Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$30.73
▼ $0.04 (-0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/17 06:33 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$68.43B
Day Range
$30.41 - $31.16
52-Week Range
$25.60 - $34.81
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
KMI is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+12.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/30 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $3.59 vs. price $30.73 (-88.3%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+2.7%
Median 40D Outcome
75/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+3.2% … +8.4%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.7% … -0.2%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-5.1% … -3.4%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.4%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
1 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%) | +0.7% | -0.2% … +3.7% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.3% | -1.4% … +3.5% | +0.4% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.4% | -3.6% … +3.5% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.7% | -0.3% … +6.2% | +0.8% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +4.5% | -0.7% … +10.2% | +1.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-10-03 | 81/100 | Downtrend | -3.9% | -2.9% |
| 2022-02-24 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +9.8% | +14.2% |
| 2025-08-11 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -0.9% | -3.9% |
| 2025-07-28 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -2.7% | +1.1% |
| 2018-11-27 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -7.3% | +14.9% |
| 2019-11-29 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +7.2% | -0.5% |
| 2023-09-22 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +2.3% | +5.8% |
| 2023-01-30 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -5.4% | -4.6% |
| 2026-06-04 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -0.0% | +1.7% |
| 2023-04-26 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.1% | +5.2% |
| 2023-09-08 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -3.2% | +6.3% |
| 2025-02-26 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +8.8% | +4.5% |
| 2025-12-16 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +4.1% | +26.5% |
| 2025-11-03 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +3.0% | +16.9% |
| 2026-05-08 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -0.4% | -0.9% |
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 XLE (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
46
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
59
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
13
Risk
42
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
51
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING KMI...
Recent media coverage of Kinder Morgan (KMI) has focused on its financial performance and investor interest, particularly as a stable midstream energy stock. Analysts highlight its consistent dividend payouts and resilience regardless of oil price fluctuations, positioning it as a reliable income option in the energy sector. Recent stock movements—including a slight drop despite broader market gains—have prompted discussions on valuation and growth potential, with JPMorgan adjusting its price target slightly upward while maintaining a neutral rating. Comparisons with rival pipeline companies like Williams (WMB) also emphasize KMI’s dividend reliability.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Kinder Morgan. News trend score: 98. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
83
Fundamentals
51
Technical
13
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
73
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+32
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence (score 45) stems from a stark disconnect between KMI’s extreme valuation (+775% vs. DCF) and its weak momentum (-2.1% ROC vs. +0.2% EPS growth). Anchoring (score 43) reinforces this, as traders may cling to recent highs despite the stock’s underperformance relative to peers. The narrative gap (30-point divergence) further amplifies misalignment, where optimism (71) far exceeds observable fundamentals (41). The key question remains whether traders will adjust anchoring or double down on overconfidence as momentum remains negative.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:20 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Kinder Morgan (KMI) closed at $31.6, indicating a -1.16% shift from the previous trading day"
"Two natural gas pipeline giants are sending steady dividend checks to shareholders, but a closer look at growth rates, payout coverage, and streak length separates a C+ performer from an A- contender"
"Q2 earnings season... including Kinder Morgan (NYSE:KMI) and its peers"
"Additional Permian natural gas takeaway capacity is prompting a wave of new gas processing and NGL infrastructure as production grows"
📈 9D 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 — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies split sharply on KMI, with a few investors seeing cautious optimism while the majority flag significant red flags. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests he’d view the stock’s cycle position as favorable, possibly seeing it as oversold and ripe for a rebound, while Edgar Lawrence Smith and Charles Mackay offer slightly more reserved but still positive takes, noting crowd excitement or reasonable potential. However, the bulk of the strategies—from Peter Lynch’s mixed but price-reflective view to Jesse Livermore’s outright negative trend signal—paint a far bleaker picture, warning of overvaluation, weak growth-to-profit translation, or outright risk to capital. Benjamin Graham’s near-zero scores and Walter Bagehot’s liquidity concerns further cement the stock as a no-go for defensive investors, while Howard Marks’ dual verdicts underscore its middling risk/valuation profile. The divide reflects a tension between cyclical optimism and fundamental caution, with only a handful of methodologies tolerating any exposure.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 91
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)
🟡 64
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 63
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 60
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 53
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 48
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 47
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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)
🟡 40
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 35
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 33
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 27
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 15
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 11
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
🔴 0
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
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 · 10 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
—
Operating Margin
27.9%
Net Margin
18.0%
EBITDA Margin
42.4%
ROE
9.8%
ROA
4.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.37
Cash
$63.00M
Total Debt
$32.00B
Current Ratio
0.64
Debt/Equity
1.03
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 3.8.2026 | $0.298 |
| 2.8.2026 | $0.298 |
| 4.5.2026 | $0.298 |
| 3.5.2026 | $0.298 |
| 2.2.2026 | $0.293 |
| 1.2.2026 | $0.293 |
| 3.11.2025 | $0.293 |
| 2.11.2025 | $0.293 |
| 31.7.2025 | $0.293 |
| 30.7.2025 | $0.293 |
| 30.4.2025 | $0.293 |
| 29.4.2025 | $0.293 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$30.73
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$3.59
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-88.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-3.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -3.2% | $2.80B | $2.57B |
| 2 | -1.7% | $2.75B | $2.32B |
| 3 | -0.3% | $2.74B | $2.12B |
| 4 | 1.1% | $2.77B | $1.96B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.84B | $1.85B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.89B
Terminal Value
$44.79B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$29.11B
Enterprise Value
$39.92B
Net Debt
$31.94B
Equity Value
$7.98B
*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
$14.02
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.21
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 6 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
StockStory · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Motley Fool · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
MarketBeat · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Quartz · 9.9.2026
Kinder Morgan (KMI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, 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.
KMI currently scores 46/100 (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, KMI's estimated fair value is $3.59, which is 88.3% below the current price of $30.73. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
KMI's technical score is 13/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Operating margin: 27.9% — strong; Net margin: 18.0% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $3.59 vs. price $30.73 (-88.3%); Current ratio: 0.64; Free cash flow growth: -3.8%.
Yes — KMI 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 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Garthwaite Michael P. | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 1,550 | -1,550 | $32.65 |
| James Catherine C. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 69,445 | +69,445 | — |
| James Catherine C. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 69,445 | -69,445 | — |
| James Catherine C. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 26,760 | -26,760 | $32.18 |
| Grahmann Kevin P | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 40,510 | -40,510 | — |
| Grahmann Kevin P | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 40,510 | +40,510 | — |
| Mody Sital K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 115,741 | +115,741 | — |
| Mody Sital K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 115,741 | -115,741 | — |
| Mody Sital K | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 45,545 | -45,545 | $32.18 |
| Grahmann Kevin P | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 13,576 | -13,576 | $32.18 |
| ASHLEY ANTHONY B | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 104,167 | +104,167 | — |
| ASHLEY ANTHONY B | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 104,167 | -104,167 | — |
| Holland James E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 50,993 | -50,993 | $32.18 |
| ASHLEY ANTHONY B | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 40,275 | -40,275 | $32.18 |
| Holland James E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 130,209 | -130,209 | — |
| Holland James E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 130,209 | +130,209 | — |
| Sanders Dax | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 130,209 | +130,209 | — |
| Sanders Dax | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 130,209 | -130,209 | — |
| Michels David Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 121,528 | -121,528 | — |
| Dang Kimberly A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 636,575 | -636,575 | — |
| Dang Kimberly A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 636,575 | +636,575 | — |
| Dang Kimberly A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 250,233 | -250,233 | $32.18 |
| Michels David Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.7.2026 | 121,528 | +121,528 | — |
| Sanders Dax | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 51,238 | -51,238 | $32.18 |
| Michels David Patrick | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 47,573 | -47,573 | $32.18 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
48,636,854 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 45,521,425 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
64.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.4% 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