METANMSbearOPERATING CO.judged on execution & valuationStabilizing
Meta Platforms, Inc. ·
After hours
$597.30
▲+2.38 (+0.40%)
At close
$594.92
▲ +0.48%
Aug 10, 2026 · 4:00 PM ET · 2026-08-11T11:14:56+00:00
Mkt cap$1.52T
P/E · fwd22.3 · 16.9
Div yield0.35%
Beta 1y1.41
Volume14.95M0.82× avg
52-wk range -25.3%520796
The five reads
At a glance the decision-relevant reads, first
GLOBAL TAPE
Overseas lean0.00%
FrankfurtFB2A0.00%⏱
MéxicoMETA*0.00%⏱
ZurichMETA0.00%⏱
StockholmMETA0.00%⏱
London0QZI0.00%⏱
Track record · free & ungated
We grade our price-band calls in public
Each forward price band is logged the day it's set and scored when it resolves — misses included. 5 bands have resolved so far — not yet enough for a hit-rate that would mean anything, so none is shown. This builds in the open, not behind the paywall.
15
bands logged
5
resolved so far
Building
status
The calibration ledger stays free, always — a track record can't sit behind a paywall.
Price action
Price & quote
Live quote refreshed every 15 minutes against the full daily snapshot.
The readHolding bidfact
Where the price sits inside today's range and its 52-week range, plus how it's performed over time. This is the raw quote — the same number everywhere, just faster.
◆ Death cross◇ Broadening range50-day sits below the 200-day — bearish long-term structure.
Drag or arrow-key the chart for daily OHLCV · 126 sessions through Aug 10, 2026 · prev close $592.10 (dashed)
Open●
$599.13
Prev close●
$592.10
Volume●
14.95M
avg 18.15M
Rel. volume◐
0.82×
below normal
Market cap●
$1.52T
Shares out●
2.21B
float 2.20B
Day range
$592.03$608.21
52-week range ◐
$520.26$796.25
-25.3% from high+14.4% above low
The QTick signal
QTick proprietary signal
A transparent point tally — bull evidence minus bear evidence — read over ~30 days. Faster factors time the swing; slower ones (quality, 13F, forensics) weigh in as longer-horizon context. A model-based prior, not advice.
~30-day swing read · graded vs S&Puncalibrated prior · track record buildingstrength is the tally magnitude, not a probability
Price-factor lean — not shown at this market cap (these factors carry no validated edge above small-cap).
Where this is validated: survivorship-free factor study (micro/small caps only), |t|>3.2. Cohort-relative ranking, not a price forecast or buy/sell advice. Calibration tracked live.
-5
net · leaning
0 bull / 3 bear factors
Factor breakdown 8 factors · signed points sum to net -5●
Analyst moves90d—
Earnings4 quarters-2 pts
latest EPS missed by 14%
Insider flow120d-1 pts
net insider selling ($12,633,504 across 54 sell(s)) in 120d
Estimate revisionsWeeks-2 pts
estimate revisions trending down (drift conviction 18/100)
Sentiment1–30d—
Longer-horizon context weighs the read · not a 30-day timing call
Institutional (13F)Latest 13F—
5 institutional holder(s) added/opened last quarter (demoted — validated negative IC, not scored (QUANT_SIGNAL.md))
Quality / valueTTM—
Filing forensicsLatest FY—
Risk flagsDaily—
Net tally
-5
0 bull − 5 bear
Factors agreeing
0↑ 3↓
of 9 tracked
Read strength
leaning
30d horizon
Strongest factor
Earnings
-2 pts
Model
QTick Engine
META track record
Building
5 of 15 resolved
Forensic flags filing red flags · backtested edge where shown●
Revenue-timing languagerevenue-recognition timing language worth watching
Territory — competitor / supplier graph ●
6098.TPeer+22.8%
GOOGLCompetitor+0.9%
GOOGPeer+0.7%
SPOTPeer+4.9%
NBISPeer-2.1%
Where the reads agree
Cross-category read
A decorrelated view across the categories already scored elsewhere on this page — where they agree, where they conflict, and how lopsided the split is. Not a new signal, a different angle on ones that already exist.
Category reads n=5 categories voting
Eventleans down
Positioningleans down
Streetleans down
Trendleans down
Riskleans up n=4
1 lean up, 4 lean down — modal read: bear.
Where they conflict
Risk leans up while Event leans down.
Risk leans up while Street leans down.
Risk leans up while Trend leans down.
1 of 5 weighted reads lean the other way — minority weight share 0%.
Named patterns
Tape is deteriorating with risk flags lit.partial descriptive — a pattern in the current reads, not a validated signal
Cheap, but low-quality and credit-stressed.partial descriptive — a pattern in the current reads, not a validated signal
High quality, solvent and trending.partial descriptive — a pattern in the current reads, not a validated signal
Trend, crowded short positioning and option fuel.partial descriptive — a pattern in the current reads, not a validated signal
Tape turning up while fundamentals/credit are still stressed.partial descriptive — a pattern in the current reads, not a validated signal
Trend that is heavily rate/macro-driven.partial descriptive — a pattern in the current reads, not a validated signal
↳ In detail
A pattern, not a validated signal
This regroups categories the page already scores elsewhere into one cross-category view — it does not add a new tally. Descriptive only — a decorrelated read of where the evidence agrees and conflicts, not a forecast and not advice. Patterns are condition lists, not outcome predictions, and are not yet validated to the proof bar.
-5 net
leaning
0 bull / 3 bear factors
Red-Flag X-Ray
Accounting quality · red-flag scan
One integrity score (0–100) from a set of accounting checks that look for red flags. Higher is safer — and we show the checks it passed, not just the ones it failed.
How we test · 7 forensic testsA clear result ships as openly as a flag — and the tests that don't fire are published in full. No survivorship bias.
Share dilution / SBC creepFires when shares outstanding rise materially or stock-based comp outpaces buybacks.
Distress (Altman-Z, negative equity)Fires on balance-sheet fragility. For banks we substitute regulatory capital (CET1).
Margin trajectoryFires on multi-quarter gross / operating margin erosion.
Going-concern languageNLP scan of filings for material-doubt or going-concern wording.
Filing timelinessFires on late / NT (non-timely) filings and restatements.
Insider selling into strengthFires on discretionary insider sells during price strength; 10b5-1 plans down-weighted.
Analyst-downgrade momentumFires on clusters of net downgrades and target cuts.
Odds & pullback risk
Setup & odds
Which way the next move is more likely to go — and how overstretched the price looks right now.
The readSkews upsidewhere it sitsuncalibrated prior · not a forecast
How the likely upside compares with the downside, and how stretched the price is — odds, not timing.
Upside vs downside · 12m ◐
Upside 53.7%46.1% Downside
Skew favours upside · base rate 50/50
Historically, names tripping 0 validated red flags finished lower 12 months later in 46% of cases (n=20,692) — a survivor-biased floor, not a forecast. · n=20,692
Expected move · 1wk◐±—
Upside target◐$604.74 +1.7% · level, not a call
Invalidation / stop◐$588.56 -1.1% · level, not a call
Reward : risk◐1.5 : 1
BullClose above $605 opens continuation.
BaseChop between stop and target into the next catalyst.
BearA break of $589 invalidates the setup.
Pullback risk · experimental ◐
LowElevatedHigh
Historically, large names in this tape state saw a ≥10% pullback within 63 trading days in 78% of cases (n=5,188).
1.23×the segment norm — 78% saw a ≥10% pullback within 63dn=5,188 · observational
Resolved up vs down · 63d◐64% up · 36% down same historical group as the pullback read · 5,188 cases · flat outcomes count on neither side — a historical rate, not a call
Conditioned on◐neutral · high vol · neg momentum the past setups matched against this one
1.23× the large unconditional rate
price is at the modeled bottom zone (3/6 bottoming checks met) — risk word capped at In line
tape state: neutral
↳ In detail
How to read the odds
This is a historical rate, and an experimental one: across 25 years, stocks in the same state — same segment, same price phase, same volatility, same momentum — pulled back this often. The record is built from today's list of companies, so names that delisted along the way are missing and each stock's current segment is projected backward; the rates lean toward survivors until that rebuild lands. Compare the multiple against the segment rather than the bare percentage — recent years run higher than the full 25-year record. None of it predicts timing.
The structure under the price ●
Support band●$577.29 – $591.95 -0.5% from spot · level, not a call
pivot low●$594.26 basis
pivot low●$592.05 basis
s1●$588.56 basis
~68%of bands like this held 21 days after a touch — about the same as any comparable support level. Structure, not a prediction.n=40,800 · observational
Bottom confirmation●3 of 6 signs in find-bottom score 48/100 — pinned to 0 until the checklist clears
Capitulation flush, then quiet●in
Selling volume dried up●not yet
A higher low printed●in
Back above the 20-day line●not yet
Momentum diverging up●not yet
Heaviest volume on an up day●in
85%of confirmed bottoming reads still saw a ≥10% drawdown inside the next quarter (25-year study) — confirmation marks a turn forming, not safety.n=1,203 · observational
Trend & technical structure
Trend & technicals
The price chart's vital signs, in plain English. Expand any row for what it actually means for you.
The readDowntrendwhere it sitsmoving-average posture · fact
Moving averages describe the direction; RSI and the bands describe how stretched the move is. Neither predicts the next one.
Average prices (the trend)
Price vs 200-day●-5.5%
Momentum, bands & levels
↳ In detail
The simple version
When price sits aboveits averages with momentum rising, the trend is healthy. When RSI is near the extremes or the price looks "stretched," the move is overdone and often takes a breather. Think of these as a weather report — conditions, not instructions.
Pattern outcomes · derived analysis
Do these patterns even work?
Derived · what patterns actually did
Every charting site detects the pattern. We publish what happened next — the forward win-rate and sample size at each horizon, including the famous patterns that historically meant nothing.
The readForward win-rates, with sample sizewhere it sits
How often each chart pattern was actually followed by a gain, and how many past cases that's based on — including famous ones that didn't work.
Each bar is the win-rate — how often the price was higher that many days after the pattern appeared. The line marks 50%, a coin flip: green beats it, red is worse than chance. Every bar is a platform-wide cohort base rateacross every stock that has shown this pattern (cohort record, not this ticker's own history alone).
Pattern10-day21-day63-day
SidewaysBelow a coin flip
forward win-rate47.5%n=1,436,439
forward win-rate49.0%n=674,534
forward win-rate50.8%n=214,238
slope +0.04 over 40 bars
Shooting starBarely beats chance
forward win-rate51.0%n=160,484
forward win-rate50.8%n=75,442
forward win-rate50.4%n=24,070
long upper shadow, small body at bottom
Snapshot as of 2026-08-11
↳ In detail
Why we show you the losers
Famous reversal signals like a bullish engulfing have historically closed higher less than half the time at short horizons — below a coin flip. We publish the win-rate and the sample size on every cohort, so a 42-case base rate never masquerades as an 8,500-case one. Objective base rates, not forecasts.
Momentum & performance
Momentum / performance
Trailing returns and relative strength versus the benchmark.
The readLaggardwhere it sitsRS percentile vs market
How the stock has returned, and whether it's beating the market. A strong run shows recent leadership — leadership reverses without warning.
Trailing returns
1-month◐-9.4%
3-month◐-0.7%
6-month◐-12.2%
Year-to-date◐-8.5%
1-year◐-22.7%
12-1 momentum◐-11.9%
Relative strength vs S&P 500
42.5
RS-rank percentile vs market
laggingleading
Relative strength line (β-adj)◐-7.39
↳ In detail
What relative strength tells you
A rank of 42.5 means META has outpaced 42.5% of the market over the past year. That is what it has done, not a promise about what comes next — leadership can reverse without warning.
Risk profile
Risk
Volatility and sensitivity, regressed against SPY from adjusted bars — then the landmine check: what could actually go wrong here.
The readLow drawdown riskwhere it sitsvs the ADV-Q5 mega segment base rate · observational
Beta is how much it moves with the market; volatility and the worst drop show how rough the ride has been. Historical context, not a position-size rule.
6.5%6-month large-drawdown risk vs 9.3% for its segment
Low drawdown riskNames like this hit a large drawdown within 6 months at 0.7× the rate of the ADV-Q5 mega segment — observational, never a sell.
Beta · 1-year◐
1.41
more sensitive than market
Beta · 3-year◐
1.44
Realized vol · 30d◐
43.2%
annualized
Max drawdown · 1y●
-33.3%
The drawdown read · 6-month, segment-graded
Where it sits0.7×
LowHigh
vs the ADV-Q5 mega segment base rate · observational
6.5%6-month large-drawdown risk, vs 9.3% for its segment
Max drawdown, trailing year●-0.33 driver
Distance from 52-week high●-0.25 driver
Parkinson range volatility●0.28 driver
Log price (level)●6.39 driver
Observational 6-month large-drawdown risk ranking — not a forecast, not alpha. Historical distress rate for this ADV-Q5 mega segment: 9.3%. This name reads 0.7× that base rate.
Tape state & tail · nightly, adjusted bars
Neutral tape27/100
SettledKnifing
State: neutral — No dominant short-horizon pressure in the tape.
−11.5%a 1-in-200 day for this name — 1.4× what a normal curve expects
↳ In detail
Reading risk
A beta of 1.41 means that, historically, a 1% move in the S&P has come with a ~1.41% move here. Realized vol ran 43% and the largest drawdown observed in the trailing year was 33% — both are what happened, not a bound on what can. The drawdown band above is observational — a risk sort against names of the same segment, blind to balance-sheet failures that never showed in the price.
Failure modes
Coverage
Data not available — failure modes are routed per company type, and only the bank and crypto-treasury rulebooks are validated so far (this name routes as growth)
Macro sensitivity · derived analysis
How rates push this name
Derived · rates & regime
The 10-year yield is public. Its measured pull on this specific stock — and how it trades around the macro calendar — is the derived layer.
The readFalls with rateswhere it sitshow it moved when rates moved · extremes trimmed
How much this stock actually moves when interest rates move, and how it behaves around big economic releases.
Sensitivity to 10Y yield ●
Per +1% in the 10Y yield+1.4%
−120+12
Rates are a Falls with rates for this name
Observations●504 rolling window
Fit · r²●n/a
Measured across 504 daily moves against the 10-year Treasury yield (FRED DGS10). Where the company-level link is weak or the sample is short, we fall back to the sector average rather than print a number we don't trust.
Behaviour around the macro calendar ●
CPI · vs a typical dayn=370.8×
FOMC · vs a typical dayn=381.2×
NFP · vs a typical dayn=390.8×
PCE · vs a typical dayn=380.9×
Latest print · 10-Year Treasury Yield (2026-08-07) read as a tailwind for this name. 10-Year Treasury Yield came in cooler than trend, based on how its sector typically reacts -> a tailwind for this name.
× = how much more this stock moves on each release day vs a normal day. Amber = outsized (≥1.4×). Context, not a directional call.
Volatility regime ◔
The volatility engine runs on market-wide risk channels, not on individual names, so there is no 1-year volatility percentile for this symbol. The realized-volatility and drawdown reads in the risk section are the per-name measures.
Valuation
Valuation
Is the stock cheap or expensive? Each multiple is graded and explained in plain English.
The readPriced in linewhere it sitsagainst its own 5-year range where we have it · standard bands otherwise
Price against earnings, sales, book value and cash flow. We mark the measures that don't apply rather than fake them.
What you pay for earnings
P/E (trailing)●Price ÷ last 12 months of profit; graded vs own 5y history when covered22.3×Cheap
Forward P/E●Price ÷ next year's expected profit16.9×Fair
PEG ratio◐Valuation set against expected growth — lower can look cheaper, but one cutoff is not a verdict1.07Fair
Earnings yield◔Profit as a % of price, like a bond yield4.48%Fair
Earnings yield − risk-free●Earnings yield minus the government-bond yield at the same date+0.19%Spread
Dividend yield●Annual indicated cash dividend as a % of price0.35%Income
What you pay for the business
Price / Sales●Price ÷ annual revenue; graded vs own 5y history when covered7.5×Fair
Price / Book◔Price ÷ net assets on the books6.98×Rich
EV / EBITDA◔Whole-company value ÷ operating cash earnings14.8×Fair
EV / FCF◔Whole-company value ÷ positive free cash flow33.9×Fair
FCF yield◔Free cash flow as a % of market value3.04%Fair
P/E vs own 5y●Five-year median 25.8×29th pctCheap
P/S vs own 5y●Five-year median 8.0×35th pctFair
Peers today territory performance, for valuation context
6098.TPeer+22.8%
GOOGLCompetitor+0.9%
GOOGPeer+0.7%
SPOTPeer+4.9%
NBISPeer-2.1%
Fundamentals & quality
Fundamentals / quality
How good is the underlying business? Scale, profitability and balance-sheet strength, graded.
The readReturns exceed capital costwhere it sitsreturn on capital vs its estimated cost of funding
Scale, profitability and balance sheet, with industrial return on capital compared directly with its estimated funding cost.
Scale & growth
Revenue · TTM◔Total sales over the last 12 months$228.25BScale
EPS · TTM◔Profit earned per share$26.55Profit
Net margin◔Cents of profit kept per $1 of sales30.1%Strong
Revenue growth◔Sales vs a year ago+22.2%Strong
EPS growth◔Profit-per-share vs a year ago-1.6%Weak
Margin trajectory◔Are profit margins widening or shrinking?n/an/a
Returns & balance sheet
ROE◔Profit generated on shareholders' equity27.8%Strong
ROIC●After-tax operating profit earned on the capital the business uses25.9%Strong
WACC●Estimated blended cost of debt and equity11.1%Hurdle
ROIC − WACC●Return on capital above or below its funding cost+14.7%Strong
Incremental ROIC · ~3y●What the last three years of new investment has actually earned+27.7%Strong
Gross / Op margin◔Profitability before & after operating costs82% / 41%Strong
Free cash flow◔Cash left after running & investing$46.11BStrong
Cash self-funding◔Self-funding on trailing free cash flow, or months of cash left at the current burnSelf-fundingCash
Debt / Equity◔Gross borrowings vs equity — negative book equity is not gradeable0.39Strong
Current ratio◔Can it cover near-term bills? Over 1.5 is healthy2.60Strong
Total assets · YoY◔Balance-sheet growth — a fact, not a signal · grew faster than 81% of the measured cross-section · as of 2026-08-09+32.6%Fact
Last filed 2026-08-11
Inventory ledger
The stockroom
Data not available.
Segments & geography
Where the revenue lives
Data not available.
Credit & safety · derived analysis
Distance from insolvency
Derived · distance from default
Not the debt total — how far this company's asset value could fall before its debts get hard to cover, and how that distance ranks against its peers.
The readSolventwhere it sitspercentile vs solvency universe
How far the company sits from real financial distress, plus how it ranks against peers — more than a debt total tells you.
99.95%12-month survival read
None of 5,721 historical observations in this bucket went bankrupt within 12 months — the served 0.05% is a conservative statistical floor, never a claimed zero.
measured against past bankruptcies and delistings · tested on later years (AUC 0.90) · a historical rate, not a credit rating
7.20
σ to default
0.05%model-implied probability of default ●
Filing-forensics flags
0/4
SafeGreyDistress
Model-implied, not a credit rating.It estimates how far the company's assets would have to fall before it couldn't cover its debts, using a standard model (Merton). Higher is safer. (risk-free rate n/a, one-year horizon, asset volatility from —)
Structural snapshot as of 2026-08-11
Distance-to-default band ●
distress · 0cautionsafe8σ+
Debt-service capacity
Interest coverage●186.7× operating income / absolute interest expense
Long-term debt / assets●16.0% as filed; distinct from Merton D/V
↳ In detail
How to read these two ratios
The credit engine uses the same stored thresholds shown here: coverage at or below 1× cannot cover interest, while 8× or more is its comfortable band; long-term debt at 10% of assets or less is its light band, while 60% or more is its heavy band. Missing XBRL tags stay n/a.
Altman solvency ●
Altman Z-Score●7.9 Safe
↳ In detail
Why a percentile, not a number
The absolute Z-Score is shown whenever its filing inputs exist. The cross-sectional percentile is a separate field and stays n/a until a current universe rank is on file.
Forensic accounting ●
CleanNo validated forensic-accounting flags fired for this snapshot.
Dilution radar · derived analysis
Are your shares being diluted?
Derived · ownership erosion
Raw share count is everywhere. The consequence — how fast the count is growing and where that ranks against peers — is the read that matters.
The read—where it sitsdilution percentile vs peers
How fast the share count is changing versus peers, with stock compensation, issuance and repurchases shown separately when covered.
5-year share-count CAGR ●
The CAGR needs annual filings roughly five years apart that both carry a share count. This name's filing history on file does not span that window, so no rate is published — the buyback and stock-comp rows below are measured independently and still hold.
Most-dilutive percentile vs peers
LeastMedianMost
0percentile100
Peer percentile●16th below median
Stock comp / revenue◔10.2% latest fiscal year
Stock comp / OCF◔operating cash flown/a not covered
Gross buyback yield●+1.75% TTM repurchases / market value
Net buyback yield●+1.75% TTM repurchases minus issuance / market value
Indexing needs an unbroken run of annual share counts across the same five-year window the CAGR uses. Where a year is missing — or the reported counts switch share class mid-series — the chart is withheld rather than drawn across the gap.
Analyst & estimates
Analyst & estimates
Consensus, price targets, forward estimates, and the company's recent results versus consensus.
The read—where it sitswhere Wall Street sits · not QTick
Targets matter less than which way estimates are heading and how often the company beats them.
The consensus EPS level, the share of analysts raising, and the realised beat-rate all come from the same estimate capture, which does not cover this name. The rating, target band and street moves above are from a separate source and are current.
EPS surprise history ●
No reported-vs-estimate pairs on file for this name
Recent rating changes ●
Earnings bias · derived analysis
How this name behaves into the print
Earnings habit
The street's consensus-surprise habit — whether estimates run conservative or aggressive against what the company reports, not management's own guidance — the beat streak graded against names with the same profile, and what the tape does on good news.
The readSerial beaterwhere it sitsvalidated base rates · graded out-of-time
Whether the street sandbags this name, how often a beat streak like this persists (with its sample size), and what the tape does with good news.
80%of names with this beat profile beat againn=33,668 · observational
Consensus habit · trailing 8 quarters
Consensus-surprise habit●not management guidanceconsensus runs low for this name — it routinely clears the bar n=8
Trailing beat rate●88% beat 7–8 of the last 8 · n=8
80%of names that beat 7–8 of the last 8 went on to beat again — 1.28× the segment average (cohort record since 2000, not this stock alone)n=33,668 · observational
Implied vs realized move●— insufficient options history
↳ In detail
How to read the habit
This is a historical rate: among companies with the same recent beat record, that share beat again. It was checked on later periods than the ones it learned from, and against the plain long-run average. It describes the group, not this specific report.
Ownership & positioning
Ownership
Who holds it, how options lean, and the most recent insider, congressional and 13F transactions.
The readFunds reducingwhere it sitspositioning band · not a vote
Who owns it and what insiders and big funds are doing. Steady buying reads positive; heavy selling reads cautious.
Holders
Institutional●79.2%
Insider●0.1%
Institutional flow●Funds reducing
Fund concentration●—
Activist stake●None on file
Insider & short
Insider 90d net●—
10b5-1 vs discretionary◔scheduledMostly programmatic
Short interest · %float◔1.7%
Short interest · 30d Δ◔+26.2%
Options positioning
Put/call · OI●0.42
Put/call · volume●0.67
Implied move●next exp.±0.9%
IV skew (25Δ)●-0.1% call-skewed
↳ In detail
Reading the positioning
Institutions have begun trimming. A put/call of 0.42 and call-skewed IV — leaning constructive.
Recent transactions Form 4 + congressional●
FilerSourceActionValueDate
Andreessen Marc LDirectorInsiderSell14704006 Aug
Andreessen Marc LDirectorInsiderSell5126406 Aug
Andreessen Marc LDirectorInsiderSell2597706 Aug
Andreessen Marc LDirectorInsiderSell2662606 Aug
KIMMITT ROBERT MDirectorInsiderSell28078005 Aug
13F filers · last quarter ●
Tiger Global ManagementAdded+3.1M sh · $1.8B
Pershing Square (Bill Ackman)Added+2.7M sh · $1.5B
Bridgewater Associates (Ray Dalio)Added+0.3M sh · $167M
Renaissance TechnologiesAdded+0.3M sh · $145M
Third Point (Dan Loeb)Added+0.1M sh · $51M
Institutional flow · derived analysis
Conviction weighting, not a transaction list
Derived · who's actually buying
Insider buys are weighted by how senior the buyer is and whether several bought at once, alongside how fast big funds moved in or out quarter to quarter.
The readContinuing holders trimmingwhere it sitscontinuing holders only — excludes new and exited funds
Insider buys, weighted by how senior the buyer is and whether several buy at once — plus how fast big funds are moving in or out.
How strong the insider buying is ●
Clustered exec buys · n/an/a / 18.44
018.44
Intensity index — explicitly not a probability
Distinct exec buyers
n/a
Buy clusters · last 90d
90d agotoday
Fund holders · quarter on quarter ●
+181new fundsexited−386
Net registered funds -205 this quarter
Continuing holders●Trimming on balance funds that held through both quarters
↳ In detail
Reading the flow
No clustered executive buying this window. Among funds that held the name through both quarters, more trimmed than added. Separately, the registered-holder count moved -205 quarter-over-quarter (181 new, 386 exited). The two count different populations, so they can point opposite ways. Conviction is intensity, not a forecast.
Options microstructure
Options microstructure
Computed over the stored full chain — where dealer hedging concentrates. Prices here are the chain snapshot's own, not the header quote.
The readHedging leans steadyingwhere it sitswhere options exposure sits
The busiest option strikes are where hedging is concentrated, which can slow or sharpen a move nearby. Context — not support and resistance.
Open-interest by strike · gamma walls ◐
Puts OI (k)Calls OI (k)
254
567.5
1174
1095
565
1360
202
562.5
796
2432
560
2606
1553
557.5
1144
1886
555
3749
225
552.5
1056
WALL6012
550
4122
173
547.5
268
1775
545
1124
258
542.5
381
5433
540
4816WALL
583
537.5
0
2561
535
1636
2599
532.5
2578
2877
530
1457
chain spot $548.93 max pain $550 (+0.2%)
Dealer regime & expected move
Gamma exposure (GEX)
Positive
long
Max pain●$550.00 (+0.2%)
Put/call · OI●0.42
Call wall◐$540.00 resistance
Put wall◐$550.00 support
Expected move · session◐±2.2%
Expected move · week◐±4.8%
Clustered ≈ $550Balanced bookLong gamma
↳ In detail
Reading the options chain
Calls and puts are roughly balanced (chain-wide P/C 0.42) — no strong directional tilt in the chain. Dealers are long gamma, so their hedging leans against moves — which tends to hold price near the $550 max-pain strike, currently 0.2% abovespot, into Friday's expiry. That damping works against range expansion while it lasts; it says nothing about which way price leaves. The chain is pricing about ±4.8% (≈ $26.46) over the coming week.
observational · not advice
Gamma map · derived analysis
Where dealer hedging concentrates
Derived · dealer hedging · marquee
Open interest is free everywhere. What it does — whether dealer hedging dampens or amplifies a 1% move, and the strikes where that hedging concentrates — is the derived read.
The readHedging may steady moveswhere it sitswhere dealer hedging sits
Whether dealer hedging leans toward steadying the price or sharpening the next move, and the strikes where that hedging is concentrated.
Support / resistance rails ◐
call wall · resistance$610
spot$548.93
put wall · support$590
Dealer regime ◐
Long gamma — hedging can steady moves
Net dealer gamma◐+$21.60M per 1% move
ATM implied vol◐0.3%
Expected move · 1d◐±2.2%
Expected move · 1w◐±4.8%
OTM IV skew (25Δ)◐-0.1% call-skewed
↳ In detail
Reading the gamma map
Dealers are long gamma, so they lean against moves — price gets pinned between support at $590.00 and resistance at $610.00 into expiry. Net gamma of +$21.60M is the dollar hedging effect per 1% move — the consequence a raw chain never tells you.
META is -5.0% behind the peer average (+5.43%). Divergence from the group is where the stock-specific signal lives.
Supply map how the territory wires together●
competitorpartnersupplier
Customer momentum · derived analysis
Who the revenue depends on — and what their stocks just did
Customer chain
How much revenue each customer accounts for, straight from the company's own filings, what those customers' stocks just did — bigger customers counting for more — and the suppliers exposed to this name.
The readOthers depend on itfact
Who this company's revenue depends on — percentages from its own SEC filings — and what those customers' stocks did over the past month. Suppliers historically follow their customers with a lag.
Disclosed customers · from this company’s filings
Customer concentration●— no disclosed customer-concentration edges for this symbol
Who depends on this stock
DDI14.2% of its revenue filed 2024
AAOI10.9% of its revenue filed 2021 · aged — may have ended
+0.58%/mosuppliers tied to the strongest customers beat those tied to the weakest by this much per month in 2013-01 .. 2026-01 — positive in 58% of months, across 607 disclosed relationships. A group result, not this stock's forecastn=135 · observational
Historical, point-in-time backtest of a cross-sectional screen (135 months, 2013-2026), gross of trading costs. The equal-weighted base effect is marginal (t 1.84); statistical significance relies on the dependency weighting (t 2.02). Validated on monthly rebalancing; served daily on the same 21-bar horizon. This is a research screen describing a group-level historical spread - not a forecast of any individual stock's return.
↳ In detail
How to read the chain
The percentages are the company’s own concentration disclosures — a customer at 40% of revenue matters roughly eight times one at 5%, and the move shown weights them that way. Suppliers have historically followed their customers with a lag; the gap shows how much of the customers’ move this stock has not yet matched.
News & market context
The Story · news & social
Coverage published around the move, with the crowd's mood shown next to each.
The readCrowd mixedfactread as contrarian context
What moved the stock, plus how bullish the crowd is — which tends to be loudest right at the turning points.
Latest headlines 0▲ 0▼ of 50●
News
META was little changed +0.48% since the last close, amid recent coverage: “Rep. Julia Letlow bought Meta stock after signing an NDA with the company, records show - WWNO” (WWNO).
As Trump Media scraps some businesses, it's doubling down on Truth Social and the president
NEWSAssociated Press·11h ago
Neutral
Rep. Julia Letlow bought Meta stock after signing an NDA with the company, records show - WWNO
NEWSWWNO·13h ago
Neutral
Meta's AI Boom Just Hit a New Hurdle
NEWSGuruFocus.com·13h ago
Neutral
CoreWeave Investors Face a Growing Problem
NEWSGuruFocus.com·13h ago
Headline tone ◐
88/100 · 7-day
flat
Polarity of the headlines themselves, scored 0-100 with 50 neutral — a read on the coverage, not on the crowd.
Social sentiment ◐
No Reddit or StockTwits posts on file for this name in the last 7 days.
What this name did from here
Time machine
Each look-back point: the price then, the move to today, and what was going on — earnings, corporate events, news flow.
The readLower than a year agofact
The price at each look-back point and the move to today, with what was happening at the time — the per-ticker face of the track record.
Look-backs · vs the $594.92 close of 2026-08-10
3 months ago●$609.63 -2.4% to today
6 months ago●$670.72 -11.3% to today
1 year ago●$769.30 -22.7% to today
3 years ago●$305.74 +94.6% to today
history starts 2023-06-01
↳ In detail
Why we show the rear-view mirror
Every number on this page gets graded by what happens next. The time machine is the same idea pointed backwards: the state of this name at each past date and the move that followed, for any symbol — not a curated highlight reel.
Risk case · derived analysis
The risk case
The case against
What can break: how hard this name has fallen before, a sensible position cap, whether it behaves like a lottery ticket, how much cash it has left, how it drifts after earnings, whether the dividend holds, and what changed in the filings — plus a crowding read when its three inputs agree.
The readCoverage incompletewhere it sitsan experimental model estimate · the history-based reads below are graded separately
The case against the stock: how hard it has fallen before, how much cash it has left, how it behaves after earnings, whether the dividend holds, what changed in the filings, and how crowded the trade is.
Avoid score · v2.1 isotonic model · experimental
The nightly batch has not scored this name yet — the model needs universe-wide ranking features that are not computed on demand.
Terminal fate · the cohort's ledger
Cohort●mega 2016-2026
12m outcomes●for-cause below the power floor still listed 100.0% · n=71
24m outcomes●for-cause below the power floor still listed 99.9% · n=60
36m outcomes●for-cause below the power floor still listed 99.8% · n=56
↳ In detail
Reading the fate ledger
Each row is what happened to every tracked name in this size cohort over that window — delisted for cause, acquired, or still listed — with the band around each rate. These are the cohort's historical frequencies, not probabilities for this name, and the acquisition arm is never an acquisition forecast.
No lottery signal — trailing-21d max daily return is within the normal range for its cohort (large).
Cash runway · non-burner
Positive free cash flow — burner runway risk does not apply. Non-burner: catastrophe rate 6.1% (n=297414).
Post-earnings drift · reaction vs sigma
+2.24% spread63-trading-day post-earnings drift, graded by reaction magnitude (bucket: 2-4)
Drift odds at full strength (+2.24% / 63-day spread reference from measured post-earnings drift).
Latest earnings reaction●-8.6% 2026-04-29
Daily sigma (21d)●2.72% baseline volatility used for z-score
Reaction size●2-4 first-day move ÷ its normal daily move
Strength of evidence●3.35 Newey–West t — how consistent the pattern is, not how many cases
↳ In detail
How post-earnings drift works
After an earnings reaction, how far price keeps drifting over the next 63 trading days depends on how big the first move was. A jump more than four times the stock's normal daily move usually spends the effect — the market has already repriced it. Milder reactions historically kept drifting, by about 3.2 percentage points in our sample.
Dividend reliability · evidence incomplete
Dividend yield●0.36% profile value · percentage points
FCF coverage●>2x free cash flow vs dividend
The calibration stores historical within-period yield-tercile cells but not the mapping for today's yield, so no cut or suspension probability is published.
Filing restatements
No material restatement on file in the trailing 2 years.
Calibration scorecard
Auditable track record
Every rating we publish is fingerprinted, tracked, and resolved in public. Here's how we've actually done.
15
calls logged track record builds as calls resolve (5/8)