Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Communication Services · ·
$79.43
▼ $0.42 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/16 04:28 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$22.64B
Day Range
$79.12 - $80.15
52-Week Range
$66.33 - $89.57
Beta
—
Next Earnings
19.10.2026
OMC is a stock from the Communication Services sector — Telecom, media, and internet/social platforms — revenue from advertising and subscriptions.
+3.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/32 factors positiveRisk: High
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
🔴 Bearish
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: $223.33 vs. price $79.43 (+181.2%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -0.3% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
78/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+1.8%
Median 40D Outcome
78/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+1.7% … +7.6%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.2% … -0.0%
🔴 Bearish
13%
-2.3% … -2.2%
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, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.6%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
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%) | +0.4% | -1.2% … +2.3% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.7% | -1.8% … +4.1% | +0.2% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +1.6% | -0.0% … +6.2% | +0.3% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +1.8% | +1.1% … +7.2% | +0.6% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.3% | -4.5% … +12.1% | +0.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-25 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.4% | -4.2% |
| 2018-03-08 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -2.4% | -0.9% |
| 2022-04-14 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -2.1% | -18.5% |
| 2021-07-28 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -0.4% | -0.6% |
| 2026-05-18 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +5.8% | +20.8% |
| 2022-03-11 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +2.2% | -4.9% |
| 2018-07-27 | 70/100 | Downtrend | -0.0% | +12.4% |
| 2024-02-14 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +8.0% | +11.7% |
| 2026-06-03 | 70/100 | Downtrend | +6.6% | +19.7% |
| 2024-06-10 | 69/100 | Consolidation | +1.3% | +11.1% |
| 2023-05-04 | 69/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.1% | -5.6% |
| 2020-09-29 | 69/100 | Downtrend | -0.1% | +25.4% |
| 2026-01-29 | 69/100 | Consolidation | +12.6% | +0.3% |
| 2025-11-13 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +9.8% | -5.1% |
| 2021-11-03 | 68/100 | Downtrend | +1.6% | +10.8% |
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 XLC (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
40
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
51
Quality
42
Value
62
Momentum
32
Risk
34
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
18
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING OMC...
Recent media coverage of Omnicom Group has focused on strategic restructuring and client shifts. The company merged its Mediahub and Hearts & Science agencies into a unified network with $9.1 billion in 2025 billings, aiming to strengthen its media and creative capabilities. Additionally, Omnicom lost PepsiCo’s global media account to Publicis amid the CPG giant’s broader agency transformation. The company also participated in industry conferences, though broader financial or operational performance updates were limited.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Omnicom Group. News trend score: 56. Reason: 3 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
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
18
Technical
32
Valuation
62
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.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
+5%
Market Narrative
23
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
-12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a **passive, peer-aligned stance** (herding) amid relative underperformance, with no dominant emotional bias. The narrative-reality gap (-11) hints at potential mispricing, but subdued volatility (0.92x ATR) and neutral RSI (39) prevent panic or euphoria. The key question: *Is this underperformance structural, or will it resolve with a shift in peer momentum?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:01 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"PepsiCo hands global media to Publicis amid transformation at CPG giant — Omnicom was the incumbent on the account"
"Omnicom Combines Mediahub, Hearts & Science — The new agency network operates across 40 markets"
"Omnicom Media officially launched Hearts United, a new global media agency created through the combination of its Hearts & Science and Mediahub networks"
📈 11D 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
Charles Mackay — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that Mackay and Nelson assign very high scores (96 and 95) reflecting a lack of crowd mania and a favorable cycle position. Marks, both overall and in his market‑cycle view, give moderate‑high scores (72 and 68), indicating reasonable pricing and an early‑to‑mid cycle without obvious red flags. Graham, Schwager, Smith, Housel and Fisher produce mid‑range to lower scores (65‑44), suggesting mixed or insufficient evidence on value, growth quality, or long‑term holding criteria. The most pessimistic assessments come from Livermore, Loeb, Bagehot, Veblen and others with scores below 35, flagging trend weakness, capital risk, liquidity concerns and growth pursued for its own sake, leading to a largely negative outlook under their frameworks.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 89
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 71
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 65
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)
🟡 63
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)
🟡 58
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 56
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 44
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 32
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 30
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 21
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
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 (2 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 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
8.5%
Operating Margin
2.6%
Net Margin
-0.3%
EBITDA Margin
4.2%
ROE
-0.5%
ROA
-0.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.27
Cash
$6.88B
Total Debt
$9.33B
Current Ratio
0.93
Debt/Equity
0.77
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 10.6.2026 | $0.800 |
| 9.6.2026 | $0.800 |
| 11.3.2026 | $0.800 |
| 10.3.2026 | $0.800 |
| 19.12.2025 | $0.800 |
| 18.12.2025 | $0.800 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.700 |
| 1.9.2025 | $0.700 |
| 10.6.2025 | $0.700 |
| 9.6.2025 | $0.700 |
| 11.3.2025 | $0.700 |
| 10.3.2025 | $0.700 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$79.43
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$223.33
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+181.2%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
6.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.6% | $2.97B | $2.73B |
| 2 | 5.5% | $3.14B | $2.64B |
| 3 | 4.5% | $3.28B | $2.53B |
| 4 | 3.5% | $3.39B | $2.40B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.48B | $2.26B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.79B
Terminal Value
$54.86B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$35.65B
Enterprise Value
$48.21B
Net Debt
$2.45B
Equity Value
$45.76B
*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
$58.79
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$57.08
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 15 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
MediaPost · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
PR Newswire · 9.9.2026
PR Newswire · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Trefis · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Marketing Dive · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
MediaPost · 31.8.2026
Omnicom Group (OMC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 40/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
OMC currently scores 40/100 (Weak) 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, OMC's estimated fair value is $223.33, which is 181.2% above the current price of $79.43. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
OMC's technical score is 32/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $223.33 vs. price $79.43 (+181.2%); Free cash flow growth: 75.1%; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -0.3% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.93.
Yes — OMC 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RICE LINDA JOHNSON | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 11,719 | -1,385 | $88.73 |
| RICE LINDA JOHNSON | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 1,385 | -1,385 | $88.73 |
| Castellaneta Andrew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 1,348 | -1,348 | $87.57 |
| Januzzi Louis F | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 1,308 | -1,308 | $87.57 |
| Simm Daryl | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 3,172 | -3,172 | $87.57 |
| Januzzi Louis F | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 7,720 | +7,720 | — |
| Januzzi Louis F | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 40,866 | +7,720 | — |
| RICE LINDA JOHNSON | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 704 | +704 | — |
| Hawkins Ronnie S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 703.69 | +703.69 | — |
| Gerstein Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 308.94 | +308.94 | — |
| MARTORE GRACIA C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 703.69 | +703.69 | — |
| Pineda Patricia Salas | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 703.69 | +703.69 | — |
| Kissire Deborah J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 703.69 | +703.69 | — |
| Gerstein Mark D | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 703.69 | +703.69 | — |
| COLEMAN LEONARD S JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 703.69 | +703.69 | — |
| Santos Cassandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 703.69 | +703.69 | — |
| WYATT E LEE | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 704 | +704 | — |
| Williams Valerie | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 703.69 | +703.69 | — |
| Moore Patrick Q | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 704 | +704 | — |
| MARTORE GRACIA C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 28,410 | +704 | — |
| COLEMAN LEONARD S JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 50,336 | +704 | — |
| RICE LINDA JOHNSON | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 13,104 | +704 | — |
| CHOKSI MARY C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 47,929 | +704 | — |
| WYATT E LEE | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 24,501 | +704 | — |
| Moore Patrick Q | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 24,501 | +704 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
26,725,825 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 27,016,511 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
66.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.0% 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