Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$97.35
▲ $0.12 (+0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/17 11:09 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$61.86B
Day Range
$96.80 - $98.32
52-Week Range
$67.33 - $100.93
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
MET is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
+23.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/28 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.9% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-3.6%
Median 40D Outcome
71/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+4.8% … +9.1%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.9% … -0.2%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-6.6% … -3.6%
📌 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 -0.9%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
14 occurrence(s) · 43% 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% | -3.0% … +3.1% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -5.1% … +3.2% | +0.8% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.9% | -3.7% … +4.9% | +1.2% |
| 40D | 27% (11%–52%) | -3.6% | -5.5% … +1.2% | +2.1% |
| 60D | 20% (7%–45%) | -4.3% | -12.3% … -0.1% | +2.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-01-08 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.3% | -16.3% |
| 2019-06-05 | 80/100 | Uptrend | +5.1% | -8.1% |
| 2018-10-05 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -7.8% | -13.6% |
| 2020-01-07 | 79/100 | Uptrend | +0.5% | -45.3% |
| 2025-01-31 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -0.9% | -11.7% |
| 2026-06-08 | 78/100 | Uptrend | +6.8% | +14.3% |
| 2025-09-12 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -1.3% | -3.4% |
| 2024-09-13 | 78/100 | Uptrend | +12.2% | +8.0% |
| 2026-05-15 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +9.9% | +21.2% |
| 2024-12-05 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -4.5% | -4.3% |
| 2024-03-04 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +4.7% | +0.8% |
| 2024-05-09 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -3.4% | -5.4% |
| 2024-03-22 | 76/100 | Uptrend | -0.9% | -3.8% |
| 2026-01-06 | 75/100 | Uptrend | -3.9% | -12.9% |
| 2025-10-09 | 75/100 | Uptrend | -7.3% | -1.0% |
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 XLF (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
59
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
50
Momentum
84
Risk
50
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
41
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MET...
Recent media coverage of MetLife highlights its strong market performance, with the company outperforming the Nasdaq over the past year while analysts maintain a generally positive outlook. Focus has centered on its diversified portfolio, robust cash generation, and global growth potential, though investment income volatility remains a noted risk. Price targets have been raised, reinforcing investor confidence in its fundamentals.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about MetLife. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
32
Fundamentals
41
Technical
84
Valuation
50
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+14%
Market Narrative
65
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+29
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant **herding** dynamic, where traders align with peers despite MET’s slight underperformance. Euphoria and FOMO coexist, fueled by momentum, extreme sentiment, and proximity to resistance—key signs of speculative accumulation. The narrative-reality gap (30 points) hints at overoptimism, but the absence of panic or loss aversion keeps selling muted. The open question: Will traders anchor to resistance or break out, or will overconfidence in momentum lead to further herding?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:45 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"MetLife has outperformed the broader market over the past year"
"MET's diversified portfolio... supports premium gains"
"Argus Adjusts Price Target on MetLife... Keeps Buy Rating"
"Foundation's giving and volunteerism help strengthen the resilience of the communities we serve"
📈 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
Morgan Housel — 62/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with some models seeing it as a resilient, long-term hold and others flagging it as speculative or overvalued. The highest-scoring approaches—Walter Bagehot’s liquidity-focused framework and Morgan Housel’s patient-compounder lens—both suggest the stock could weather volatility or compound steadily over time, emphasizing stability and endurance. In contrast, Fisher’s quality-growth focus and the Enterprising Investor’s Graham model dismiss it outright, while Lynch and the efficient-market camp dismiss it for lacking clear growth or active-picking advantages. The middle tier—from Marks’ cautionary late-cycle warning to Veblen’s critique of unchecked growth—highlights tensions between optimism about fundamentals and concerns about valuation or market psychology, leaving the stock’s appeal deeply contingent on the investor’s core principles.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 62
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 59
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)
🟡 58
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 52
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 51
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 37
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 32
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 31
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 28
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)
🔴 26
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 22
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 18
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 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.
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
7.3%
Net Margin
4.4%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
11.9%
ROA
0.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.74
Cash
$22.03B
Total Debt
$355.00M
Current Ratio
0.19
Debt/Equity
0.67
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.8.2026 | $0.593 |
| 3.8.2026 | $0.593 |
| 12.5.2026 | $0.593 |
| 11.5.2026 | $0.593 |
| 3.2.2026 | $0.568 |
| 2.2.2026 | $0.568 |
| 4.11.2025 | $0.568 |
| 3.11.2025 | $0.568 |
| 5.8.2025 | $0.568 |
| 4.8.2025 | $0.568 |
| 6.5.2025 | $0.568 |
| 5.5.2025 | $0.568 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$43.33
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$80.17
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 13.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Motley Fool · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Barchart · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Life Insurance International · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
MetLife (MET) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, 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.
MET currently scores 59/100 (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.
MET's technical score is 84/100, 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: ATR: 1.9% of price; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.19; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -20.7%.
Yes — MET 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 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hay Laura J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 39 | +39 | $95.50 |
| HUBBARD ROBERT GLENN | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 618 | +618 | $95.50 |
| TADROS RAMY | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 115 | +115 | $95.50 |
| Glaser Daniel S | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 10 | +10 | $95.50 |
| MCKENZIE DIANA | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 157 | +157 | $95.50 |
| Johnson Jeh C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 59 | +59 | $95.50 |
| Mumenthaler Christian Stephane | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 21 | +21 | $95.50 |
| Kennard William E | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 294 | +294 | $95.50 |
| Harris Carla A | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 42 | +42 | $95.50 |
| DEBEL MARLENE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.8.2026 | 4,030 | -4,030 | $95.17 |
| PAPPAS BILL | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.8.2026 | 4,030 | -4,030 | $95.17 |
| McCallion John D. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.8.2026 | 6,057 | -6,057 | $95.17 |
| TADROS RAMY | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.8.2026 | 4,366 | -4,366 | $95.17 |
| WEINBERGER MARK A | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | — |
| Glaser Daniel S | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | $87.40 |
| HUBBARD ROBERT GLENN | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 1,016 | +1,016 | $87.40 |
| Kennard William E | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | $87.40 |
| Seitz Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | — |
| Harris Carla A | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | $87.40 |
| MCKENZIE DIANA | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | $87.40 |
| Hay Laura J | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | $87.40 |
| Johnson Jeh C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | $87.40 |
| Mumenthaler Christian Stephane | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 587 | +587 | $87.40 |
| Kennard William E | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 47,410 | +587 | $87.40 |
| HUBBARD ROBERT GLENN | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 107,573 | +1,016 | $87.40 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,852,557 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,289,925 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
66.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.1% 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