Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$226.01
▼ $9.36 (-4.0%)
Market data updated: 09/17 01:27 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$32.64B
Day Range
$222.89 - $235.44
52-Week Range
$174.76 - $255.95
Beta
—
Next Earnings
16.10.2026
MTB is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
+19.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/24 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
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.8% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is below the 50-day average
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
85/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
-2.8%
Median 40D Outcome
63/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
33%
+4.3% … +10.7%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.6% … -0.6%
🔴 Bearish
60%
-8.6% … -4.0%
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, 33% (95% CI 15%–58%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -3.9%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
2 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
3 occurrence(s) · 67% historical success
Echo #3 — Trend Acceleration
2 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 | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.9% | -2.7% … +3.1% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.2% | -4.4% … +2.5% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 33% (15%–58%) | -3.9% | -7.4% … +4.3% | +1.0% |
| 40D | 33% (15%–58%) | -2.8% | -4.9% … +8.0% | +1.2% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.3% | -3.1% … +9.1% | +2.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-06-13 | 85/100 | Consolidation | -3.2% | +2.5% |
| 2018-05-02 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.2% | -2.2% |
| 2019-07-31 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -11.5% | -4.9% |
| 2018-07-12 | 82/100 | Downtrend | +4.2% | -0.3% |
| 2018-09-24 | 81/100 | Downtrend | -7.1% | -16.8% |
| 2017-07-27 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -3.9% | +3.9% |
| 2018-05-25 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -4.0% | -1.1% |
| 2024-06-13 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +10.7% | +16.9% |
| 2026-06-01 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +12.5% | +14.1% |
| 2025-02-28 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -8.6% | -4.0% |
| 2025-09-29 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -7.8% | +4.1% |
| 2026-04-29 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -0.6% | +15.2% |
| 2025-08-19 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +4.3% | -1.2% |
| 2025-11-04 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +8.1% | +24.7% |
| 2025-02-13 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -10.9% | -6.3% |
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 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
55
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
62
Quality
55
Value
55
Momentum
44
Risk
64
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
55
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MTB...
Recent media coverage of M&T Bank highlights its financial upgrades and strategic positioning. Analysts like Morgan Stanley and Cantor Fitzgerald have raised the bank’s price targets, signaling confidence in its growth potential. Additionally, M&T Bank has been noted for leveraging technology as a competitive edge, particularly through partnerships or integrations with embedded banking platforms like those launched by FIS and Fidelity National Information Services. Analysts also emphasize its strength in fee income and deposit growth, reinforcing its market position.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about M&T Bank. News trend score: 68. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
10
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
65
Fundamentals
55
Technical
44
Valuation
55
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+4%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a dominant **anchoring effect**, as the stock’s proximity to support (4.0%) may be influencing investor positioning. Low FOMO (score: 2) and neutral volatility (0.98x ATR) imply neither urgency nor panic. Overconfidence (score: 2) hints at selective optimism, but no extreme sentiment or momentum extremes are present. The key question: *Will traders treat the 4.0% support level as a hard floor, or will external catalysts shift focus?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:25 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"FIS launches embedded banking platform, letting banks deliver accounts and payments inside business software (article 7)"
"How this Buffalo-based bank is using tech as a competitive edge (article 9)"
"Morgan Stanley upgrades M&T Bank to Overweight from Equalweight, adjusting PT to $304 (article 1)"
📈 6D 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
Benjamin Graham — 83/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 43/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for MTB reflects deep philosophical and methodological splits among the investors. Charles Mackay’s high score and verdict suggest the stock avoids crowd-driven mania, aligning with his focus on avoiding speculative bubbles, while Benjamin Graham’s Defensive Investor score leans positive but still cautious—highlighting his preference for margin-of-safety stocks. Meanwhile, the mid-range scores from Marks, Housel, and Smith point to a consensus that MTB could be a patient investor’s quiet compounder, but only if it meets their long-term, low-volatility criteria. In contrast, Fisher, Malkiel/Bogle, and Livermore’s lukewarm or negative takes stem from either skepticism about the stock’s exceptional quality, the inefficiency of active selection, or the absence of a clear trend—underscoring their distrust of overpriced growth or speculative bets. Even Veblen’s mixed signal hints at uncertainty over whether the company’s growth translates to sustainable profit, a concern absent in the more optimistic, long-term-oriented frameworks.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 83
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 82
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 81
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 81
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)
🟢 74
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 74
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 70
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟢 66
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 64
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 62
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 60
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 52
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
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
🟡 50
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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 (3 bullish · 6 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.
High 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
—
Net Margin
172.1%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
9.8%
ROA
1.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$17.10
Cash
$18.77B
Total Debt
$13.06B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.45
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 1.9.2026 | $1.500 |
| 1.6.2026 | $1.500 |
| 31.5.2026 | $1.500 |
| 2.3.2026 | $1.500 |
| 1.3.2026 | $1.500 |
| 1.12.2025 | $1.500 |
| 30.11.2025 | $1.500 |
| 2.9.2025 | $1.500 |
| 1.9.2025 | $1.500 |
| 2.6.2025 | $1.350 |
| 1.6.2025 | $1.350 |
| 3.3.2025 | $1.350 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$183.74
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$130.03
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 7 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Business Wire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
M&T Bank (MTB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 55/100, 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.
MTB currently scores 55/100 (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.
MTB's technical score is 44/100, 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: ATR: 1.8% of price; Debt/equity: 0.45; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; ROC 12 days: -1.4%.
Yes — MTB 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 12 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seseri Rudina | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 3,649 | -623 | $241.05 |
| Seseri Rudina | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 623 | -623 | $241.05 |
| Taylor John R. | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 1,217 | -1,217 | $253.84 |
| WALTERS KIRK W | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 9.366 | -9.366 | $253.77 |
| WALTERS KIRK W | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 0 | -9 | $253.77 |
| Ledgett Richard H. Jr. | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 855 | -855 | $248.16 |
| Ledgett Richard H. Jr. | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 4,690 | -855 | $248.16 |
| Bible Daryl N. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 3,043 | -3,043 | $246.29 |
| Jacobs Jeremy M Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 589 | +589 | — |
| Jacobs Jeremy M Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 589 | +589 | — |
| Bible Daryl N. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 26,967 | -3,043 | $246.29 |
| PEARSON KEVIN J | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $242.00 |
| PEARSON KEVIN J | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 44,107 | -2,000 | $242.00 |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 505 | -505 | — |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 505 | +505 | $164.54 |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 376 | -376 | — |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 376 | +376 | $190.78 |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 881 | -881 | $242.00 |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 9,984 | +376 | $190.78 |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 10,489 | +505 | $164.54 |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 9,608 | -881 | $242.00 |
| Woodrow Tracy S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 0 | -376 | — |
| Taylor John R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 269 | -269 | — |
| Taylor John R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 269 | +269 | $190.78 |
| Taylor John R. | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 1,098 | -1,098 | $233.23 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,584,506 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,327,937 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.4% 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