% | -1.5% … +2.2% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.8% | -2.6% … +2.2% | +0.0% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.6% | -7.4% … +4.3% | -0.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-24 | 85/100 | Consolidation | +2.5% | -5.9% |
| 2017-10-31 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +2.0% | +4.5% |
| 2024-12-19 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.4% | +7.3% |
| 2018-03-29 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -17.4% | -13.6% |
| 2021-02-04 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -1.8% | +3.1% |
| 2020-09-04 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -1.3% | +4.1% |
| 2018-02-06 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +8.5% | -15.5% |
| 2026-05-06 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +0.0% | +15.7% |
| 2022-12-22 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -2.0% | -8.9% |
| 2025-02-13 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +5.4% | -13.9% |
| 2020-12-11 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +7.8% | -0.6% |
| 2022-07-18 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +1.1% | -5.5% |
| 2025-01-10 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.5% | -4.9% |
| 2026-04-15 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -2.6% | +2.5% |
| 2026-06-04 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +0.2% | +18.0% |
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 XLV (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
55
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 22, 2026
Then
68
$67.01
Now
55
$63.06
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
54
Quality
50
Value
62
Momentum
39
Risk
36
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
61
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING BMY...
Recent media coverage of Bristol Myers Squibb has primarily focused on its **clinical advancements in cancer therapy**, particularly the positive topline results from Phase 2 trials of **arlocabtagene autoleucel**, a potential first-in-class GPRC5D-directed CAR T cell therapy. The company’s registrational **QUINTESSENTIAL trial** met key endpoints, signaling progress in its pipeline. No other significant company-specific developments were highlighted in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Bristol Myers Squibb. News trend score: 92. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 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)
38
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
61
Technical
39
Valuation
62
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+17%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior suggests BMY’s recent decline is tied to broader peer weakness, with traders aligning rather than acting independently. Anchoring (46) hints at traders fixating on resistance, while euphoria (20) persists despite weak momentum, possibly reflecting lingering optimism about fundamentals. The narrative gap (+7) and confirmation bias (9) imply selective attention to positive narratives, though revenue stagnation undermines it. The key question is whether herding will sustain or reverse as traders reassess the stock’s relative underperformance.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:31 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Bristol Myers Squibb's Phase 2 Study of Arlocabtagene Autoleucel Meets Key Endpoints"
"Bristol Myers Squibb's aggressive M&A and in-house R&D efforts have driven the portfolio renewal cadence and ongoing valuation re-rating"
"BMY shows a strong breakout setup: 10/10 technical rating, 9/10 setup score. Rising moving averages and a buy stop at $68.10 make it one to watch."
📈 16D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of the various investors, the model estimates that the more growth‑focused methodologies such as Nelson, Lynch and Veblen assign high scores (91‑71) because they see the stock as oversold or undervalued relative to its growth prospects. In contrast, value‑oriented and risk‑averse frameworks like Graham, Smith, Loeb and Fisher give low scores (31‑13) reflecting concerns about defensive criteria, stability and capital risk. Mid‑range scores from Marks, Schwager, Livermore and the efficient‑market view indicate a neutral or mixed outlook, suggesting the stock sits near the middle of the market cycle with no clear edge. Overall, the divergence stems from differing emphasis on cycle position, growth versus intrinsic safety, and the weight placed on liquidity and volatility.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 72
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 71
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 70
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 48
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 47
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 34
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 31
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 22
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 18
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 18
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 13
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 a downtrend (3 bullish · 7 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 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
71.1%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
14.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
38.2%
ROA
7.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.47
Cash
$10.21B
Total Debt
$44.83B
Current Ratio
1.26
Debt/Equity
2.43
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 2.7.2026 | $0.630 |
| 1.7.2026 | $0.630 |
| 2.4.2026 | $0.630 |
| 1.4.2026 | $0.630 |
| 2.1.2026 | $0.630 |
| 1.1.2026 | $0.630 |
| 3.10.2025 | $0.620 |
| 2.10.2025 | $0.620 |
| 3.7.2025 | $0.620 |
| 2.7.2025 | $0.620 |
| 4.4.2025 | $0.620 |
| 3.4.2025 | $0.620 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$63.06
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$80.17
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+27.1%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
1.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.5% | $13.04B | $11.97B |
| 2 | 1.8% | $13.27B | $11.17B |
| 3 | 2.0% | $13.54B | $10.46B |
| 4 | 2.3% | $13.85B | $9.81B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $14.19B | $9.22B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$12.85B
Terminal Value
$223.82B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$145.47B
Enterprise Value
$198.09B
Net Debt
$34.62B
Equity Value
$163.48B
*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
$9.06
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$10.98
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 7 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 55/100, 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.
BMY currently scores 55/100 (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, BMY's estimated fair value is $80.17, which is 27.1% above the current price of $63.06. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BMY's technical score is 39/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $80.17 vs. price $63.06 (+27.1%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 178.5%; Net income growth: 178.8%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.07 (3y annualized return 2.5% / max drawdown 33.0%); Revenue growth (last year): -0.2%; Free cash flow growth: -7.9%.
Yes — BMY 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 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Massacesi Cristian | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 6,249 | -6,249 | $64.57 |
| Short Bartie Wendy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,236 | -1,236 | — |
| Short Bartie Wendy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 633 | -633 | $66.92 |
| Short Bartie Wendy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,236 | +1,236 | $66.92 |
| Holzer Phil M | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 16,862 | -500 | $67.50 |
| Holzer Phil M | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $67.50 |
| Gallman Cari | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 1,061 | +1,061 | — |
| Gallman Cari | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 1,061 | -1,061 | — |
| Massacesi Cristian | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 51,172 | +51,172 | — |
| Massacesi Cristian | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 51,172 | -51,172 | — |
| Gallman Cari | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 543 | -543 | $65.31 |
| Massacesi Cristian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 26,175 | -26,175 | $65.31 |
| Gallman Cari | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 14,192 | +1,061 | — |
| Gallman Cari | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 13,649 | -543 | $65.31 |
| Gallman Cari | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 0 | -1,061 | — |
| Massacesi Cristian | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 51,172 | +51,172 | — |
| Massacesi Cristian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 24,997 | -26,175 | $65.31 |
| Massacesi Cristian | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.8.2026 | 153,519 | -51,172 | — |
| Samuels Theodore R. II | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 889.448 | +889.448 | $57.62 |
| Rice Derica W | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 672.51 | +672.51 | $57.62 |
| McMullen Michael R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 607.428 | +607.428 | $57.62 |
| YALE PHYLLIS R | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 607.428 | +607.428 | $57.62 |
| Arduini Peter J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 607.428 | +607.428 | $57.62 |
| YALE PHYLLIS R | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 44,986 | +607 | $57.62 |
| Arduini Peter J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 72,816 | +607 | $57.62 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
44,073,318 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 52,336,079 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 55.4% 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