Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$280.92
▼ $3.07 (-1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/16 11:31 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$166.89B
Day Range
$280.32 - $288.33
52-Week Range
$215.53 - $315.99
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
UNP is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+30.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/30 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
🔴 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: $84.55 vs. price $280.92 (-69.9%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
49
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
50
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
29
Risk
36
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
61
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING UNP...
Recent media coverage of Union Pacific Corporation has centered on its proposed merger with Norfolk Southern, with over 100 House Democrats urging regulators to prioritize rail jobs in the review process. Investor attention has also focused on Union Pacific’s stock performance, including its strong long-term returns and recent market valuation, alongside speculation about potential stock price movements based on options trading activity. Regulatory deadlines for the merger review have been extended, keeping the deal in the spotlight.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Union Pacific Corporation. News trend score: 86. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 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
95
Fundamentals
61
Technical
29
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+9%
Market Narrative
61
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+21
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
UNP’s psychology is dominated by anchoring, as traders fixate on the 1.3% proximity to support despite weak momentum and extreme valuation. Overconfidence (45) and euphoria (21) persist due to the stock’s outsized premium to DCF, suggesting investors cling to outdated benchmarks. The narrative-reality gap (13) hints at misaligned expectations, but the lack of panic (17) or FOMO (2) implies cautious, not reckless, behavior. The key question: will traders break free from support anchoring, or will they double down on overvalued fundamentals?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:31 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"102 House Democrats urged the Surface Transportation Board to prioritize rail jobs in its review of the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger."
"$1000 invested in Union Pacific 20 years ago would be worth significantly more, outperforming the market by 4.93% annually."
"Union Pacific’s share price has slipped about 6.7% over the past week due to regulatory moves."
"Investors need to pay close attention to UNP stock based on movements in the options market lately."
📈 4D 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 — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 3/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with the highest scores coming from technical and cyclical investors like Samuel Armstrong Nelson (94) and Thorstein Veblen (80), who see it as either oversold or aligned with real value creation. Meanwhile, value-focused legends like Benjamin Graham (1) and his Enterprising Investor variant (3) dismiss it outright, citing a lack of statistical cheapness or defensive traits. The middle ground is occupied by disciplined traders like Jack Schwager (68) and Howard Marks (65), who see potential but temper it with concerns about reward/risk or market positioning, while behavioral investors like Morgan Housel (23) and Peter Lynch (19) warn of volatility or insufficient growth. The contrast highlights a tension between cyclical/technical optimism and deep-value skepticism, with only a few methodologies finding a cautious middle path.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 64
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 58
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 45
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 42
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 32
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)
🔴 25
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 25
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 19
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)
🔴 9
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)
🔴 3
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
🔴 3
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.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 9 bearish · 0 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
$280.16
Range Bottom
$315.99
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
—
Operating Margin
40.2%
Net Margin
29.1%
EBITDA Margin
40.2%
ROE
38.7%
ROA
10.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$12.00
Cash
$1.27B
Total Debt
$31.81B
Current Ratio
0.91
Debt/Equity
1.72
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 31.8.2026 | $1.420 |
| 29.5.2026 | $1.380 |
| 28.5.2026 | $1.380 |
| 27.2.2026 | $1.380 |
| 26.2.2026 | $1.380 |
| 5.12.2025 | $1.380 |
| 4.12.2025 | $1.380 |
| 29.8.2025 | $1.380 |
| 28.8.2025 | $1.380 |
| 30.5.2025 | $1.340 |
| 29.5.2025 | $1.340 |
| 28.2.2025 | $1.340 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$280.92
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$84.55
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-69.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-0.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -0.5% | $5.47B | $5.02B |
| 2 | 0.3% | $5.49B | $4.62B |
| 3 | 1.0% | $5.54B | $4.28B |
| 4 | 1.8% | $5.64B | $4.00B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $5.78B | $3.76B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$5.50B
Terminal Value
$91.17B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$59.25B
Enterprise Value
$80.93B
Net Debt
$30.55B
Equity Value
$50.38B
*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
$30.99
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$30.99
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 8 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
CNBC · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
PR Newswire · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Union Pacific Corporation (UNP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
UNP currently scores 49/100 (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, UNP's estimated fair value is $84.55, which is 69.9% below the current price of $280.92. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
UNP's technical score is 29/100, which currently reads as bearish — 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; Return on equity (ROE): 38.7% — strong; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $84.55 vs. price $280.92 (-69.9%); Current ratio: 0.91; Free cash flow growth: -6.7%.
Yes — UNP 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jalali Rahul | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 5.123 | +5.123 | $285.78 |
| Rocker Kenyatta G | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 2.603 | +2.603 | $285.78 |
| Conlin Christina B | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 2.222 | +2.222 | $285.78 |
| Hamann Jennifer L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 7.38 | +7.38 | $285.78 |
| Powers Carrie J | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 5.529 | +5.529 | $285.78 |
| Rocker Kenyatta G | Gift | 4.9.2026 | 431 | -431 | — |
| Conlin Christina B | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 2.173 | +2.173 | $292.24 |
| Hamann Jennifer L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 7.955 | +7.955 | $292.24 |
| Powers Carrie J | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 5.407 | +5.407 | $292.24 |
| Rocker Kenyatta G | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 2.545 | +2.545 | $292.24 |
| Jalali Rahul | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 8.212 | +8.212 | $292.24 |
| Powers Carrie J | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 5.506 | +5.506 | $286.96 |
| Conlin Christina B | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 2.213 | +2.213 | $286.96 |
| Jalali Rahul | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 8.364 | +8.364 | $286.96 |
| Rocker Kenyatta G | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 2.592 | +2.592 | $286.96 |
| Rocker Kenyatta G | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 4.879 | +4.879 | $286.96 |
| Hamann Jennifer L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 8.102 | +8.102 | $286.96 |
| Conlin Christina B | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 16,009 | +2 | $286.96 |
| Powers Carrie J | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 8,136 | +6 | $286.96 |
| Jalali Rahul | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 33,123 | +8 | $286.96 |
| Hamann Jennifer L | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 114,667 | +8 | $286.96 |
| Rocker Kenyatta G | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 1,306 | +3 | $286.96 |
| Rocker Kenyatta G | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 61,133 | +5 | $286.96 |
| Simons Doyle | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 305 | +305 | $277.73 |
| Will W Anthony | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 159 | +159 | $277.73 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
27,740,373 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 26,281,287 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.1% 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