Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$147.55
▲ $0.53 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/17 11:29 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$342.97B
Day Range
$146.35 - $147.78
52-Week Range
$137.62 - $167.25
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
PG 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.
-7.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/31 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
🟢 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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $89.50 vs. price $147.55 (-39.3%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-0.7%
Median 40D Outcome
78/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+2.8% … +5.4%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.7% … -0.2%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-5.0% … -3.4%
📌 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 +0.1%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
9 occurrence(s) · 56% 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%) | +0.3% | -1.7% … +1.5% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | +0.2% | -2.3% … +3.0% | +0.5% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.1% | -3.5% … +3.3% | +0.6% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.7% | -5.8% … +1.8% | +1.0% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -2.5% | -5.9% … +3.5% | +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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-08 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -5.4% | -8.3% |
| 2023-10-26 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +1.1% | +1.5% |
| 2023-03-15 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.0% | +3.3% |
| 2024-01-17 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +3.8% | +3.6% |
| 2020-07-01 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +9.5% | +14.7% |
| 2022-07-27 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.1% | -12.8% |
| 2023-07-06 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +3.3% | -4.0% |
| 2025-11-21 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -5.5% | +6.5% |
| 2021-05-25 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -4.0% | +4.7% |
| 2026-06-08 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +2.3% | +1.8% |
| 2024-11-19 | 73/100 | Consolidation | -1.0% | -2.5% |
| 2025-06-03 | 73/100 | Consolidation | -3.4% | -6.7% |
| 2025-02-27 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -1.9% | -3.6% |
| 2025-02-05 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +3.3% | -5.0% |
| 2025-08-22 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -3.5% | -8.1% |
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
62
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
58
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
64
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
70
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING PG...
Recent media coverage of Procter & Gamble highlights concerns over stagnant growth and margin pressures, with analysts like Jim Cramer questioning its long-term valuation. The company faces a $1.4 billion earnings headwind in fiscal 2027 due to rising costs and currency fluctuations, while its defensive stock status has been called into question amid uneven performance compared to peers like Coca-Cola and Johnson & Johnson. Despite its long-standing dividend reliability, investors remain cautious about its ability to sustain profitability amid market challenges.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Procter & Gamble. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 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)
40
Psychology
48
Fundamentals
70
Technical
64
Valuation
38
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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
79
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+39
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests traders are exhibiting **overconfidence** (score 47) as price momentum outpaces fundamentals and valuation exceeds intrinsic estimates. The **narrative gap** (78 vs. 40) implies optimism may outstrip realistic expectations, while **euphoria** (35) and **FOMO** (23) reinforce speculative positioning. The key question: *Will traders sustain overvaluation or adjust as peers diverge?* **Herding** (43) hints at relative underperformance scrutiny, but anchoring (15) may delay corrective action until support is tested.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"PG faces a $1.4 billion after-tax earnings headwind in fiscal 2027 as rising costs, FX pressure and other factors weigh on margins."
"The consumer staples company has consistently raised its dividend for seven decades now."
"Three defensive blue chips entered 2026 promising safety, but their returns split into wildly different tiers, and the reason one name lapped the others exposes a fault line."
"We know that Procter has no growth."
📈 8D 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 — 70/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing it as a long-term hold and others flagging it as risky or overvalued. Morgan Housel and Edgar Lawrence Smith’s high scores reflect their focus on patient, compounding growth—both models estimate the stock aligns well with their principles of steady, decade-long accumulation. However, more valuation-conscious frameworks like Benjamin Graham’s and Peter Lynch’s dismiss it outright, scoring it poorly due to perceived overvaluation or lack of a strong growth-at-reasonable-price case. Meanwhile, cyclical or trend-following approaches—such as Jesse Livermore’s or Samuel Nelson’s—warn of overbought conditions or negative momentum, contrasting sharply with the bullishness of the patient, qualitative investors. Even Howard Marks, who typically balances risk and reward, finds the risk/valuation mix unappealing, while Philip Fisher’s absence of quality/growth signals further dampens enthusiasm.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 70
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)
🟢 66
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 57
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 50
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 41
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 41
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 23
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)
🔴 23
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 18
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 16
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 16
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
🔴 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 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$140.20
Range Bottom
$154.32
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
50.2%
Operating Margin
22.7%
Net Margin
18.4%
EBITDA Margin
26.3%
ROE
29.5%
ROA
12.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.75
Cash
$9.94B
Total Debt
$29.30B
Current Ratio
0.68
Debt/Equity
0.54
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.7.2026 | $1.089 |
| 23.7.2026 | $1.089 |
| 24.4.2026 | $1.089 |
| 23.4.2026 | $1.089 |
| 23.1.2026 | $1.057 |
| 22.1.2026 | $1.057 |
| 24.10.2025 | $1.057 |
| 23.10.2025 | $1.057 |
| 18.7.2025 | $1.057 |
| 17.7.2025 | $1.057 |
| 21.4.2025 | $1.057 |
| 20.4.2025 | $1.057 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$147.55
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$89.50
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-39.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.0% | $15.45B | $14.18B |
| 2 | 2.1% | $15.78B | $13.28B |
| 3 | 2.3% | $16.14B | $12.46B |
| 4 | 2.4% | $16.52B | $11.70B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $16.93B | $11.01B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$15.15B
Terminal Value
$267.03B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$173.55B
Enterprise Value
$236.18B
Net Debt
$19.36B
Equity Value
$216.82B
*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
$22.42
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$3.47
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 10 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Procter & Gamble (PG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 62/100, 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.
PG currently scores 62/100 (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, PG's estimated fair value is $89.50, which is 39.3% below the current price of $147.55. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PG's technical score is 64/100, 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; ATR: 1.7% of price; Return on equity (ROE): 29.5% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $89.50 vs. price $147.55 (-39.3%); Current ratio: 0.68; Calmar: -0.07 (3y annualized return -1.6% / max drawdown 23.2%).
Yes — PG 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 19 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McCarthy Christine M | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 258 | +258 | — |
| Portman Robert Jones | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 52 | +52 | — |
| JIMENEZ JOSEPH | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 327 | +327 | — |
| ARNOLD CRAIG | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 207 | +207 | — |
| Kempczinski Christopher J | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 250 | +250 | — |
| McEvoy Ashley | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.9.2026 | 207 | +207 | — |
| Janzaruk Matthew W. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 359 | -359 | $145.24 |
| Janzaruk Matthew W. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 1,271 | -359 | $145.24 |
| Raman Sundar G. | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 3,435 | -3,435 | $143.02 |
| Raman Sundar G. | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 47,745 | -3,435 | $143.02 |
| Purushothaman Balaji | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 2,019 | -2,019 | $143.79 |
| Gama Paul | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 3,396 | -3,396 | $143.79 |
| Pritchard Marc S. | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 4,030 | -4,030 | $143.79 |
| Jejurikar Shailesh | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 6,176 | -6,176 | $143.79 |
| Janzaruk Matthew W. | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 156 | -156 | $143.79 |
| Santos de Azevedo Juliana Monteiro | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 2,368 | -2,368 | $143.79 |
| Abd El Hak Hesham | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 1,936 | -1,936 | $143.79 |
| Schulten Andre | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 5,402 | -5,402 | $143.79 |
| Whaley Susan Street | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 2,238 | -2,238 | $143.79 |
| Bharucha Freddy P. | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 246 | -246 | $143.79 |
| Aguilar Moses Victor Javier | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 49,511 | -3,053 | $143.79 |
| Pritchard Marc S. | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 187,001 | -4,030 | $143.79 |
| Gama Paul | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 40,832 | -3,396 | $143.79 |
| Bharucha Freddy P. | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 1,965 | -246 | $143.79 |
| Purushothaman Balaji | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 15,477 | -2,019 | $143.79 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
28,151,807 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 27,107,761 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
25.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 29.5% 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