Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$87.03
▲ $0.01 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/17 03:16 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$69.38B
Day Range
$86.87 - $87.46
52-Week Range
$74.55 - $99.33
Beta
—
Next Earnings
30.10.2026
CL is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
+6.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/29 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
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 3948.1% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
79/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-0.4%
Median 40D Outcome
77/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
20%
+5.3% … +7.2%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.3% … +0.0%
🔴 Bearish
67%
-4.3% … -2.3%
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, 20% (95% CI 7%–45%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -2.1%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
5 occurrence(s) · 20% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
4 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 | 27% (11%–52%) | -1.0% | -1.6% … +1.9% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 27% (11%–52%) | -2.0% | -2.6% … +1.2% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 20% (7%–45%) | -2.1% | -3.5% … -0.1% | +0.5% |
| 40D | 27% (11%–52%) | -0.4% | -2.8% … +1.0% | +1.1% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.4% | -0.9% … +3.9% | +1.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-09-20 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -3.0% | +5.6% |
| 2022-02-17 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -8.8% | -0.5% |
| 2019-10-17 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -2.1% | +3.2% |
| 2025-06-26 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +0.2% | -9.6% |
| 2018-10-08 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -7.8% | -8.9% |
| 2019-09-20 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -4.1% | -2.9% |
| 2017-07-17 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -1.6% | +0.4% |
| 2017-11-03 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +6.2% | +4.5% |
| 2022-03-09 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +4.3% | +4.5% |
| 2024-12-23 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -4.4% | -1.1% |
| 2021-01-19 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -3.0% | -0.5% |
| 2023-08-23 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -0.4% | +3.4% |
| 2023-01-25 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -2.8% | +1.4% |
| 2023-10-10 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +8.3% | +15.1% |
| 2025-09-26 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -2.0% | -0.7% |
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 XLP (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
44
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 23, 2026
Then
49
$91.08
Now
44
$87.03
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
40
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
21
Risk
28
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
60
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING CL...
The recent media coverage for Colgate-Palmolive has been minimal and indirect, primarily tied to its removal from the **iShares S&P 100 ETF** alongside Nike, replaced by four AI-focused tech stocks. This shift reflects broader market trends favoring technology over traditional consumer goods, though no specific Colgate-Palmolive news was detailed in the provided sources. The company itself was not mentioned beyond this index adjustment.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Colgate-Palmolive. News trend score: 74. Reason: 5 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
15
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
85
Fundamentals
60
Technical
21
Valuation
50
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)
-3%
Market Narrative
49
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here is dominated by **anchoring**, where traders appear fixated on the stock’s proximity to support (0.1% above). While FOMO and panic selling scores are low, the narrative gap (51 vs. 35) hints at a disconnect between market sentiment (optimistic) and technical reality (neutral). The lack of extreme volatility or momentum suggests traders are cautiously anchored to this support level, waiting for confirmation. The key question is whether this proximity to support will trigger defensive buying or if traders remain indifferent until clearer momentum emerges.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:53 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"The iShares S&P 100 ETF just swapped out a toothpaste giant and a mall REIT for four AI infrastructure plays"
📈 15D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological contrasts: the highest-scoring approaches—like Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s cycle analysis (95) and Charles Mackay’s crowd psychology (91)—suggest it’s undervalued or lacks speculative frenzy, while the lowest (Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria at 0) dismiss it outright for lacking Graham’s core safeguards. Howard Marks’ split verdict (47) highlights a tension between its business fundamentals and already elevated expectations, mirroring the ‘mixed’ stance of Malkiel & Bogle (44), who question whether active selection beats passive indexing. Meanwhile, volatility-focused thinkers like Morgan Housel (36) and trend-traders like Jesse Livermore (28) flag red flags—whether through erratic behavior or counter-trend positioning—while Fisher (19) and Lynch (8) reject it for failing their growth-and-value thresholds. The extremes—from Nelson’s near-bullishness to Bagehot’s liquidity warning (1)—underscore how the stock’s perceived risks and opportunities clash across time-tested lenses, from cyclical timing to structural stability.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 83
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 42
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 36
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
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)
🔴 35
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 29
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 27
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 26
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 19
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 8
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)
🔴 1
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 1
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)
🔴 0
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.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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.
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
60.1%
Operating Margin
16.2%
Net Margin
10.5%
EBITDA Margin
19.3%
ROE
3948.1%
ROA
13.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.64
Cash
$1.29B
Total Debt
$7.99B
Current Ratio
0.83
Debt/Equity
147.89
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 20.7.2026 | $0.530 |
| 19.7.2026 | $0.530 |
| 20.4.2026 | $0.530 |
| 19.4.2026 | $0.530 |
| 21.1.2026 | $0.520 |
| 20.1.2026 | $0.520 |
| 17.10.2025 | $0.520 |
| 16.10.2025 | $0.520 |
| 18.7.2025 | $0.520 |
| 17.7.2025 | $0.520 |
| 17.4.2025 | $0.520 |
| 16.4.2025 | $0.520 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$0.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$5.68
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 14 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Motley Fool · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Quartz · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Colgate-Palmolive (CL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 44/100, 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.
CL currently scores 44/100 (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.
CL's technical score is 21/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 3948.1% — strong; Gross margin: 60.1% — strong; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Current ratio: 0.83; Calmar: 0.18 (3y annualized return 5.6% / max drawdown 31.1%).
Yes — CL 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 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tsourapas Panagiotis | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 64,901 | -10,000 | $92.05 |
| Tsourapas Panagiotis | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $92.05 |
| CAHILL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 32,543 | +4,170 | $71.56 |
| CAHILL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 28,373 | -4,170 | $93.37 |
| CAHILL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 0 | -4,170 | — |
| CAHILL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 4,170 | -4,170 | — |
| CAHILL JOHN T | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 4,170 | -4,170 | $93.37 |
| CAHILL JOHN T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 4,170 | +4,170 | $71.56 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 161,021 | -161,021 | — |
| Wallace Noel R. | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 161,021 | -161,021 | $92.52 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 161,021 | +161,021 | $72.29 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 523,252 | +161,021 | $72.29 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 362,231 | -161,021 | $92.52 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.8.2026 | 0 | -161,021 | — |
| Wallace Noel R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 161,021 | -161,021 | — |
| Wallace Noel R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 161,021 | +161,021 | $72.29 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 161,021 | -161,021 | $91.92 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 523,252 | +161,021 | $72.29 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 362,231 | -161,021 | $91.92 |
| Wallace Noel R. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 161,021 | -161,021 | — |
| BILBREY JOHN P | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 265 | +265 | $89.45 |
| Newman Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 209 | +209 | $89.45 |
| NORRINGTON LORRIE M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 293 | +293 | $89.45 |
| NORRINGTON LORRIE M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 42,769 | +293 | $89.45 |
| BILBREY JOHN P | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 40,229 | +265 | $89.45 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
17,171,315 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 17,767,107 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.7% 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