Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$82.20
▼ $4.42 (-5.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:50 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$72.13B
Day Range
$81.40 - $86.49
52-Week Range
$54.33 - $91.85
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
Support
$74.80
Resistance
$91.85
GM is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+38.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/28 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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $306.88 vs. price $82.20 (+273.3%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-1.0%
Median 40D Outcome
54/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
73%
+3.5% … +12.8%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
27%
-8.8% … -6.2%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 20 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 73% (95% CI 48%–89%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +4.4%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
8 occurrence(s) · 63% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 100% 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%) | -0.2% | -1.9% … +2.6% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.4% | -3.2% … +6.0% | +0.2% |
| 20D | 73% (48%–89%) | +4.4% | -0.5% … +10.3% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 33% (15%–58%) | -1.0% | -5.8% … +7.7% | +2.1% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.4% | -4.4% … +13.4% | +3.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-02-08 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -7.1% | -10.8% |
| 2026-06-24 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.2% | +4.1% |
| 2019-09-20 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -3.2% | -3.4% |
| 2017-12-06 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +4.4% | -10.0% |
| 2026-02-27 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -7.3% | +1.4% |
| 2026-05-04 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +8.0% | +16.8% |
| 2021-05-11 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +12.6% | -2.3% |
| 2019-11-19 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +2.6% | -5.4% |
| 2023-07-28 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -13.4% | -23.2% |
| 2019-08-14 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +5.1% | +3.5% |
| 2024-09-25 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +15.7% | +10.1% |
| 2026-05-18 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +12.9% | +18.2% |
| 2024-09-10 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.7% | +19.1% |
| 2025-10-09 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +23.1% | +47.0% |
| 2026-01-20 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.5% | +0.3% |
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 XLY (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
50
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.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
40
Quality
42
Value
62
Momentum
41
Risk
50
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
41
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING GM...
Recent coverage of General Motors has centered on its mixed EV momentum—78,900 battery‑electric vehicles sold in August, yet a sharp year‑over‑year decline—and a renewed focus on software, including re‑installing Apple CarPlay/Android Auto and launching a larger‑screen interface for the 2027 Silverado and Sierra pickups. The company also highlighted a $200 million training program for skilled‑trade workers, joined a coalition with Toyota and Ford to keep Chinese makers out of the U.S., and saw its stock fall amid broader automaker pressure.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about General Motors. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
18
Fundamentals
41
Technical
41
Valuation
62
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.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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.
Price (3M)
+4%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
GM’s psychology profile is characterized by a **narrative-reality gap** (3-point divergence) and **herding as the dominant observable behavior**, though muted. The stock’s modest underperformance relative to peers (-0.3% vs. -2.1%) aligns with passive alignment rather than aggressive herd movement. Low momentum (-2.8% ROC) and neutral volatility (0.88x ATR) rule out extreme emotional states like FOMO or panic, while valuation (-72% vs. DCF) and neutral RSI (47) dampen euphoria. The key question is whether this herding reflects **rational sector rotation** or **latent sentiment fatigue**—without clear triggers, the behavior remains ambiguous. The narrow narrative gap (3 points) suggests no imminent psychological shift, but external catalysts could test this equilibrium.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:40 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"GM and Ford are repurposing underused EV battery capacity for energy storage, seeking new revenue after taking billions in EV-related write-downs"
"GM reached a tentative three-year labor deal with Unifor that Canadian workers ratified, securing over C$1 billion in new investments across Ontario"
"GM now has ownership in just one operational US electric vehicle battery plant as its North American manufacturing footprint shifts"
"GM stock shows a strong technical breakout setup with top scores for trend and consolidation, offering a defined entry above resistance"
📈 18D 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 — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological clashes between value, growth, and cyclical perspectives. The highest-scoring investors—Charles Mackay, Howard Marks, and Morgan Housel—view GM as either a low-risk, crowd-free opportunity or a quiet, long-term compounder, prioritizing stability and patience. In contrast, cyclical and contrarian thinkers like Howard Marks (Market Cycle) and Jesse Livermore flag it as mid-cycle or trendless, while value purists like Benjamin Graham and Gerald Loeb dismiss it for lacking margin of safety or statistical cheapness. Meanwhile, Fisher, Lynch, and Veblen reject it outright for failing growth thresholds or signaling speculative excess, illustrating how even moderate scores (e.g., 40s) can mean ‘no’ for growth-oriented investors. The extremes—from Bagehot’s liquidity concerns to Veblen’s critique of unchecked growth chasing—highlight how GM’s perceived risks vary wildly depending on whether the focus is on fundamentals, timing, or market psychology.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 93
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)
🟢 75
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟡 61
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 61
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 52
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 45
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
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)
🟡 40
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 37
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)
🔴 33
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
🔴 29
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 20
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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 · 8 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
1.6%
Net Margin
1.5%
EBITDA Margin
8.0%
ROE
4.4%
ROA
1.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.33
Cash
$20.95B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.17
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.9.2026 | $0.180 |
| 5.6.2026 | $0.180 |
| 4.6.2026 | $0.180 |
| 6.3.2026 | $0.180 |
| 5.3.2026 | $0.180 |
| 5.12.2025 | $0.150 |
| 4.12.2025 | $0.150 |
| 5.9.2025 | $0.150 |
| 4.9.2025 | $0.150 |
| 6.6.2025 | $0.150 |
| 5.6.2025 | $0.150 |
| 7.3.2025 | $0.120 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$82.20
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$306.88
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+273.3%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.8% | $18.58B | $17.05B |
| 2 | 5.0% | $19.51B | $16.42B |
| 3 | 4.2% | $20.32B | $15.69B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $21.00B | $14.87B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $21.52B | $13.99B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$17.56B
Terminal Value
$339.37B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$220.57B
Enterprise Value
$298.59B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$298.59B
*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
$62.82
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$58.34
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
General Motors (GM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
GM currently scores 50/100 (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, GM's estimated fair value is $306.88, which is 273.3% above the current price of $82.20. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
GM's technical score is 41/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: $306.88 vs. price $82.20 (+273.3%); SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Free cash flow growth: 88.9%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Revenue growth (last year): -1.3%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -48.7%.
Yes — GM 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 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIXTON GRANT MICHAEL | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 40,000 | -40,000 | $88.44 |
| DIXTON GRANT MICHAEL | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 54,992 | -40,000 | $88.44 |
| DIXTON GRANT MICHAEL | Tax Withholding in Shares | 30.7.2026 | 35,056 | -35,056 | $88.40 |
| DIXTON GRANT MICHAEL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.7.2026 | 79,132 | +79,132 | — |
| DIXTON GRANT MICHAEL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.7.2026 | 79,132 | -79,132 | — |
| DIXTON GRANT MICHAEL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.7.2026 | 130,048 | +79,132 | — |
| DIXTON GRANT MICHAEL | Tax Withholding in Shares | 30.7.2026 | 94,992 | -35,056 | $88.40 |
| DIXTON GRANT MICHAEL | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.7.2026 | 0 | -79,132 | — |
| Anderson Sterling | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 95,951 | +95,951 | — |
| Anderson Sterling | Tax Withholding in Shares | 29.7.2026 | 48,820 | -48,820 | $89.40 |
| Anderson Sterling | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 95,951 | -95,951 | — |
| Anderson Sterling | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 108,673 | +95,951 | — |
| Anderson Sterling | Tax Withholding in Shares | 29.7.2026 | 59,853 | -48,820 | $89.40 |
| Anderson Sterling | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.7.2026 | 95,951 | -95,951 | — |
| Barra Mary T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 69,564 | -69,564 | — |
| Barra Mary T | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 91,843 | -91,843 | $90.38 |
| Barra Mary T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 48,659 | +48,659 | $52.16 |
| Reuss Mark L | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 71,079 | -71,079 | $89.97 |
| Hatto Christopher | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 6,895 | -6,895 | $90.00 |
| Reuss Mark L | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 71,079 | -71,079 | — |
| Barra Mary T | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 48,659 | -48,659 | $90.38 |
| Barra Mary T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 48,659 | -48,659 | — |
| Barra Mary T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 69,564 | +69,564 | $49.46 |
| Barra Mary T | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 108,382 | -108,382 | $90.38 |
| Barra Mary T | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 69,564 | -69,564 | $90.38 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
21,760,618 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 20,090,326 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
34.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 31.2% 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