Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$284.77
▼ $0.91 (-0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/17 06:03 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$61.06B
Day Range
$281.09 - $288.61
52-Week Range
$144.14 - $307.94
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
TRGP is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+76.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/31 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
🟡 Mixed
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: 47.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$44.03 vs. price $284.77 (-115.5%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (62/100), 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 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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
58
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
62
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
59
Risk
36
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
55
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING TRGP...
Recent media coverage of **Targa Resources** highlights its strategic growth in the energy midstream sector, particularly in the Permian Basin. Analysts from **Wells Fargo** and **RBC Capital** have raised their price targets ($324 and $338, respectively) while maintaining **Overweight/Outperform** ratings, citing strong long-term contracts with major producers like **ExxonMobil**, including a 20-year agreement covering gas gathering and NGL transportation through 2046. The company’s expansion projects and commercial deals are noted as key drivers of its growth runway.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Targa Resources. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
27
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
33
Fundamentals
55
Technical
59
Valuation
38
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+11%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+23
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** state (52) reflects TRGP’s slight outperformance today (+1.5%) relative to peers (+1.0%), consistent with investors mirroring sector moves. The **narrative gap** (12-point discrepancy) suggests traders may overestimate positive momentum despite weak technicals (RSI 55, negative ROC). **Euphoria** (19) hints at cautious optimism from the 200-day outperformance, but the lack of momentum undermines extreme bullishness. The key question: *Will this herding persist, or will fading momentum break the trend?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 08:31 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Wells Fargo raises price target from $282 to $324"
"20-year integrated fee-based midstream agreements locking in acreage through 2046"
"new commercial agreements and projects supporting Permian expansion"
"monthly dividend stocks yielding 10–14% for early retirement income"
📈 6D 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 — 78/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on their documented principles, the model estimates that Veblen, Lynch, Nelson and Mackay assign relatively high scores (71‑63), reflecting a view that the stock shows growth and some market enthusiasm, whereas Livermore, the efficient‑market view, Smith and Schwager sit near the middle (44‑51) and conclude there is no clear edge. In contrast, Marks (both cycle and risk lenses), Fisher, Loeb, Housel, Bagehot and Graham all give low scores (0‑36), emphasizing late‑cycle risk, insufficient quality, liquidity and valuation concerns. The divergence stems from each methodology’s emphasis—growth‑oriented or crowd‑driven frameworks versus value, risk‑adjusted or liquidity‑focused criteria. Consequently, the simulated assessments range from cautiously optimistic to strongly warning, illustrating how the same data can be interpreted very differently across historical investment philosophies.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 78
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 54
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 51
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 49
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
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)
🔴 33
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 32
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 28
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat 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)
🔴 26
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 22
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 18
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 1
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 278 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 4 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 clear uptrend 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
38.3%
Operating Margin
19.6%
Net Margin
11.3%
EBITDA Margin
28.5%
ROE
62.7%
ROA
7.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$8.52
Cash
$166.10M
Total Debt
$17.43B
Current Ratio
0.67
Debt/Equity
5.68
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 31.7.2026 | $1.250 |
| 30.7.2026 | $1.250 |
| 30.4.2026 | $1.250 |
| 29.4.2026 | $1.250 |
| 30.1.2026 | $1.000 |
| 29.1.2026 | $1.000 |
| 31.10.2025 | $1.000 |
| 30.10.2025 | $1.000 |
| 31.7.2025 | $1.000 |
| 30.7.2025 | $1.000 |
| 30.4.2025 | $1.000 |
| 29.4.2025 | $1.000 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$284.77
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$44.03
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-115.5%
🔴 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% | $554.89M | $509.08M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $537.55M | $452.45M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $530.84M | $409.90M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $534.15M | $378.41M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $547.51M | $355.84M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$584.10M
Terminal Value
$8.63B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.61B
Enterprise Value
$7.72B
Net Debt
$17.27B
Equity Value
$-9.55B
*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
$14.14
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.01
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 28.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Targa Resources (TRGP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, 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.
TRGP currently scores 58/100 (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, TRGP's estimated fair value is -$44.03, which is 115.5% below the current price of $284.77. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TRGP's technical score is 59/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 47.9%; Net income growth: 46.6%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$44.03 vs. price $284.77 (-115.5%); Current ratio: 0.67; Free cash flow growth: -14.6%.
Yes — TRGP 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 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perkins Joe Bob | Gift | 3.9.2026 | 8,370 | -8,370 | — |
| Chung Paul W | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 816 | -816 | $297.00 |
| Chung Paul W | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $295.38 |
| Secrest Brent B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| CRISP CHARLES R | Gift | 25.8.2026 | 65,292 | -1,200 | — |
| CRISP CHARLES R | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 62,292 | -3,000 | $290.23 |
| CRISP CHARLES R | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $290.23 |
| CRISP CHARLES R | Gift | 25.8.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | — |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,119 | -270 | $302.47 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,543 | -254 | $298.68 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,389 | -154 | $300.18 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 2,797 | -692 | $297.38 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 3,489 | -440 | $296.39 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 1,529 | -590 | $303.81 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 270 | -270 | $302.47 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 590 | -590 | $303.81 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 254 | -254 | $298.68 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 692 | -692 | $297.38 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 440 | -440 | $296.39 |
| Davis Waters S IV | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 154 | -154 | $300.18 |
| Chung Paul W | Gift | 20.8.2026 | 30,479 | -1,000 | — |
| Chung Paul W | Gift | 20.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| Muraro Robert | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.8.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Eklof John Christopher | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 578 | -578 | $270.37 |
| Branstetter Benjamin James | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.8.2026 | 1,346 | -1,346 | $270.37 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,366,594 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,596,420 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
73.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 66.3% 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