Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$73.27
▲ $2.45 (+3.5%)
Market data updated: 09/20 12:17 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$39.79B
Day Range
$71.06 - $73.35
52-Week Range
$48.52 - $105.91
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$68.75
Resistance
$89.45
MCHP is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+10.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/31 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 2300.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $11.47 vs. price $73.27 (-84.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+9.8%
Median 40D Outcome
26/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+10.2% … +24.0%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.2% … +0.7%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-11.1% … -3.7%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 trading days.
📌 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 +1.0%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 33% 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | -1.1% | -2.5% … +6.6% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | -1.7% | -5.6% … +6.5% | +0.4% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +1.0% | -4.3% … +16.0% | +0.5% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +9.8% | -12.7% … +19.2% | +0.9% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +12.5% | -15.8% … +19.8% | +2.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-11-01 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +27.0% | +21.4% |
| 2024-09-25 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -1.1% | -26.4% |
| 2024-11-01 | 78/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -6.0% | -27.4% |
| 2019-01-07 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +17.2% | +27.1% |
| 2018-12-18 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +5.6% | +18.3% |
| 2024-09-11 | 75/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +1.0% | -24.8% |
| 2022-04-28 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +2.8% | -6.9% |
| 2024-10-09 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -5.7% | -25.5% |
| 2022-09-16 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -12.8% | +17.7% |
| 2022-10-03 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -3.0% | +6.6% |
| 2022-07-12 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +14.9% | +13.8% |
| 2026-03-31 | 72/100 | Downtrend | +39.6% | +36.1% |
| 2025-09-19 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -0.0% | +3.1% |
| 2025-12-01 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +21.1% | +39.7% |
| 2025-10-15 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -14.7% | +12.5% |
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 XLK (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
54
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
73
Quality
42
Value
33
Momentum
43
Risk
48
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
55
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MCHP...
Recent media coverage of Microchip Technology has primarily focused on two key areas: its technological innovations and stock performance. The company highlighted its adoption of Asahi Kasei Microdevices’ current sensors in a machine learning-based arc fault detection reference design, showcasing advancements in AI-driven safety solutions. Additionally, Microchip introduced 1.2V clock buffers to support next-gen SoCs and FPGAs, addressing voltage translation challenges in high-performance computing. Analysts also noted the company’s underperformance relative to the S&P 500, despite maintaining a bullish long-term outlook.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Microchip Technology. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 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
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
55
Technical
43
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-27%
Market Narrative
79
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+43
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant *Herding* state (score 45) reflects MCHP’s underperformance relative to peers today, consistent with traders aligning with broader sector weakness. Overconfidence (45) and anchoring (20) suggest investors may cling to valuation optimism despite lagging momentum, while loss aversion (45) hints at hesitation to exit despite recent drawdowns. The narrative gap (19) implies a disconnect between market perception (optimistic) and fundamentals (weaker). The key question: *Will relative underperformance trigger further herd-driven selling, or will anchoring to support stabilize sentiment?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:44 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Asahi Kasei Microdevices’ CZ39 and CZ3K series have been adopted as in Microchip Technology's ML/AI-based AFD reference design"
"The demand for low-voltage clock drivers continues to grow with the rapid adoption of advanced FinFET process nodes"
"Microchip Technology has significantly underperformed the broader market over the past year"
📈 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
Peter Lynch — 74/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for MCHP reflects deep methodological disagreements about valuation, cycle positioning, and growth potential. Howard Marks’ cycle-based approach sees it as early-to-mid cycle, while Peter Lynch’s growth-focused lens suggests the stock hasn’t priced in its potential—both scoring high (87 and 74, respectively). In contrast, Benjamin Graham’s strict defensive criteria and Philip Fisher’s quality-growth mandate dismiss it outright (scores of 17 and 26), highlighting a clash between value discipline and growth optimism. Even within cyclical frameworks, Samuel Nelson’s favorable cycle position (79) contrasts sharply with Jesse Livermore’s negative trend verdict (18), illustrating how timing assumptions alone can swing conclusions. Meanwhile, efficient-market skeptics like Loeb and Bogle (scores of 44 and 43) question whether the stock’s edge justifies active selection, underscoring a tension between fundamental conviction and market efficiency.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 74
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 68
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 62
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 61
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 52
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)
🟡 51
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 44
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 40
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
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)
🔴 35
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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)
🔴 26
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 17
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 5 bearish · 2 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 downtrend 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
57.7%
Operating Margin
10.4%
Net Margin
4.9%
EBITDA Margin
25.0%
ROE
3.6%
ROA
1.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.22
Cash
$240.30M
Total Debt
$5.50B
Current Ratio
2.09
Debt/Equity
0.85
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.8.2026 | $0.455 |
| 22.5.2026 | $0.455 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.455 |
| 23.2.2026 | $0.455 |
| 22.2.2026 | $0.455 |
| 24.11.2025 | $0.455 |
| 23.11.2025 | $0.455 |
| 22.8.2025 | $0.455 |
| 21.8.2025 | $0.455 |
| 22.5.2025 | $0.455 |
| 21.5.2025 | $0.455 |
| 24.2.2025 | $0.455 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$73.27
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$11.47
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-84.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $827.45M | $759.13M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $801.59M | $674.68M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $791.57M | $611.24M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $796.52M | $564.27M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $816.43M | $530.63M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$871.00M
Terminal Value
$12.87B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$8.37B
Enterprise Value
$11.51B
Net Debt
$5.26B
Equity Value
$6.25B
*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
$11.80
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$4.21
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Trefis · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
MarketBeat · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Microchip Technology (MCHP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
MCHP currently scores 54/100 (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, MCHP's estimated fair value is $11.47, which is 84.4% below the current price of $73.27. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MCHP's technical score is 43/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 2300.0%; Net income growth: 46100.0%; Current ratio: 2.09.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $11.47 vs. price $73.27 (-84.4%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: -0.03 (3y annualized return -2.0% / max drawdown 64.5%).
Yes — MCHP 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 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duvenhage Stephanus | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 123 | +123 | $60.70 |
| Krawczyk Joseph R II | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 41 | +41 | $60.70 |
| Bunker Mathew B | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 53 | +53 | $60.70 |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 28,573 | -4,112 | $75.32 |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 4,112 | -4,112 | $75.32 |
| Barker Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.8.2026 | 2,557 | +2,557 | — |
| Rapp Karen Marie | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.8.2026 | 2,557 | +2,557 | — |
| CHAPMAN MATTHEW W | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.8.2026 | 2,557 | +2,557 | — |
| Cassidy Richard B. II | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.8.2026 | 2,557 | +2,557 | — |
| LITTLE MITCHELL R | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.8.2026 | 2,557 | +2,557 | — |
| PENG VICTOR | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.8.2026 | 2,557 | +2,557 | — |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 0 | -2,226 | — |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 31,797 | +1,952 | $80.26 |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.8.2026 | 29,845 | -954 | $80.26 |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 30,799 | +2,226 | $80.26 |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.8.2026 | 30,960 | -837 | $80.26 |
| Barker Ellen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 3,090 | -3,090 | — |
| Barker Ellen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 3,090 | +3,090 | $80.26 |
| Sanghi Steve | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 7,020 | -7,020 | — |
| CHAPMAN MATTHEW W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 3,090 | +3,090 | $80.26 |
| Sanghi Steve | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 6,157 | +6,157 | $80.26 |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 2,226 | +2,226 | $80.26 |
| Cassidy Richard B. II | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 3,090 | -3,090 | — |
| PENG VICTOR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 3,090 | -3,090 | — |
| Bjornholt James Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.8.2026 | 2,226 | -2,226 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
32,811,170 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 36,265,405 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.9% 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