Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$165.89
▲ $1.18 (+0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:01 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$85.55B
Day Range
$163.23 - $166.05
52-Week Range
$139.34 - $184.90
Beta
—
Next Earnings
19.10.2026
Support
$155.40
Resistance
$184.90
MMM is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+6.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/31 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 118.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $23.42 vs. price $165.89 (-85.9%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+5.3%
Median 40D Outcome
77/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
73%
+3.7% … +7.9%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.5% … +0.7%
🔴 Bearish
13%
-4.8% … -3.3%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 73% (95% CI 48%–89%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.9%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Echo #3 — Trend Acceleration
1 occurrence(s) · 100% 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 | 73% (48%–89%) | +2.6% | +1.0% … +4.1% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 73% (48%–89%) | +2.7% | +1.0% … +4.5% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 73% (48%–89%) | +3.9% | +1.2% … +5.4% | +0.7% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +5.3% | -0.8% … +7.3% | +0.4% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +8.6% | -8.4% … +10.9% | +0.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-11-06 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +4.4% | +8.6% |
| 2021-01-19 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +4.5% | +16.8% |
| 2025-10-17 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +9.8% | +11.4% |
| 2021-06-25 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +3.6% | -8.4% |
| 2018-02-21 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.8% | -13.7% |
| 2018-03-20 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -5.6% | -12.4% |
| 2021-09-23 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +0.3% | -3.7% |
| 2025-12-26 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -2.5% | -8.7% |
| 2025-06-20 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +6.1% | +8.7% |
| 2024-12-17 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +10.1% | +17.9% |
| 2025-09-25 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +12.1% | +5.8% |
| 2024-10-31 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.9% | +20.2% |
| 2026-01-27 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +4.7% | -8.4% |
| 2025-09-10 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +1.6% | +10.2% |
| 2025-08-06 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +3.1% | +10.4% |
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 XLI (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
54
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
48
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
45
Risk
50
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
67
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MMM...
Recent media coverage of 3M has primarily focused on its strong performance in the **Transportation & Electronics segment**, particularly in semiconductors, data centers, and aerospace, which is fueling optimistic sales and earnings outlooks for 2026. Analysts highlight the company’s commercial initiatives, including productivity improvements and customer retention, as key drivers of its turnaround. However, 3M’s stock has underperformed relative to the Dow Jones, despite maintaining a cautiously optimistic market outlook. No direct 3M-related news beyond these themes is evident in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about 3M. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 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
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
67
Technical
45
Valuation
38
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.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+3%
Market Narrative
74
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+38
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior suggests traders are synchronizing moves based on relative underperformance rather than fundamental conviction. The large narrative-reality gap (25) indicates investors may be overestimating stability despite weak momentum and valuation extremes. Overconfidence (45) hints at complacency about earnings growth outpacing price declines. The key question is whether peer performance or valuation will drive further alignment—or if momentum reverses. Low volatility (0.87x ATR) suggests no panic, but euphoria’s low momentum contradicts its high valuation premium.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:47 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Strength in Transportation & Electronics Unit Drives 3M: A Sign of More Upside?"
"3M commercial excellence initiatives are driving organic sales growth, enhanced cross-selling, and improved customer retention."
"While 3M has underperformed relative to the Dow over the past year..."
"Three unglamorous companies have kept raising dividends through every bear market of the last 50 years."
📈 16D 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 — 73/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score of 99 standing in stark contrast to the overwhelmingly negative verdicts of Peter Lynch (8) and Benjamin Graham (7). Nelson’s model sees a cyclical opportunity near an oversold position, while Lynch and Graham dismiss it outright for lacking growth potential or defensive qualities. Meanwhile, mid-tier approaches like Schwager’s disciplined setup (66) and Mackay’s caution about crowd excitement (62) suggest a nuanced middle ground—favorable but not risk-free. The efficient-market camp (44) and Bagehot’s liquidity concerns (44) further split the pack, reflecting skepticism about structural advantages or market depth, while Marks’ contrasting cycle and valuation views (50 vs. 32) highlight tension between macro trends and micro risks. The debate hinges on whether this stock’s cyclical appeal outweighs its lack of growth or defensive traits, with only a handful of frameworks seeing potential.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 73
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)
🟢 73
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 60
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 56
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 54
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)
🟡 49
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)
🟡 46
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 44
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 43
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 36
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 30
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 28
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
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 7
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 (3 bullish · 5 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$155.40
Range Bottom
$184.90
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
39.9%
Operating Margin
18.6%
Net Margin
13.0%
EBITDA Margin
23.8%
ROE
69.1%
ROA
8.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.05
Cash
$5.24B
Total Debt
$12.60B
Current Ratio
1.71
Debt/Equity
2.68
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.8.2026 | $0.780 |
| 22.5.2026 | $0.780 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.780 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.780 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.780 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.730 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.730 |
| 25.8.2025 | $0.730 |
| 24.8.2025 | $0.730 |
| 23.5.2025 | $0.730 |
| 22.5.2025 | $0.730 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.730 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$165.89
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$23.42
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-85.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-1.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1.5% | $1.37B | $1.26B |
| 2 | -0.5% | $1.37B | $1.15B |
| 3 | 0.5% | $1.37B | $1.06B |
| 4 | 1.5% | $1.40B | $988.27M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.43B | $929.34M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.40B
Terminal Value
$22.55B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$14.65B
Enterprise Value
$20.05B
Net Debt
$7.37B
Equity Value
$12.68B
*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
$8.69
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$5.21
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 5 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
3M (MMM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
MMM currently scores 54/100 (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, MMM's estimated fair value is $23.42, which is 85.9% below the current price of $165.89. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MMM's technical score is 45/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Free cash flow growth: 118.8%; Return on equity (ROE): 69.1% — strong; Current ratio: 1.71.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $23.42 vs. price $165.89 (-85.9%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -20.5%.
Yes — MMM 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 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cunningham Jennifer A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 7,049 | +7,049 | — |
| George Bobby K | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 15,860 | +15,860 | — |
| Chavez Rodriguez Beatriz Karina | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 3,635 | -3,635 | $182.51 |
| Chavez Rodriguez Beatriz Karina | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 14,035 | -3,635 | $182.51 |
| Banovetz John Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 7,880 | -7,880 | — |
| Banovetz John Patrick | Open Market Sale | 23.7.2026 | 7,880 | -7,880 | $170.44 |
| Banovetz John Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 7,880 | +7,880 | $154.69 |
| Reinseth Theresa E | Open Market Sale | 23.7.2026 | 924 | -924 | $169.42 |
| Banovetz John Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 57,937 | +7,880 | $154.69 |
| Banovetz John Patrick | Open Market Sale | 23.7.2026 | 50,057 | -7,880 | $170.44 |
| Banovetz John Patrick | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 0 | -7,880 | — |
| Reinseth Theresa E | Open Market Sale | 23.7.2026 | 2,615 | -924 | $169.42 |
| Goralski Christian T JR | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 4,902 | -4,902 | $170.46 |
| Goralski Christian T JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.7.2026 | 4,902 | -4,902 | — |
| Goralski Christian T JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.7.2026 | 4,902 | +4,902 | $154.69 |
| Rhodes Kevin H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.7.2026 | 7,669 | -7,669 | — |
| Rhodes Kevin H | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 7,669 | -7,669 | $171.20 |
| Rhodes Kevin H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.7.2026 | 7,669 | +7,669 | $154.69 |
| Rhodes Kevin H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.7.2026 | 51,449 | +7,669 | $154.69 |
| Rhodes Kevin H | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 43,780 | -7,669 | $171.20 |
| Rhodes Kevin H | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.7.2026 | 0 | -7,669 | — |
| Goralski Christian T JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.7.2026 | 11,873 | +4,902 | $154.69 |
| Goralski Christian T JR | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 6,971 | -4,902 | $170.46 |
| Goralski Christian T JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.7.2026 | 0 | -4,902 | — |
| Bauer Wendy A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 7,952 | -7,952 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,219,411 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,948,845 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.6% 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