Reading MPC? Track it free: the weekly brief, plus an alert if the thesis breaks. No credit card.
Track MPC free→Reading MPC? Track it free: the weekly brief, plus an alert if the thesis breaks. No credit card.
Track MPC free→NYSEEnergyOil & Gas Refining & MarketingSnapshot 2026-06-16
Recent financial performance is holding in the top half of its industry — the reason to own it looks intact.
Recent financial performance is neutral, and earnings quality is also neutral, indicating some inconsistency in cash backing reported profits. Management's track record has been fairly steady, but the capital stance is capital unfriendly, which may affect shareholder returns. The sector backdrop is a headwind, and risk is moderate, while compared with sector peers, MPC is above typical. Peer multiples imply a price roughly in line with where it trades (about fair); the read is fair. This assessment is provisional.
Daily closes. Earnings/event dots are placed inline.
A consensus fair price across 7 valuation methods, at three horizons. Current price $250.99. Estimates are diagnostics, not price targets. Short-horizon estimates are close to coin-flips, so confidence is a method-agreement read, not a prediction.
No-growth: today's peer multiple on trailing earnings. The headline read.
Embeds projected growth. Leans optimistic by design. Upside context.
We take the 12-month fair value above and grade our own number — how the market prices this name versus what we'd justify, and where the two diverge.
At $251 MPC trades at 20× p/e, in line with its 17× p/e peer median. Our $249 fair value reflects that, high confidence. Analysts: $228–$344. Not investment advice.
One valuation read at a 12-month horizon, plus how price compares to peers and the company's own history.
The market is pricing in roughly 1% near-term growth, in line with our forecast of about -6%. This describes what's priced in, not a forecast of the move.
Only a turbulent sector regime (Heating) — not the full expensive x weak x turbulent stack.
For similar setups historically (n=20,154): about 33% saw a 20%+ drawdown, and roughly 76% of those did not recover within the year. These are historical base rates for the cohort, not a forecast of this stock.
Each factor is a parallel diagnostic with a clear read of what it shows and how names like it have historically fared. Never aggregated into a single score.
Operating income rose in 1 of the last 3 quarter-over-quarter moves. Historically, Energy names rated neutral grew net income 53% of the time over the next year (vs 60% for the rest of the cohort, n=1255).
Over the trailing year it converted 2.04x of net income into operating cash flow. Historically, Energy names rated neutral grew net income 33% of the time over the next year (vs 48% for the rest of the cohort, n=789).
Most sensitive to the broad stock market.
Not enough signal to read sensitivity to the US dollar, long-term interest rates, Fed net liquidity, real (inflation-adjusted) rates.
The next print and the backdrop around it (sector regime and the AI cycle). Context for the path, not a forecast of returns.
EPS estimate $11.14 → $11.82 (+6.1% / 30d). 6 raised, 0 cut, 16 covering analysts.
0 upgrades, 0 downgrades / 30d, 2 maintained. 53% of analysts rate Buy.
3 PT revisions / 30d. Avg target 15.5% above current price.
How management runs the business: capital, margins, balance sheet, and how reliably they guide and deliver.
What a normal day, a bad day, and the worst of the last year would mean for a $10,000 position.
On a typical day, $10k can swing ±$156.
How much price usually moves either way.
On a bad day, this stock has moved -$360.
A rough but not unusual down day (about the 95th percentile).
In the worst 12 months, $10k could have lost $1,832.
Deepest peak-to-trough drop in the last year.
Past results, not a forecast. Not investment advice.
The most important moves since the prior daily snapshot.
Management rose by 9.1 points (from 63.4 to 72.5).
Valuation changed. It rose from "full" to "fair." Risk fell. The sector backdrop remained a headwind. The macro backdrop is uncertain.
as of 2026-06-16
Specific, dated things to watch for, each with what would confirm it and what would prove it wrong.
Why it matters: Strong cash flow supports capital returns and operational stability. Weak cash flow could raise concerns.
Confirms:Q2 cash from operations exceeds $1.5 billion.
Disproves:Q2 cash from operations falls below $1 billion.
Recent news graded against this company's own objectives — whether it reinforces or challenges the thesis, and how confirmed it is.
No graded news catalysts for MPC yet.
Conditional scenarios: if X happens, the view would shift in this direction. These are not predictions.
No upside scenarios in the latest snapshot.
No downside scenarios in the latest snapshot.
Recent SEC 8-K filings ranked by likely impact, confidence, and recency.
Results of Operations and Financial Condition On May 5, 2026, Marathon Petroleum Corporation issued a press release announcing its financial results for the quarter ended March 31, 2026. The press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and is incorporated herein by reference. Information in this
Whether the overall read has been drifting up or down lately, and how it's changed since last week.
Not investment advice. Scores describe historical and current data; they are not forecasts of future returns. Consult a licensed advisor before making investment decisions.
Long-thesis check; widest uncertainty.
$228.00 – $344.00 (median $267.50) · 8 analysts · as of 2026-06-15
Looks more expensive than peers.
Around its own typical valuation.
Trailing four: 2025-Q1, 2025-Q2, 2025-Q3, 2026-Q1
A side-by-side read on sector standing, valuation, and risk versus Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing.
| Stock | Sector standing | Valuation | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
MPC Marathon Petroleum | Above typical Show detailsSector percentile: 91 of 100 | fair | moderate |
VLO Valero Energy | Above typical Show detailsSector percentile: 88 of 100 | fair | moderate |
PSX Phillips 66 | Above typical Show detailsSector percentile: 84 of 100 | full | moderate |
DINO HF Sinclair | Above typical Show detailsSector percentile: 95 of 100 | fair | moderate |
PBF PBF Energy | Typical Show detailsSector percentile: 32 of 100 | — | elevated |
9 material management or governance events in the past 24 months, led by executive changes. Historically, Energy names rated neutral grew net income 45% of the time over the next year (vs 49% for the rest of the cohort, n=329).
Not investment advice. As of 2026-06-16.
via XLE
Tailwind = sector leading the S&P 500; headwind = trailing. Both can be constructive. Historically, headwind regimes have averaged stronger forward returns than tailwind.
Context label only: describes the market state (e.g. real bear vs narrative panic, healthy uptrend vs late-stage froth). It is not a per-ticker buy/sell signal and does not predict factor performance.
Not investment advice. As of 2026-06-16.
Met or beat guidance 0% of the last 1 guided quarters · -24.0% avg surprise
Priorities management has stated in recent disclosures, with status and evidence drawn from earnings calls, filings, and press releases.
Maintain a capital spending outlook of $1.5 billion for 2026, focusing on value-enhancing and sustaining capital.
Focus on increasing refining utilization and capturing higher margins through operational improvements.
Advance MPLX's growth strategy in the Permian Basin to support distribution growth and cash flow stability.
MPLX plans to allocate $2.7 billion towards capital spending in 2026.
Why it matters: A drop in refining margins may show lower profits in refining.
Confirms:Refining margin capture falls below $17 per barrel for Q2 2026.
Disproves:Refining margin capture stays above $17 per barrel for Q2 2026.
Why it matters: Higher capital spending could indicate aggressive growth plans but may pressure cash flow.
Confirms one read:Q2 capital spending was over $400 million.
Confirms the other:Q2 capital spending was under $400 million.
Why it matters: MPLX's strong growth in distributions helps Marathon give back money to investors.
Confirms:MPLX announces distribution growth guidance of 12.5% or higher for 2026.
Disproves:MPLX expects distribution growth below 12.5% for 2026.
Why it matters: Finishing the project could increase production and raise earnings.
Confirms:The El Paso yield improvement project will finish on time in Q2 2026.
Disproves:El Paso yield improvement project is delayed beyond Q2 2026.
Why it matters: Lower use may show problems. This can hurt profits.
Confirms:Refining use was below 90% in Q2 2026.
Disproves:Refining use was above 90% in Q2 2026.
shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ Exchange Act ”), or otherwise incorporated by reference into any filing pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except as otherwise expressly stated in such a filing.
Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement. MPC Credit Agreement On April 7, 2026, Marathon Petroleum Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“MPC”), entered into a $5.0 billion, five-year Revolving Credit Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent, each of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BofA Securities, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Mizuho Bank, Ltd., MUFG Bank, Ltd., RBC Capital Markets, Sumitomo Mitsui Banking…
Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet Arrangement of a Registrant. The information in
Termination of a Material Definitive Agreement. The New MPC Credit Agreement replaced MPC’s previously existing $5.0 billion credit agreement, dated as of July 7, 2022 (the “2022 MPC Credit Agreement”), by and among MPC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent, and the various other commercial lending institutions that were party thereto. The 2022 MPC Credit Agreement was terminated in connection with and as a condition to the availability of the lending and credit commitments unde…