Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$211.10
▼ $2.23 (-1.0%)
Market data updated: 09/21 01:31 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$84.38B
Day Range
$211.00 - $212.99
52-Week Range
$194.11 - $248.13
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$211.00
Resistance
$247.15
WM is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-2.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/29 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
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: 0.89
Risk
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
47
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
43
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
13
Risk
44
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
58
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING WM...
Recent media coverage of Waste Management has primarily focused on its strong financial performance and investor interest. The company’s stock has shown resilience, outperforming market benchmarks in recent trading sessions while maintaining a moderately optimistic analyst outlook. Bill Gates’ Cascade Investment fund has been actively accumulating shares, highlighting confidence in Waste Management’s long-term potential. Additionally, comparisons with competitors like Waste Connections and Republic Services underscore its competitive position in the waste management sector, driven by acquisitions, pricing power, and operational efficiency.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Waste Management. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 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)
41
Psychology
99
Fundamentals
58
Technical
13
Valuation
50
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.
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+19
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (75) reflects traders focusing on the 1.2% proximity to support, likely using it as a reference point for entry/exit decisions. Herding (41) hints at relative underperformance relative to peers, but the low FOMO/Panic scores (6/15) imply limited urgency. The narrative gap (4) suggests slight misalignment between market expectations and fundamentals, but no extreme bias is active. The key question: *Will traders break the 1.2% support anchor, or will it hold as a psychological floor?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 09:34 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Dividend Champion, Contender, And Challenger Highlights: Week September 6 — Explore this week’s dividend updates for Dividend Champions, Contenders & Challengers"
"Bill Gates’ Cascade Investment fund has been on a major buying spree in this 'garbage' stock."
"While Waste Management has underperformed relative to the Dow over the past year, Wall Street analysts maintain a moderately optimistic outlook on the stock’s prospects."
"Waste Connections gains 8.6% in three months as market tailwinds, acquisitions and strong cash generation support its growth momentum."
📈 10D 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 — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with some models seeing it as a compelling long-term opportunity while others flag it as risky or overvalued. The highest-scoring approaches—like those of Nelson, Mackay, and Smith—emphasize its cyclical strength, low crowd participation, or potential for decade-long compounding, suggesting a patient, value-oriented investor might find merit. Meanwhile, more contrarian or trend-following frameworks, such as Livermore’s and Graham’s, dismiss it outright, citing either a negative trend or failure to meet defensive valuation thresholds. The middle ground, represented by Marks and Fisher, acknowledges moderate risk but still sees room for reasonable returns, while the efficient-market and Veblen models warn against overpaying for growth that may lack true substance. The stark contrast reflects whether the stock’s fundamentals or market positioning align with a methodology’s core principles—from cyclical timing to defensive valuation.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 62
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 58
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 54
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 51
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 41
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 37
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 30
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 7
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 (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
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
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 bearish · 1 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
40.4%
Operating Margin
17.1%
Net Margin
10.7%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
27.1%
ROA
5.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.72
Cash
$201.00M
Total Debt
$711.00M
Current Ratio
0.89
Debt/Equity
2.29
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 11.9.2026 | $0.945 |
| 5.6.2026 | $0.945 |
| 4.6.2026 | $0.945 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.945 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.945 |
| 5.12.2025 | $0.825 |
| 4.12.2025 | $0.825 |
| 12.9.2025 | $0.825 |
| 11.9.2025 | $0.825 |
| 6.6.2025 | $0.825 |
| 5.6.2025 | $0.825 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.825 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$24.79
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 9 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Waste Management (WM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
WM currently scores 47/100 (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.
WM's technical score is 13/100, 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; ATR: 1.8% of price; Return on equity (ROE): 27.1% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.89; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -1.6%; Net income growth: -1.4%.
Yes — WM 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 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carroll John A. | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 1,365 | -1,365 | $219.90 |
| Stith Kimberly G. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.9.2026 | 356 | -356 | $220.13 |
| Carroll John A. | Gift | 28.8.2026 | 4,874 | +4,874 | — |
| Carroll John A. | Gift | 28.8.2026 | 4,109 | -4,874 | — |
| Carroll John A. | Gift | 28.8.2026 | 4,873.939 | +4,873.939 | — |
| Carroll John A. | Gift | 28.8.2026 | 4,873.939 | -4,873.939 | — |
| Reed David L. | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 5,357.168 | -5,357.168 | — |
| Reed David L. | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 5,357.168 | +5,357.168 | — |
| Reed David L. | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 3,137 | -5,357 | — |
| Reed David L. | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 5,357 | +5,357 | — |
| Carrasco Rafael | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 2,655 | -2,655 | $220.47 |
| Carrasco Rafael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 2,655 | +2,655 | $126.01 |
| Carrasco Rafael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 2,655 | -2,655 | $126.01 |
| Carrasco Rafael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 18,195 | +2,655 | $126.01 |
| Carrasco Rafael | Open Market Sale | 5.6.2026 | 15,540 | -2,655 | $220.47 |
| Carrasco Rafael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 0 | -2,655 | $126.01 |
| Hemmer Tara J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 2,544 | +2,544 | — |
| Dalby Marcel | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 2,257 | +2,257 | — |
| Morris John J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.5.2026 | 566 | -566 | $220.49 |
| Morris John J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.5.2026 | 99,363 | -566 | $220.49 |
| Hemmer Tara J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 81,462 | +2,544 | — |
| Dalby Marcel | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 5,867 | +2,257 | — |
| Bene Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 861 | +861 | $220.71 |
| Chinn Bruce E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 861 | +861 | $220.71 |
| Gluski Andres | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 861 | +861 | $220.71 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,787,760 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 6,196,303 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.6% 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