Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$44.58
▼ $0.84 (-1.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 12:07 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$44.54 - $45.07
52-Week Range
$32.72 - $48.27
Beta
—
Next Earnings
30.10.2026
Support
$38.53
Resistance
$47.04
BP is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+29.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/27 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.13 (3y annualized return 4.7% / max drawdown 36.0%)
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
56
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
17d ago · $44.47
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 4 to 33 day-over-day
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.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
46
Quality
58
Value
45
Momentum
82
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
43
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 coverage of BP plc has centered on its Whiting, Indiana refinery, where the company has proposed a six‑year labor contract offering a 13% wage increase, job‑restructuring measures and one‑time payments to workers. At the same time, BP was highlighted as a Zacks Rank #1 “Strong Buy” growth stock for September, reflecting investor confidence amid broader oil‑price volatility linked to Middle‑East supply concerns.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about BP p.l.c.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 7 vs. 7 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
4
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
63
Fundamentals
43
Technical
82
Valuation
45
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+14%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+4
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
BP’s psychology reflects a **narrative-driven, cautious herd behavior**—traders appear anchored near resistance while selectively confirming positive narratives despite stagnant fundamentals. The narrative gap (+16) and confirmation bias (score 21) suggest investors prioritize relative momentum over fundamentals, but herding (score 35) is muted by underperformance vs. peers. The absence of panic or euphoria signals a **wait-and-see stance**, though the open question remains whether traders will break resistance or double down on selective optimism. Volatility stability and neutral RSI further imply no imminent emotional extremes.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:25 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"British energy giant BP names Ian Tyler as chair after boardroom turmoil"
"BP and Marathon using refinery lockouts to push for concessions from unionized workers"
"BP's 'turnaround' is gaining momentum as stronger commodity conditions, asset sales and cost reductions"
📈 11D 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
Charles Mackay — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that Charles Mackay’s relatively high score reflects his view that there are no obvious crowd‑mania signs, while Thorstein Veblen’s similarly high score comes from seeing growth aligned with real value creation. In contrast, Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria are largely unmet, producing a very low score, and Walter Bagehot flags liquidity risk, also yielding a low rating. Howard Marks’ cycle‑and‑risk assessments sit near the middle, indicating a moderate view of the stock’s position in the broader market cycle. Gerald Loeb, Peter Lynch, and Philip Fisher all assign low scores because of perceived capital‑risk threats, insufficient growth‑at‑a‑reasonable‑price, and a lack of the quality‑growth signature they require. Overall, the spread shows that sentiment‑or cycle‑focused frameworks are more tolerant of BP than the stricter value‑or quality‑oriented approaches.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 65
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)
🟡 62
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 57
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 54
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 44
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 36
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 31
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 30
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 29
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 21
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 17
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 5
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 0 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.
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
27.1%
Operating Margin
5.5%
Net Margin
0.0%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
0.1%
ROA
0.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$36.56B
Total Debt
$57.96B
Current Ratio
1.26
Debt/Equity
1.37
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $0.520 |
| 15.5.2026 | $0.499 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.499 |
| 20.2.2026 | $0.499 |
| 19.2.2026 | $0.499 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.499 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.499 |
| 15.8.2025 | $0.499 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.499 |
| 16.5.2025 | $0.480 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.480 |
| 21.2.2025 | $0.480 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$3.45
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.92
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 6 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 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
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
BP p.l.c. (BP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
BP currently scores 56/100 (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.
BP's technical score is 82/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.13 (3y annualized return 4.7% / max drawdown 36.0%); Revenue growth (last year): -1.4%; P/E: 1961.7.
Yes — BP 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.
6,559,174 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,331,344 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
33.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 34.0% 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