Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$69.52
▼ $0.18 (-0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:37 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$116.08B
Day Range
$68.62 - $69.98
52-Week Range
$54.70 - $77.06
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
Support
$63.92
Resistance
$77.06
MO 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.
+8.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/31 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
🟢 Bullish
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
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.65
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
87/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
+2.0%
Median 40D Outcome
69/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+4.5% … +8.9%
🟡 Base
27%
-0.2% … +0.8%
🔴 Bearish
20%
-4.3% … -3.5%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +2.1%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
7 occurrence(s) · 57% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
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 | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.7% | -2.5% … +1.7% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.4% | -2.5% … +2.7% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.1% | -0.4% … +5.9% | +0.3% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.0% | -3.1% … +7.2% | +1.1% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.6% | -3.6% … +9.3% | +1.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-02-03 | 87/100 | Consolidation | +5.4% | +13.7% |
| 2025-02-04 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +6.3% | +12.7% |
| 2021-08-03 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +5.1% | -0.6% |
| 2023-09-14 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.2% | -6.3% |
| 2021-08-19 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +0.8% | -6.9% |
| 2023-10-20 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.4% | -5.3% |
| 2021-07-16 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +2.7% | -1.3% |
| 2023-06-09 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +0.9% | -3.7% |
| 2024-03-25 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -0.9% | +5.0% |
| 2021-02-26 | 76/100 | Uptrend | +20.4% | +15.4% |
| 2023-12-14 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -2.7% | +2.9% |
| 2026-04-07 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +9.9% | +9.8% |
| 2025-02-19 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +8.6% | +8.8% |
| 2026-06-08 | 73/100 | Uptrend | +2.1% | -2.4% |
| 2026-06-24 | 73/100 | Uptrend | +0.0% | -3.5% |
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
61
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
34
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
69
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
62
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MO...
Recent media coverage of Altria has primarily focused on its strong dividend performance, with repeated emphasis on its **6.4% yield** and outperformance in 2026 compared to broader market trends. Articles highlight its **high capital expenditure spending** in the consumer staples sector as a strategic move, while also noting the **dominance of premium cigarette brands** in its profitability. Additionally, Altria’s recent **board appointment of a consumer goods executive** (Steven W. Presley) was featured, underscoring leadership shifts amid investor interest in its income-focused strategy. Risks and market volatility remain a recurring theme.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Altria. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
29
Fundamentals
62
Technical
69
Valuation
50
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+22
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a notable divergence, highlighted by a narrative gap score of 18 between news sentiment at 86/100 and flat fundamental revenue growth. Confirmation bias appears consistent with market activity as strong sentiment persists despite -0.4% EPS growth. Additionally, evidence indicates price trading 8% above DCF fair value alongside neutral RSI levels at 47. The primary open question is whether fundamental performance will align with the elevated narrative score of 60.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 10:09 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"Altria has crushed it in 2026 [...] dirt cheap 6.4%-yielding Dividend Stock"
"Altria Premium Drives 85% of Cigarette Profit"
"Altria Group appointed Steven W. Presley [...] broad consumer goods experience"
"Altria Is Spending More on Capex Than Any Other Consumer Staples Name"
📈 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
Morgan Housel — 71/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into two starkly divergent camps: the cautious optimists and the outright skeptics. Investors like Charles Mackay, Morgan Housel, and Edgar Lawrence Smith—who prioritize patience, compounding, and long-term hold potential—see it as a relatively stable, low-risk opportunity, with scores above 68. Their frameworks emphasize resilience and enduring value, making them more forgiving of moderate risks or less flashy growth. In contrast, the more rigorous, data-driven, or contrarian voices—particularly Benjamin Graham (both Defensive and Enterprising Investor), Peter Lynch, and Thorstein Veblen—reject it outright, scoring it below 33. These methodologies demand clear valuation edges, growth justification, or structural advantages, none of which this stock appears to meet. Even mid-tier thinkers like Howard Marks and Gerald M. Loeb hedge their verdicts, warning of overvaluation or hidden risks, while the market-efficiency camp and trend-followers like Livermore and Schwager dismiss it entirely, either because it lacks a clear edge or fits poorly into their frameworks.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 71
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
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 66
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 56
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 53
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 46
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 41
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 41
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 35
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
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)
🔴 33
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)
🔴 32
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 11
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
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 an uptrend (6 bullish · 2 bearish · 3 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
62.5%
Operating Margin
42.5%
Net Margin
29.8%
EBITDA Margin
43.7%
ROE
-198.4%
ROA
19.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.12
Cash
$4.47B
Total Debt
$25.71B
Current Ratio
0.65
Debt/Equity
-7.34
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.9.2026 | $1.110 |
| 15.6.2026 | $1.060 |
| 14.6.2026 | $1.060 |
| 25.3.2026 | $1.060 |
| 24.3.2026 | $1.060 |
| 26.12.2025 | $1.060 |
| 25.12.2025 | $1.060 |
| 15.9.2025 | $1.060 |
| 14.9.2025 | $1.060 |
| 16.6.2025 | $1.020 |
| 15.6.2025 | $1.020 |
| 25.3.2025 | $1.020 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$69.52
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$63.07
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-9.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-2.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -2.5% | $8.85B | $8.12B |
| 2 | -1.2% | $8.74B | $7.36B |
| 3 | 0.0% | $8.74B | $6.75B |
| 4 | 1.3% | $8.85B | $6.27B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $9.07B | $5.90B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$9.07B
Terminal Value
$143.08B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$92.99B
Enterprise Value
$127.38B
Net Debt
$21.23B
Equity Value
$106.15B
*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
-$2.08
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$12.58
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 7 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
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 · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Altria (MO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 61/100, 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.
MO currently scores 61/100 (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, MO's estimated fair value is $63.07, which is 9.3% below the current price of $69.52. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MO's technical score is 69/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: -7.34; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.65; Return on equity (ROE): -198.4% (negative); Revenue growth (last year): -3.1%.
Yes — MO 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 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strahlman Ellen R | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $72.56 |
| KELLY ENNIS DEBRA J | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 5,790 | -5,790 | $72.25 |
| KELLY ENNIS DEBRA J | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 73,809 | -5,790 | $72.25 |
| Strahlman Ellen R | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 25,102 | -2,000 | $72.56 |
| Clarke Ian L.T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,571 | +2,571 | — |
| Stoddart Richard S | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,571 | +2,571 | — |
| SHANKS VIRGINIA E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,571 | +2,571 | — |
| McQUADE KATHRYN B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 4,656 | +4,656 | — |
| KELLY ENNIS DEBRA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,571 | +2,571 | — |
| Davis Robert Matthews | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,571 | +2,571 | — |
| Strahlman Ellen R | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,571 | +2,571 | — |
| Connelly Marjorie Mary | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,571 | +2,571 | — |
| YZAGUIRRE MARIO MAX | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,571 | +2,571 | — |
| McQUADE KATHRYN B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 111,816 | +4,656 | — |
| YZAGUIRRE MARIO MAX | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 19,936 | +2,571 | — |
| KELLY ENNIS DEBRA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 79,599 | +2,571 | — |
| SHANKS VIRGINIA E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 48,900 | +2,571 | — |
| Strahlman Ellen R | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 27,102 | +2,571 | — |
| Connelly Marjorie Mary | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 19,936 | +2,571 | — |
| Stoddart Richard S | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 6,010 | +2,571 | — |
| Davis Robert Matthews | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 18,063 | +2,571 | — |
| Clarke Ian L.T. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 18,618 | +2,571 | — |
| Mancuso Salvatore | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 40,634 | +40,634 | — |
| Mancuso Salvatore | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 320,909 | +40,634 | — |
| Whitaker Charles N. | Open Market Sale | 5.3.2026 | 27,908 | -27,908 | $67.57 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
41,579,040 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 50,769,586 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.8% 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