Company analysis
MetLife (MET) forecast and analysis
Financials · Insurance · Reading of October 8, 2026
Last close
$98.47
Fair value (DCF)
$94.43
Gap to fair value −4.1%
21-session view
−3.3%
band −13.2% to +6.6%
63-session view
−3.2%
Market regime
strong risk-off
The reading in brief
As of October 8, 2026, MetLife, an insurance name in the financials sector, closes at $98.47 against a model fair value of $94.43, a modest gap of −4.1% that places fair value below the price. The published 21-session view leans down, with an expected return of −3.3% and a probability of a rise of only 6%, although the band from −13.2% to +6.6% spans both signs. The 63-session view, at −3.2%, points the same way. The reading comes in a strong risk-off market regime. The record on this name is long but weak: across 257 matured 21-session forecasts, 37% matched the direction of the outcome, which tempers how much weight the current lean carries.
Written automatically from the figures on this page; every figure is filled in from the day's data.
Research cockpit
Each source's reading of MET today, the stance it takes against the published view, and what would change it. The same board subscribers open in the console.
mixed
−4.1%value gap · DCF against pricefair value $94 vs $98.47 · the DCF's own chance it is undervalued: 41%supports at −10% or less · against at +10% or moreagainst
+36unified technical score3-session run vs industry −0.45%, higher than 34% of sector; such falls have tended to partly reversesupports at −15 or less · against at +15 or moresupports
3 / 9Piotroski F-scoreROIC 4.3% · D/E 0.02 · Altman-Z 0.16 · Q2 period to Jun 30, 2026supports at 3 or less · against at 7 or moresupports
15%recommended exposuremarket-wide strong risk off · the regime's tilt for Financials −0.73 · as of Oct 8, 2026supports at 40% or less · against at 75% or moresupports
12 analystscovering in the last 180 days · our own estimate recordhigher than 72% of sector · net rating changes +0.11 over 63 sessions · vendor consensus unavailablesupports in the most-covered 40% of its sector · against in the least-covered 40% — the most-covered fifth beat the median stock 49 times in 100 over three months, the least-covered 52 (since 2012)Model reading
what the published belief says · what only a portfolio can add
leans down−3.30%3 of 5 sources for · 21d belief · 11 voices
Price impactmeasured · this symbol
higher than 40% of sector (Kyle λ)Names with higher price impact have done slightly worse over the next week (the ordering held in 27 of 32 years). Order size itself is a portfolio decision.
Liquidity vs edgemeasured · this symbol
more liquid than 80% of sector (Amihud)Less liquid names have earned more over three months (the ordering held in 25 of 32 years). The portfolio prices the order.
Band legs · q10 / q9021 sessions
−13.2% / +6.6%
Risk checksper portfolio
Run in the portfolio, not on a symbol — 13 checks (position ceiling, gross exposure, sector concentration …)
Regime overridemarket-wide · Oct 8, 2026
scaled15% exposure
Reliability21 sessions
0.000 = the 21-session head has not yet earned a reliability score on settled outcomes.
Price impact in fifths · the next week
Illiquidity in fifths · the next three months
InsightProven signal
What it meansMET's price impact over 5 sessions is higher than 40% of sector; by illiquidity it is more liquid than 80% of sector. Both are measured on MET itself, not a portfolio.
What history saysOut of 100 stocks with the highest price impact, 49 beat the median stock over the next week; with the lowest, 50. MET sits in the middle fifth today. That ordering held in 27 of 32 years since 1995. On average the lowest fifth out-earned the highest by 0.13 points over the next week. Over the next three months 52 in 100 of the least liquid fifth beat the median stock, against 48 of the most liquid. MET sits in the lowest fifth for illiquidity.
How to use itThese describe what an order in MET would face, not which way it goes. Order size stays a portfolio decision.
For the curious: Kyle λ at 5 sessions: rank IC −0.011 · t −6.3 · 27/32 years · 1,633 weekly samples since 1995 · Amihud at 63 sessions: rank IC +0.044 · t +3.9 · 25/32 years · 1,621 weekly samples since 1995Published belief band
q10 — μ — q90 per horizon · conformal · rank among names
1d+0.0%−1.8% · +1.8%−1.8% · +1.8%p62 of 1,303
5d−0.3%−4.2% · +3.6%−4.2% · +3.6%p16 of 1,303
21d−3.3%−13.2% · +6.6%−13.2% · +6.6%p5 of 1,303
63d−3.2%−18.8% · +12.4%−18.8% · +12.4%p17 of 1,303
Square = expected return, bar = the model's q10–q90 range, right = where the expected return ranks among 1,303 names. A hollow square has no published range — do not size on it.
Exit map
Where MET's 21-session band legs sit against today's close is in the console, with the valuation, technical, fundamentals and regime tabs.
Why it leans down, not up
posterior against a 51.7% base rate
P(up)0.06below a coin flip
E[r]−3.30%expected, 21 sessions
σ6.04%spread of outcomes
Rankp5of 1,303 names
E[r] / σ−0.55reward per unit of spread
Evidence balance · the belief's own arithmeticfor +1.29% · against −1.94% · net −0.65%Each voice's expected return times its weight; the rows sum exactly to the belief.
iv relativew 18%+1.07%
iv kinematicw 6%+0.22%
iv cqr probw 5%−0.00%
dcf mean reverterw 19%−0.01%
iv cqr returnw 6%−0.02%
bundlew 9%−0.03%
lstmw 3%−0.06%
catboostw 4%−0.25%
mimow 5%−0.33%
sector catboostw 5%−0.36%
quantilew 21%−0.88%
Outside evidence · measured, not voting
lowest in sectorhighest
Run vs industry · 3 sessionshigher than 34% of sectorleans against it
Beat its factors · 21 sessionshigher than 75% of sectorfavours the belief
Unusual volume · vs its yearhigher than 34% of sectorfavours the belief
Price impact (Kyle λ)higher than 40% of sectorleans against it
Illiquidity (Amihud)higher than 20% of sectorfavours the belief
Short-sale volume · 21 sessionshigher than 58% of sectorsits in the middle
Analysts coveringhigher than 72% of sectorfavours the belief
Tinted half = the side of the sector that has gone on to do better on that measure, in the evidence study since 1995, 2009, 2012. These do not enter the belief's arithmetic — they tell you whether the market's own record agrees with it.Conditional hit rate · how the prior updatesPlatform-wide, not MET's own record. The tick is the base rate; a top-decile belief has not beaten it. MET sits in decile 1 today.
Unconditional, every name51.7% · n 342,931
Given a top-decile belief51.0% · n 34,163
… and 5+ voices behind it51.0% · n 34,163
base 51.7%
InsightModel output
What it meansThe belief leans down (−3.30%) and its own P(up) is 0.06: a negative average and a worse-than-even chance of rising.
What history saysThe expected return ranks higher than 5% of 1,303 names today. On settled outcomes a top-decile belief has been right 51.0% of the time against 51.7% for every name. Proven measures read outside the belief: 7 — favouring it, 4; leaning against it, 2. The strongest of them, Run vs industry · 3 sessions, held its ordering in 32 of 32 years since 1995.
How to use itRead the rank and the range before the number; the band legs, not the average, say how wide the outcomes run.
For the curious: direction_prob, mu, sigma from ii_belief · rank among 1,303 names · base rate from the signal-validation study, platform-wide, Sep 2, 2025 to Sep 9, 2026What would change this reading
current reading measured · the trigger's source named
The fair-value gap moves past +10% or −10%−4.1% todaythe valuation rule on this tab
The 3-session run climbs back to the sector middlehigher than 34% of sector todayproven reversal · the next week
Short-sale volume falls into the bottom half of the sectorhigher than 58% of sector · higher than 86% of its past yearproven · one to three months
Voice agreement drops11 voices · 74% consistentportfolio policy sets the level
The market regime turns more risk-offstrong risk off todayregime tab · market-wide
Voice agreement · 21d
5 scored voices · belief as of Oct 8, 2026
bundle50%right on direction · n 294latest −0.3%
catboost58%right on direction · n 295latest −6.0%
lstm63%right on direction · n 295latest −2.2%
mimo63%right on direction · n 295latest −6.5%
quantile71%right on direction · n 295latest −4.3%
How often each model called MET's 21-session direction right on settled outcomes. Below 60 settled calls the figure is greyed: too few to judge.
Valuation & Predictions, Technical Structure, Fundamentals & Filings and Regime are in the console.
Forecast record on MET
37% of 257 matured 21-session forecasts on MetLife called the direction correctly.
Each square is one matured forecast: the view published that day against the return that followed.
Same industry
- Arch Capital Group ACGL
- Aflac AFL
- American International Group AIG
- Assurant AIZ
- Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. AJG
- Allstate ALL
- Aon plc AON
- Brown & Brown BRO
Questions about MET
- What is the fair value of MetLife stock?
- The model's discounted-cash-flow fair value for MET is $94.43 per share against a $98.47 close on October 8, 2026, a gap of −4.1%. It is an estimate with a range, not a price target.
- What is the MET stock forecast?
- The published 21-session view for MET is −3.3%, with a band from −13.2% to +6.6%; over 63 sessions it is −3.2%. These are probabilities from the platform's machine-learning models, re-estimated every trading day.
- How accurate have the forecasts for MET been?
- 37% of 257 matured 21-session forecasts on MetLife called the direction correctly. Every forecast is published before its outcome is known and scored when it matures.
- Is this investment advice?
- No. It is a dated model reading of one company, published for research. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy or sell any security.
A dated model reading, not investment advice. Forecasts are probabilities and can be wrong.
How the fair value is estimatedHow every forecast is testedDisclosures