Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Materials · ·
$496.76
▼ $10.05 (-2.0%)
Market data updated: 09/17 02:24 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$29.84B
Day Range
$494.88 - $510.61
52-Week Range
$491.62 - $710.97
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
MLM is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
-17.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/32 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 61.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $154.10 vs. price $496.76 (-69.0%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
86/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+4.6%
Median 40D Outcome
60/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+3.1% … +12.6%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.1% … -0.1%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-7.5% … -4.3%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.1%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
4 occurrence(s) · 50% historical success
Echo #2 — 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 | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.3% | -2.6% … +5.5% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.0% | -3.0% … +6.1% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.1% | -1.9% … +10.9% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +4.6% | +0.7% … +13.7% | +2.3% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.3% | -4.8% … +10.4% | +3.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-05-01 | 86/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +13.1% | +6.0% |
| 2018-10-04 | 84/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -5.8% | -8.1% |
| 2017-08-29 | 83/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -0.1% | +2.1% |
| 2017-09-18 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +1.6% | +2.4% |
| 2021-10-05 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +17.1% | +25.8% |
| 2017-12-01 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +11.0% | +0.7% |
| 2024-06-27 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +5.1% | +1.3% |
| 2018-09-14 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -12.6% | -8.4% |
| 2017-12-20 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +10.8% | -0.2% |
| 2022-05-02 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -4.5% | -3.4% |
| 2025-01-13 | 78/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +3.1% | -6.2% |
| 2020-09-01 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +13.2% | +31.2% |
| 2025-03-13 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +2.2% | +19.2% |
| 2024-09-10 | 77/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +3.3% | +14.8% |
| 2026-05-05 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -3.8% | -13.4% |
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
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
48
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
16
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
74
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING MLM...
Recent media coverage of Martin Marietta Materials (MLM) has focused on its strong long-term stock performance, outperforming the market by 1.11% annually over the past 15 years with an average return of 14.46%. Analysts at JPMorgan upgraded the company to *Overweight* from *Neutral* on September 2, maintaining a $680 price target, citing its resilience amid broader market volatility. No substantive operational or strategic updates were highlighted beyond this financial and analyst-driven attention.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Martin Marietta Materials. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 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
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
66
Fundamentals
74
Technical
16
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-14%
Market Narrative
72
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+32
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior at 53 suggests traders are fixated on the 2.4% proximity to support, potentially delaying decisive action. Overconfidence (45) and euphoria (35) coexist with detached valuation metrics, while FOMO and panic signals are muted by neutral momentum. The 32-point narrative gap (72 vs. 40) implies a disconnect between market perception and fundamentals. The key question: will traders break the 2.4% anchor, or will overconfidence sustain despite valuation extremes?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 12:57 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"JP Morgan Upgrades Martin Marietta Materials (MLM) to Overweight from Neutral"
"completed its combination with Lhoist North America... makes it the nation’s leading producer of limestone and industrial minerals"
📈 10D 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 — 84/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with the highest scores coming from technical and cyclical analysts like Samuel Armstrong Nelson (85) and Walter Bagehot (84), who see it as either near an oversold bounce or resilient through liquidity. Meanwhile, value-focused investors like Benjamin Graham (26) and his Enterprising Investor variant (31) dismiss it outright, citing weak defensive metrics and valuation concerns. The middle ground is occupied by growth-oriented thinkers like Philip Fisher (71) and Edgar Lawrence Smith (73), who acknowledge its potential but stop short of calling it exceptional, while contrarian voices like Peter Lynch (38) and Thorstein Veblen (36) warn of speculative overreach or unsustainable growth. The stark contrast between the bullish technical/cyclical camp and the bearish value/growth skeptics highlights a fundamental disagreement over whether this stock’s momentum or fundamentals drive its appeal.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 84
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)
🟢 84
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)
🟢 73
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 71
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 70
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 66
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 61
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 38
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 26
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 21
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
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 (0 bullish · 9 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.
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
30.7%
Operating Margin
23.4%
Net Margin
18.5%
EBITDA Margin
33.7%
ROE
11.3%
ROA
6.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$18.81
Cash
$67.00M
Total Debt
$5.32B
Current Ratio
3.57
Debt/Equity
0.53
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 1.9.2026 | $0.840 |
| 1.6.2026 | $0.830 |
| 31.5.2026 | $0.830 |
| 2.3.2026 | $0.830 |
| 1.3.2026 | $0.830 |
| 1.12.2025 | $0.830 |
| 30.11.2025 | $0.830 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.830 |
| 1.9.2025 | $0.830 |
| 2.6.2025 | $0.790 |
| 1.6.2025 | $0.790 |
| 3.3.2025 | $0.790 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$496.76
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$154.10
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-69.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
0.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.1% | $979.16M | $898.32M |
| 2 | 0.7% | $986.16M | $830.03M |
| 3 | 1.3% | $999.07M | $771.47M |
| 4 | 1.9% | $1.02B | $721.25M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.04B | $678.24M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$978.00M
Terminal Value
$16.46B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$10.70B
Enterprise Value
$14.59B
Net Debt
$5.26B
Equity Value
$9.34B
*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
$165.54
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$105.78
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 4 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
TipRanks · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Barchart · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Fintel · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
The Fly · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Martin Marietta Materials (MLM) 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.
MLM 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, MLM's estimated fair value is $154.10, which is 69.0% below the current price of $496.76. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MLM's technical score is 16/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 61.9%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 3.57.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $154.10 vs. price $496.76 (-69.0%); Calmar: 0.20 (3y annualized return 5.8% / max drawdown 29.3%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -42.1%.
Yes — MLM 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petro Michael J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 9,331 | +9,331 | — |
| Pike Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 66 | +66 | $518.70 |
| WAJSGRAS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 78 | +78 | $518.70 |
| LYONS MARTIN J | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 68 | +68 | $518.70 |
| Niemann Philipp | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.8.2026 | 337 | +337 | — |
| Niemann Philipp | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.8.2026 | 337 | +337 | — |
| Petro Michael J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 368 | -368 | $542.27 |
| Petro Michael J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 14,991 | -368 | $542.27 |
| LYONS MARTIN J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 61 | +61 | $581.64 |
| Pike Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 59 | +59 | $581.64 |
| WAJSGRAS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 69 | +69 | $581.64 |
| LYONS MARTIN J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 374 | +61 | $581.64 |
| WAJSGRAS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 5,028 | +69 | $581.64 |
| Pike Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 4,963 | +59 | $581.64 |
| SLAGER DONALD W | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| Foxx Anthony R | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| Pike Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| DELLY GAYLA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| PEREZ LAREE E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| WAJSGRAS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| Ables Dorothy M | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| LYONS MARTIN J | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| Mack Mary T | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| LYONS MARTIN J | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 313 | +313 | — |
| WAJSGRAS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 4,959 | +313 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,706,782 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,380,633 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
64.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.5% 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