Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · OTC
$1,442.32
▲ $0.00 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:38 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$998.00M
Day Range
$1,442.32 - $1,442.32
52-Week Range
$985.25 - $1,540.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
15.10.2026
Support
$1,310.00
Resistance
$1,540.00
+40.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/22 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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $2,579.42 vs. price $1,442.32 (+78.8%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: -4.7%
Growth
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
60
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
2d ago · $1,442.33
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 2 to 27 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
18d ago · $1,424.99
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 2 to 31 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
No data available
Value
67
Momentum
74
Risk
58
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
51
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Farmers & Merchants Bank of California (parented by Farmers & Merchants Bancorp) has primarily focused on its **dividend growth strategy**, with multiple headlines highlighting a **4.7% increase in its quarterly dividend** to $5.60 per share, effective October 2026. Analysts emphasize this as a signal of financial confidence, reinforcing the bank’s status as a **dividend-paying stock** with strong returns. Some sources also briefly mention its **record quarterly earnings** and **undervaluation** relative to peers, though broader operational or strategic updates remain limited.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Farmers & Merchants Bank of California. News trend score: 44. Reason: 7 of the last 15 articles are negative, versus 6 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
29
Fundamentals
51
Technical
74
Valuation
67
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
31
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-19
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s near-equal FOMO/Panic Selling scores (31/32) suggests a tug-of-war between speculative urgency and abrupt selling, amplified by elevated volume and volatility. The narrative-reality gap (-26) implies traders may overlook fundamental discount (-45% vs. DCF) or recent EPS growth (+0.1%), fueling contradictory behavior. Key uncertainty: whether volume-driven volatility persists or fades, clarifying whether this is a speculative blip or deeper distress. The absence of herding/euphoria reinforces a fragmented, reactive environment.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:12 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"previously raised its quarterly cash dividend to US$5.60 per share, a 4.7% increase from the prior US$5.35"
"reflects confidence in the bank’s underlying earnings power"
"reports record quarterly results"
"Farmers & Merchants Bancorp (FMCB) looks undervalued with strong ROA/ROE, NIM and dividends despite OTCQX liquidity risks"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 14D 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 — 90/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 18/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for FMCB reflects deep philosophical and methodological differences among these investors. Benjamin Graham’s *Defensive Investor* sees a strong case due to its high score (91), favoring stability and margin of safety, while his *Enterprising Investor* version (47) is far more cautious, dismissing it as lacking the extreme bargain conditions he sought. Meanwhile, the value-oriented *Jack Schwager* and *Gerald Loeb* (both ~68-69) agree on a disciplined setup with reasonable risk/reward, but *Howard Marks* (77) leans more toward a neutral stance, noting no obvious cycle-timing red flags—suggesting he’d proceed with caution rather than enthusiasm. In contrast, *Peter Lynch* and *Thorstein Veblen* (both 54) are lukewarm, questioning whether the stock’s growth is already priced in or translates to sustainable profit, while *Livermore* (60) and *Nelson* (63) avoid it outright, preferring clear trends or mid-cycle clarity. The *Efficient Market* camp (58) dismisses it as unworthy of active picking, while *Edgar Lawrence Smith* (100) and *Bagehot* (50) lack sufficient data to form a meaningful opinion, highlighting how subjective or data-dependent some frameworks are.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 90
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)
🟢 78
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 75
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 71
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 59
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 54
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 54
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 50
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 46
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 18
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 3 bearish · 0 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.
Low 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
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
14.5%
ROA
1.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$134.96
Cash
$144.86M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 11.9.2026 | $5.600 |
| 12.6.2026 | $5.350 |
| 11.6.2026 | $5.350 |
| 11.3.2026 | $5.100 |
| 10.3.2026 | $5.100 |
| 4.12.2025 | $5.050 |
| 3.12.2025 | $5.050 |
| 11.9.2025 | $5.000 |
| 10.9.2025 | $5.000 |
| 10.6.2025 | $9.300 |
| 9.6.2025 | $9.300 |
| 4.12.2024 | $9.300 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1,442.32
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$2,579.42
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+78.8%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $106.28M | $97.50M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $114.91M | $96.72M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $122.09M | $94.28M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $127.44M | $90.28M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $130.62M | $84.90M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$96.62M
Terminal Value
$2.06B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.34B
Enterprise Value
$1.80B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$1.80B
*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
$923.79
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$906.12
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 2 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 15 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 24.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 20.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 26.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 11.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 12.5.2026
Farmers & Merchants Bank of California (FMCB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 60/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
FMCB currently scores 60/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). 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, FMCB's estimated fair value is $2,579.42, which is 78.8% above the current price of $1,442.32. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FMCB's technical score is 74/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $2,579.42 vs. price $1,442.32 (+78.8%); ATR: 1.3% of price; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Free cash flow growth: -4.7%; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — FMCB 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olson Bart R | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 486 | -486 | $1,385.00 |
| Zitterow David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 236 | -236 | $1,385.00 |
| Weubbe John W | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 209 | -209 | $1,385.00 |
| STEINWERT KENT A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 2,117 | -2,117 | $1,385.00 |
| Harper Troy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 144 | -144 | $1,385.00 |
| Misasi J. Ryan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 496 | -496 | $1,385.00 |
| Bennett Thomas A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 131 | -131 | $1,385.00 |
| Harper Troy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 382 | -144 | $1,385.00 |
| Bennett Thomas A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 241 | -131 | $1,385.00 |
| Misasi J. Ryan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 812 | -496 | $1,385.00 |
| Weubbe John W | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 421 | -209 | $1,385.00 |
| Zitterow David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 2,186 | -236 | $1,385.00 |
| Olson Bart R | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 822 | -486 | $1,385.00 |
| STEINWERT KENT A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 3,333 | -2,117 | $1,385.00 |
| Olson Bart R | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 1,626 | +804 | $1,346.32 |
| Olson Bart R | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 2,551 | +925 | $1,346.32 |
| Misasi J. Ryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 1,616 | +804 | $1,346.32 |
| Misasi J. Ryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 2,541 | +925 | $1,346.32 |
| Zitterow David | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 2,651 | +465 | $1,346.32 |
| Bennett Thomas A | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 453 | +212 | $1,346.32 |
| Harper Troy | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 657 | +275 | $1,346.32 |
| STEINWERT KENT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 6,506 | +3,173 | $1,346.32 |
| CORUM EDWARD JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 825 | +250 | $1,346.32 |
| Green Steven K. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 60 | +60 | $1,346.32 |
| STEINWERT KENT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 10,306 | +3,800 | $1,346.32 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
34 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 40.1% 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