Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Materials · ·
$123.41
▼ $0.98 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 04:53 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$130.04B
Day Range
$121.82 - $125.14
52-Week Range
$76.05 - $135.29
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
Support
$88.75
Resistance
$135.29
NEM is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
+57.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/26 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 21.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
MACD
MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+2.7%
Median 40D Outcome
57/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+6.8% … +12.8%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.7% … +0.1%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-7.7% … -5.1%
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, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.7%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
7 occurrence(s) · 57% 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 | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.7% | -0.3% … +5.8% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.2% | -2.9% … +9.7% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.7% | -3.2% … +9.9% | +1.2% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.7% | -0.7% … +15.9% | +2.8% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +7.2% | +0.4% … +25.5% | +2.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-02 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +8.1% | +5.3% |
| 2024-06-03 | 80/100 | Uptrend | -0.4% | +23.7% |
| 2024-08-07 | 79/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +11.9% | -2.1% |
| 2020-09-08 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -7.5% | -8.8% |
| 2020-05-22 | 78/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -7.7% | +7.4% |
| 2025-07-15 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +20.2% | +54.1% |
| 2019-09-12 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +0.7% | +2.9% |
| 2024-06-27 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +11.7% | +30.2% |
| 2021-06-14 | 75/100 | Uptrend | -9.3% | -17.6% |
| 2019-10-16 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -1.2% | +12.2% |
| 2020-08-14 | 74/100 | Uptrend | +5.5% | +3.4% |
| 2025-05-08 | 74/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -0.9% | +27.3% |
| 2021-02-01 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -5.1% | +7.2% |
| 2024-09-11 | 72/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +3.9% | -19.1% |
| 2025-06-10 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +13.7% | +44.9% |
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 XLB (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
64
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
21d ago · $127.98
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 57)
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 29, 2026
Then
72
$127.98
Now
64
$123.41
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
74
Quality
55
Value
50
Momentum
62
Risk
62
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
73
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING NEM...
Recent media coverage of Newmont Corporation (NEM) has primarily focused on its stock performance amid broader market fluctuations, with reports highlighting a recent decline of 1.79% in a single trading session. Analysts are examining whether the company can sustain earnings momentum despite production challenges, as investor attention remains on its financial stability and operational hurdles. No direct company-specific developments beyond market reactions were prominently featured.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Newmont. News trend score: 68. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
12
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
14
Fundamentals
73
Technical
62
Valuation
50
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+19%
Market Narrative
52
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant herd mentality, where traders align with peers despite NEM’s slight underperformance today. Euphoria and FOMO coexist, fueled by momentum and positive sentiment, while overconfidence hints at traders prioritizing price action over fundamentals. The narrative gap (12-point discrepancy) implies a disconnect between market expectations and reality, potentially amplifying herd-driven moves. The key question is whether this herd behavior will sustain or correct as peers diverge further.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:48 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Newmont Corporation (NEM) closed at $128.09, marking a -1.79% move from the previous day"
"The average brokerage recommendation (ABR) for Newmont (NEM) is equivalent to a Buy"
"Gold mining and crypto-linked equities skidded Friday as a blowout U.S. jobs report dampened expectations for monetary easing"
📈 17D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Edgar Lawrence Smith — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 32/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented and value-focused methodologies. The top scorers—Edgar Lawrence Smith, Peter Lynch, and Philip Fisher—all see it as a high-quality, long-term opportunity, with Smith calling it a 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate and Fisher praising its exceptional company quality. Meanwhile, Lynch highlights undervaluation relative to its growth potential. In contrast, more conservative or cyclical frameworks like Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Benjamin Graham’s Enterprising Investor approach flag it as overbought or statistically expensive, suggesting caution. The middle ground—where methodologies like Howard Marks, Morgan Housel, and even Walter Bagehot—acknowledge its strengths (liquidity, reasonable risk pricing) but temper enthusiasm with mixed signals, reflecting a stock that excites some but leaves others skeptical of timing or valuation.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 97
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 92
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 87
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 76
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 72
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟢 70
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 67
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
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)
🟡 64
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 54
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 48
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)
🔴 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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 32
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 an uptrend (5 bullish · 3 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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High 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
31.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
20.9%
ROA
12.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.41
Cash
$7.65B
Total Debt
$5.12B
Current Ratio
2.29
Debt/Equity
0.15
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 3.9.2026 | $0.260 |
| 27.5.2026 | $0.260 |
| 26.5.2026 | $0.260 |
| 3.3.2026 | $0.260 |
| 2.3.2026 | $0.260 |
| 26.11.2025 | $0.250 |
| 25.11.2025 | $0.250 |
| 4.9.2025 | $0.250 |
| 3.9.2025 | $0.250 |
| 27.5.2025 | $0.250 |
| 26.5.2025 | $0.250 |
| 4.3.2025 | $0.250 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$30.57
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$28.17
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 7 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Newmont (NEM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 64/100, 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.
NEM currently scores 64/100 (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.
NEM's technical score is 62/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 21.3%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 118.8%; Net income growth: 111.6%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend; Price is in the lower third of the Bollinger Bands (23%B) — weakness (chance of a recovery).
Yes — NEM 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 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beaven Peter David | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.9.2026 | 1,092 | +1,092 | — |
| Toth Peter | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $123.00 |
| Viljoen Natascha | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 3,882 | -3,882 | $123.00 |
| BOYCE GREGORY H | Gift | 24.8.2026 | 0 | -46,871 | — |
| BOYCE GREGORY H | Gift | 24.8.2026 | 46,871 | +46,871 | — |
| BOYCE GREGORY H | Gift | 24.8.2026 | 46,871 | -46,871 | — |
| BOYCE GREGORY H | Gift | 24.8.2026 | 46,871 | +46,871 | — |
| Viljoen Natascha | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 7,764 | -7,764 | $104.00 |
| Tabolt Brian | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 11,445 | -11,445 | $105.09 |
| Tabolt Brian | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 29,324 | -11,445 | $105.09 |
| Viljoen Natascha | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 135,235 | -7,764 | $104.00 |
| Toth Peter | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $93.45 |
| Toth Peter | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 40,315 | -3,000 | $93.45 |
| Wexler Peter | Tax Withholding in Shares | 28.7.2026 | 2,291 | -2,291 | $93.47 |
| Wexler Peter | Tax Withholding in Shares | 28.7.2026 | 70,923 | -2,291 | $93.47 |
| Wexler Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 5,349 | +5,349 | — |
| Fry David James | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 3,691 | +3,691 | — |
| Thornton David John | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 2,674 | +2,674 | — |
| Tabolt Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 7,275 | +7,275 | — |
| Rodgers Mark C | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 6,954 | +6,954 | — |
| Tabolt Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 40,769 | +7,275 | — |
| Wexler Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 73,214 | +5,349 | — |
| Rodgers Mark C | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 32,710 | +6,954 | — |
| Thornton David John | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,837 | +2,674 | — |
| Fry David James | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 20,838 | +3,691 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
17,161,938 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 18,473,173 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.1% 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