Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$30.18
▼ $0.33 (-1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/18 03:15 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$1.14B
Day Range
$29.75 - $30.33
52-Week Range
$24.43 - $33.55
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.11.2026
-6.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/30 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 84.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $19.94 vs. price $30.18 (-33.9%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (76/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
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
76
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
36
Risk
54
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
36
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of **Marcus & Millichap, Inc.** has primarily focused on its **IPA Capital Markets division**, which has arranged significant financing deals—including a **$75.1 million recapitalization for The Monroe Hotel in Miami Beach** and a **$40.3 million loan for the Birwood Heights apartment community in San Antonio**. Additionally, the company’s strong **17.5% stock return over six months**, outperforming the S&P 500, has sparked investor discussions. While broader market trends like retail sales shifts were mentioned, they do not directly relate to Marcus & Millichap.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Marcus & Millichap, Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 4 vs. 4 out of the last 20 articles.
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)
37
Psychology
59
Fundamentals
36
Technical
36
Valuation
38
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.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+3%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+16
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence (score 45) suggests traders are prioritizing valuation premiums (+60% vs. DCF) over weak momentum, ignoring the divergence between price and fundamentals. Herding (score 40) may stem from relative outperformance narratives, though the stock’s underperformance vs. peers (-0.7% vs. +0.1%) hints at selective conviction. The 24-point narrative gap (61 vs. 37) implies traders are overestimating positive catalysts, while the lack of panic (score 4) and FOMO (score 7) signals cautious detachment. The key question: *Will traders sustain overvaluation confidence despite lagging momentum?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 09:41 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"IPA Capital Markets arranged $75.1M recapitalization for The Monroe Hotel (Article 1)"
"MMI’s 17.5% return over six months outpaced S&P 500 by 5.6% (Article 5)"
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 — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 38/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for MMI reflects deep philosophical and methodological splits among these investors. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on liquidity and resilience, suggesting the stock could weather financial stress—an approach rooted in institutional stability. Meanwhile, patient long-term thinkers like Morgan Housel and Edgar Lawrence Smith see quiet compounding potential, aligning with their emphasis on steady, unheralded growth. However, value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher dismiss it as either too expensive or lacking the signature quality/growth traits they demand, while trend-followers like Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager outright reject it as counter-trend. Even within the same investor (e.g., Howard Marks), the market-cycle perspective downgrades it further, illustrating how context shifts conclusions. The middle-ground methodologies (e.g., Gerald Loeb, Peter Lynch) acknowledge some merits but temper enthusiasm, revealing a stock that excites some but fails to meet the rigorous standards of others.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 91
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 80
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
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 69
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 69
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
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)
🟡 57
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 54
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 52
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
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
🟡 47
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 42
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)
🟡 38
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 7 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$29.56
Range Bottom
$33.55
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
37.7%
Operating Margin
-1.8%
Net Margin
-0.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-0.3%
ROA
-0.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.05
Cash
$161.92M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.55
Debt/Equity
0.00
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.9.2026 | $0.250 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.250 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.250 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.250 |
| 14.9.2025 | $0.250 |
| 12.3.2025 | $0.250 |
| 11.3.2025 | $0.250 |
| 16.9.2024 | $0.250 |
| 15.9.2024 | $0.250 |
| 11.3.2024 | $0.250 |
| 10.3.2024 | $0.250 |
| 14.9.2023 | $0.250 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$30.18
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$19.94
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-33.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $55.85M | $51.23M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $54.10M | $45.54M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $53.42M | $41.25M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $53.76M | $38.08M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $55.10M | $35.81M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$58.78M
Terminal Value
$868.92M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$564.74M
Enterprise Value
$776.66M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$776.66M
*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
$15.70
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.60
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 12 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Business Wire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
CRE Daily · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
PR Newswire · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
CRE Daily · 25.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (MMI) 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.
MMI 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, MMI's estimated fair value is $19.94, which is 33.9% below the current price of $30.18. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MMI's technical score is 36/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 84.4%; Free cash flow growth: 324.7%; Net income growth: 84.6%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $19.94 vs. price $30.18 (-33.9%); Operating margin: -1.8% (negative); Net margin: -0.3% (negative).
Yes — MMI 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nadji Hessam | Gift | 14.8.2026 | 945 | -945 | — |
| DeGennaro Steven F. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | — |
| Parker John David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 2,808 | +2,808 | — |
| Parker John David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 2,808 | -2,808 | — |
| Parker John David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 1,434 | -1,434 | $30.67 |
| DeGennaro Steven F. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 761 | -761 | $30.67 |
| DeGennaro Steven F. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 1,500 | +1,500 | — |
| Parker John David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 44,270 | +2,808 | — |
| Parker John David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 43,310 | -1,434 | $30.67 |
| DeGennaro Steven F. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 0 | -1,500 | — |
| Parker John David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 0 | -2,808 | — |
| DeGennaro Steven F. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.8.2026 | 42,590 | +1,500 | — |
| DeGennaro Steven F. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.8.2026 | 42,709 | -761 | $30.67 |
| Nadji Hessam | Open Market Sale | 11.6.2026 | 500 | -500 | $30.39 |
| Nadji Hessam | Open Market Sale | 11.6.2026 | 480 | -500 | $30.39 |
| Nadji Hessam | Gift | 10.6.2026 | 4,500 | -4,500 | — |
| Nadji Hessam | Gift | 10.6.2026 | 500 | +500 | — |
| Nadji Hessam | Gift | 10.6.2026 | 300,927 | -4,500 | — |
| Nadji Hessam | Gift | 10.6.2026 | 980 | +500 | — |
| Parker John David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.5.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | — |
| Parker John David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.5.2026 | 1,021 | -1,021 | $30.42 |
| Parker John David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.5.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| Parker John David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.5.2026 | 42,483 | +2,000 | — |
| Parker John David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.5.2026 | 41,462 | -1,021 | $30.42 |
| Parker John David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.5.2026 | 0 | -2,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,058,838 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 987,414 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
75.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 75.4% 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