MAA
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.Evidence as of 2026-09-03Overview · Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.
MAA, an S&P 500 company, is a real estate investment trust (REIT) focused on delivering full-cycle and superior investment performance for shareholders through the ownership, management, acquisition, development and redevelopment of quality apartment communities primarily in the Southeast, Southwest and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. As of September 30, 2022, MAA had ownership interest in 101,769 apartmen…
Management team
- Ms. Jackie Melnick · Senior Vice President of East DivisionFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Kevin P. Perkins · Senior Vice President of Physical AssetsFind on LinkedIn
- Ms. Melanie M. Carpenter · Executive VP & Chief Human Resources OfficerFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. David Herring · Senior VP, Principal Accounting Officer & Chief Accounting OfficerFind on LinkedIn
Start your 7-day free trial to see the full management team.
Links open LinkedIn searches, not verified profiles. Team data from our market-data vendor's company profile.
Moneyta sentiment
Where the published evidence leans after the desk debated it — not a rating or a recommendation.
+0.3 on a −2 to +2 scale.
What builds the score
Solid bars are analyst rubric scores; faded bars are computed directly from data. Claims dropped in debate count for nothing; weakened claims count at half weight.
Editor's note
Written after the debate settled — the rest of the page is the evidence behind it.
What the evidence shows
The evidence balance is Mixed (+0.2 of a possible +2; was +0.2 before debate) · confidence high. Revenue for the quarter ended 31 March 2026 is reported at $ 553,725,000 versus $ 549,295,000 a year earlier, while net income fell to $ 124,359,000 from $ 181,673,000 and diluted EPS declined to $ 1.06 from $ 1.54. Operating cash flow for the quarter dropped to $ 149,644,000 from $ 196,618,000, and the company repurchased $ 72,780,000 of common stock in the period; market metrics show a market cap of $ 14,968,249,385 and a P/E (TTM) of 29.5.
What the debate changed
Analysts argued around the significance of recent media and ownership notes, but the desk largely upheld the core financials and valuation metrics; nothing material was dropped or weakened in the surviving claims. The only weakening recorded pertained to several articles that report new institutional purchases in late August 2026, which the chair treated as lower‑quality, price‑action–focused coverage rather than confirmed, material institutional filings.
How this note was made
every stage ran before the note was writtenAnalyst desk
Mercer, Oakes, Nash, Ellis, Yates, Talbot and Archer. The desk: named AI agents, not people. Each reads one slice of the evidence and nothing else — no outside knowledge, no browsing — so every finding traces to a source you can open.
Reads the XBRL figures companies file with the SEC — revenue, margins, income, debt and share count, quarter by quarter — and reports which way the trend is running.
Revenue for the quarter ended 31 March 2026 (fiscal Q1 2026, 2026-01-01 to 2026-03-31) was $553,725,000, compared with $549,295,000 for the quarter ended 31 March 2025 (fiscal Q1 2026, 2025-01-01 to 2025-03-31).
XBRL companyfacts · 0001193125-26-197331Net income for the quarter ended 31 March 2026 (fiscal Q1 2026, 2026-01-01 to 2026-03-31) was $124,359,000, down from $181,673,000 for the quarter ended 31 March 2025 (fiscal Q1 2025, 2025-01-01 to 2025-03-31).
XBRL companyfacts · 0001193125-26-197331Reads the filings themselves, above all the year-over-year diff of Item 1A risk factors: which risks a company added, dropped or quietly reworded since its last annual report.
Nothing in this slice of the evidence rose to a claim — a quiet read, which itself is information.
Which filings the desk reads
The desk reads the annual 10-K in full — its risk factors, and how they changed since last year. Quarterly 10-Qs and event filings (8-Ks, insider Form 4s) are listed for context but not read line by line: the 10-K is where the material risk disclosures live. A brand-new company, or one we have only just begun tracking, may have no annual report on file yet — its risk analysis fills in once that lands.
Reads the signal panel above — momentum, volatility, drawdown, relative strength and beta — and ranks each against the whole research universe rather than judging it in isolation.
No computed signal history for this symbol yet — signals need roughly 70 trading days of price history.
Reads which funds hold the name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings, to show the exposure you may already carry through index funds.
As of 2026-09-02, Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) is held in the IVV ETF with a weight of 0.03% of that fund.
ETF constituents · market dataThe reported membership entry is timestamped 2026-09-02T13:45:47.228469+00:00, indicating the weight data point was recorded on 2 September 2026.
ETF constituents · market dataReads recent headlines that are genuinely about this company, ignoring rating chatter and market-wide stories. Findings argue in the debate but never move the sentiment score.
Several articles report new institutional purchases in the second quarter (Rakuten, United Capital Financial Advisors, Jefferies Financial Group, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company), each published on 30–31 August 2026 on thelincolnianonline.com.
News · thelincolnianonline.com · 2026-08-31weakened in debateA headline on 1 September 2026 focuses on MAA's price action and its role in algorithmic entry models, presenting the coverage as market-structure/price-action oriented rather than fundamental company news.
News · news.stocktradersdaily.com · 2026-09-01weakened in debateReads parsed Forms 3/4/5 — who bought or sold, at what size, and whether a 10b5-1 plan was involved. Flags clustered open-market officer buying; treats plan sales as routine and never counts a fund or 10%-holder as an officer.
No insider transactions on file in the trailing 180 days.
Reads the implied-expectations math built from the company's own filings (the growth rate today's price would justify, and the multiples beside it) and argues whether the market's bar looks high or low for this business. Never turns the math into a target.
The price/earnings (TTM) multiple is 29.5.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeThe enterprise-value/EBITDA (TTM) multiple is 20.51.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeDebate and risk review
A bull and a bear contest the claims and the chair rules on each; the risk review stress-tests what survived.
A bull and a bear argue the analysts' claims across two rounds, then a chair rules on each one. Only what survives feeds the score — the argument is shown, not hidden, so you can judge the reasoning yourself.
Several primary-source items in the SEC filing point to balance-sheet and cash-generation dynamics that support a favorable read: quarter-over-quarter revenue edged up and weighted-average diluted shares fell while the company executed meaningful share repurchases in the quarter, which together can support per-share metrics over time. The filing also shows material trailing-12-month operating cash flow and EBITDA, indicating underlying cash generation that the headline quarterly net income decline does not capture alone. Market commentary and ownership signals include recent institutional purchases reported in multiple articles and inclusion in a large ETF, which are observable demand indicators; by contrast, some negative coverage appears to focus on near-term FFO commentary or short-term price action from a small set of outlets. Evidence strength: the revenue, share-count, repurchase, net income, EPS and operating-cash-flow items are high-strength because they come from the company's SEC filing; the institutional-purchase reports are medium-strength (third-party articles), and the short-term negative press items are lower-strength relative to SEC-sourced filings.
Chair's verdict, claim by claim
Fragility · computed, not argued
balanced0.41
17 surviving claims rest on 7 distinct sources; the heaviest analyst carries 35% of them, and 94% of what the desk raised survived the debate.
Seventeen surviving claims drawn from seven distinct sources gives this read some cross-source support, but a single analyst contributing 35% of the claims creates a concentration risk in interpretation. The desk’s high survival rate (94%) means those claims faced little successful pushback during review, so the set is internally consistent but remains sensitive to a small number of sources or a new primary filing.
Disconfirming evidence · base rates · falsifiers
Context
Outside consensus, and where this name already sits in your own portfolio.
Third-party consensus shown for context. It never enters Moneyta sentiment — when the two diverge, the debate above is where the why lives.
What this was built from
Every figure on this page traces to one of these. The desk reads only what is listed here — no outside knowledge, no browsing — and each card shows who read it and what it contributed to the score.
14 filings· 1 cited
SEC XBRL filings
Quarterly figures as filed with the SEC, read straight from EDGAR's structured data — not retyped or estimated.
Read by Mercer+0.0 to the score
1 holdings record
Fund holdings
Which funds hold this name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings.
Read by Ellis+0.5 to the score
8 headlines· 2 cited
News coverage
Recent headlines about this company, rating chatter excluded and nothing published after the report date.
Read by Yatesnothing survived
1 computation
Valuation inputs
TTM cash-flow figures from the company's own XBRL filings, priced with the stored closing price. Implied growth and multiples only; no fair-value dollar figure reaches the desk, by design.
Read by Archercontext only
1 record· 0 cited
Company profile
Sector, industry and company details.
1 record· 0 cited
Analyst consensus
Third-party consensus, shown for context only — it never enters Moneyta sentiment.
Read means we pulled and handed it to an analyst; cited means a claim on this page points at it. Reading twelve quarters to state one trend is normal — the gap is shown rather than hidden.
Written by AI, checked against sources
The analysts, the bull–bear debate and the editor's note are AI agents reading only the evidence listed on this page. They can misread a filing or a headline, which is why every claim cites a source you can open and check yourself. The sentiment score is arithmetic over the claims that survived the debate, not a language model's opinion.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations. Past patterns do not indicate future results.
Get this for the tickers you actually hold
Plus the one thing no sample can show: how each name correlates with your portfolio, and what hides inside your funds.
The full terminal on MAA Gold
Who holds it, who's buying, what the Street thinks: live behind the lock, updated as filings land.
Institutional holders
Net institutional flow, Q/Q
Largest holder position
Insider buys, 90 days
Clustered insider value
Street target range
The real figures are for members. Educational analysis, not advice.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations.