Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Materials · ·
$70.85
▲ $1.47 (+2.1%)
Market data updated: 09/18 01:29 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$101.74B
Day Range
$70.30 - $71.58
52-Week Range
$35.15 - $80.24
Beta
—
Next Earnings
15.10.2026
FCX is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
+57.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/27 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
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
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.3% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+4.9%
Median 40D Outcome
42/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+6.0% … +14.9%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.3% … +0.5%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-10.7% … -8.5%
📌 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 -0.8%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.3% | -2.4% … +4.6% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 27% (11%–52%) | -0.4% | -6.0% … +1.9% | +1.2% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.8% | -9.2% … +7.7% | +1.6% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +4.9% | -4.9% … +7.9% | +2.2% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +10.0% | -11.9% … +20.0% | +4.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-09-29 | 80/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +15.7% | +62.3% |
| 2021-12-06 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +12.8% | +31.4% |
| 2022-04-12 | 78/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -25.2% | -43.9% |
| 2024-10-21 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -9.2% | -16.1% |
| 2019-03-11 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +11.2% | -18.3% |
| 2026-02-18 | 77/100 | High Volatility | -11.4% | +5.7% |
| 2026-05-22 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +3.9% | +11.5% |
| 2021-05-26 | 76/100 | Uptrend | -9.2% | -20.6% |
| 2022-12-28 | 75/100 | Uptrend | +18.3% | +0.3% |
| 2026-06-08 | 75/100 | High Volatility | -10.0% | +15.7% |
| 2026-06-23 | 75/100 | High Volatility | +0.9% | +10.0% |
| 2024-01-12 | 74/100 | Uptrend | -7.9% | +24.4% |
| 2026-03-10 | 74/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +4.3% | +11.7% |
| 2025-10-27 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -0.8% | +47.0% |
| 2025-07-24 | 74/100 | Uptrend | -6.4% | -7.6% |
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 XLB (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
58
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
71
$79.91
Now
58
$70.85
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
46
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
39
Risk
46
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
78
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING FCX...
Recent media coverage of Freeport-McMoRan has centered on its stock performance amid surging copper prices, which hit all-time highs in early September 2026. Analysts highlight the company’s strong valuation potential despite its 44% decline in 2026, praising its production outlook and market position. Comparisons to peer stocks and speculative discussions about copper’s future trajectory—including predictions of a $100 price—dominate the focus, alongside debates over whether the dip presents a buying opportunity.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Freeport-McMoRan. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
28
Fundamentals
78
Technical
39
Valuation
50
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+3%
Market Narrative
57
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
FCX’s psychology is fragmented but dominated by detached euphoria (32) and FOMO (33), both fueled by strong momentum and positive sentiment. The 23-point narrative gap suggests traders overlook weak revenue growth (+0.0%) while pricing in +7.6% momentum, a classic overconfidence bias. Key uncertainty: whether the 18.6% above-average distance signals unsustainable detachment or a justified valuation reset. The absence of panic or herding suggests no immediate liquidity crisis, but anchoring near resistance could limit upside until that barrier breaks.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:59 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"‘The current copper price supports Freeport-McMoRan's valuation’ (Yahoo, #3)"
"‘Freeport-McMoRan has underperformed its industry peers’ (Yahoo, #10)"
"‘Jim Cramer mapped a copper rally to $100’ (24/7 Wall St./Yahoo, #6)"
"‘FCX closed at $72.56, moving 1.85% from previous session’ (Yahoo/Zacks, #11)"
📈 12D 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
Walter Bagehot — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on their documented principles, the model estimates that investors focused on liquidity and cycle position, such as Walter Bagehot (score 80) and Samuel Armstrong Nelson (score 76), view FCX favorably, highlighting strong liquidity and an oversold cycle stance. In contrast, growth‑oriented thinkers like Peter Lynch (score 52) and Philip Fisher (score 47) find the stock mixed or lacking the quality signature they require, noting that growth is already priced in or insufficient. Value‑oriented frameworks from Benjamin Graham (score 49) and the Enterprising Investor variant (score 44) produce middling scores, reflecting that the stock does not clearly satisfy safety or cheapness tests. More momentum‑ and risk‑averse approaches, such as Jesse Livermore (score 36), Howard Marks’s cycle view (score 33), Morgan Housel (score 32), and Jack Schwager (score 20), assign low scores, emphasizing negative trend, late‑cycle caution, volatility, and a lack of a compelling setup.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 80
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 76
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 66
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 59
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 52
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 49
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 49
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 49
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 47
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 46
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 36
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 33
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 32
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)
🔴 20
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
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 (2 bullish · 6 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.
Gross Margin
28.2%
Operating Margin
25.2%
Net Margin
16.0%
EBITDA Margin
33.8%
ROE
22.0%
ROA
7.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$3.82B
Total Debt
$9.38B
Current Ratio
2.29
Debt/Equity
0.50
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.7.2026 | $0.150 |
| 14.7.2026 | $0.150 |
| 15.4.2026 | $0.150 |
| 14.4.2026 | $0.150 |
| 15.1.2026 | $0.150 |
| 14.1.2026 | $0.150 |
| 15.10.2025 | $0.150 |
| 14.10.2025 | $0.150 |
| 15.7.2025 | $0.150 |
| 14.7.2025 | $0.150 |
| 15.4.2025 | $0.150 |
| 14.4.2025 | $0.150 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$13.10
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.80
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 8 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Trefis · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, 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.
FCX currently scores 58/100 (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.
FCX'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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 22.0% — strong; Debt/equity: 0.50.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.3% of price; Calmar: 0.44 (3y annualized return 20.8% / max drawdown 46.9%); Net income growth: -5.6%.
Yes — FCX 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 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KENNARD LYDIA H | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 3,798 | -3,798 | $79.11 |
| KENNARD LYDIA H | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 122,702 | -3,798 | $79.11 |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 65,000 | +65,000 | $12.04 |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 65,000 | -65,000 | — |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $28.14 |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 80,000 | -80,000 | $78.56 |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | — |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 0 | -65,000 | — |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 211,016 | -80,000 | $78.56 |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 291,016 | +15,000 | $28.14 |
| Currault Douglas N. II | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 276,016 | +65,000 | $12.04 |
| Higgins Stephen T. | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 14,277 | -14,277 | $69.50 |
| Mikes Ellie L. | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 4,773 | -4,773 | $70.00 |
| Higgins Stephen T. | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 54,618 | -14,277 | $69.50 |
| Mikes Ellie L. | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 36,000 | -4,773 | $70.00 |
| Higgins Stephen T. | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 7,550 | -7,550 | $63.00 |
| Higgins Stephen T. | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 68,895 | -7,550 | $63.00 |
| GRANT HUGH | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 536 | +536 | $62.89 |
| STEPHENS JOHN JOSEPH | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 327 | +327 | $62.89 |
| GRANT HUGH | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 49,850 | +536 | $62.89 |
| STEPHENS JOHN JOSEPH | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 71,504 | +327 | $62.89 |
| TOWNSEND FRANCES F | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 2,800 | +2,800 | — |
| GRANT HUGH | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 2,800 | +2,800 | — |
| STEPHENS JOHN JOSEPH | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 2,800 | +2,800 | — |
| MCCOY DUSTAN E | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 2,800 | +2,800 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
30,687,702 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 27,791,020 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.9% 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