Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$65.12
▼ $0.76 (-1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/17 11:31 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$21.79B
Day Range
$64.88 - $67.16
52-Week Range
$53.81 - $96.55
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
BRO is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
-27.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/28 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $77.39 vs. price $65.12 (+18.8%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.06 (3y annualized return -3.5% / max drawdown 56.3%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
73/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
88/100
Analog Quality
+6.4%
Median 40D Outcome
56/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
73%
+2.8% … +9.3%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.7% … +0.7%
🔴 Bearish
20%
-11.0% … -6.7%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 73% (95% CI 48%–89%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +2.8%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
5 occurrence(s) · 80% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 67% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.7% | -2.8% … +2.9% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.8% | -3.5% … +4.4% | +1.0% |
| 20D | 73% (48%–89%) | +2.8% | +0.9% … +6.9% | +1.8% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +6.4% | -5.9% … +9.6% | +3.7% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.7% | -8.0% … +14.2% | +5.1% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-19 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +2.8% | +17.1% |
| 2021-02-03 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +2.7% | +21.6% |
| 2026-02-05 | 72/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +1.1% | -20.7% |
| 2022-09-23 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +4.4% | -6.0% |
| 2022-01-26 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +4.6% | +7.1% |
| 2022-04-28 | 69/100 | Consolidation | -11.7% | -6.2% |
| 2025-04-25 | 68/100 | Consolidation | -3.2% | -9.8% |
| 2024-04-16 | 68/100 | Consolidation | +9.3% | +15.8% |
| 2018-04-02 | 67/100 | Consolidation | +9.6% | +12.3% |
| 2025-10-23 | 67/100 | Downtrend | -10.3% | -12.1% |
| 2026-03-23 | 67/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +3.3% | -11.5% |
| 2022-12-16 | 67/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +9.2% | -0.7% |
| 2020-11-03 | 66/100 | Consolidation | +1.7% | -3.1% |
| 2023-03-01 | 65/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +0.7% | +12.6% |
| 2026-06-03 | 63/100 | Downtrend | +26.9% | +33.0% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLF (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 22, 2026
Then
62
$72.92
Now
47
$65.12
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
62
Quality
50
Value
62
Momentum
23
Risk
42
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
51
Institutional
100
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING BRO...
Recent media coverage of **Brown & Brown (BRO)** has centered on investor sentiment and stock performance, with analysts expressing cautious or mixed views. The company’s shares have underperformed compared to broader market gains, sparking debates about valuation—some calling it undervalued on fair metrics while others question earnings potential. A recurring theme is its position in the evolving insurance sector, particularly regarding AI integration and long-term competitiveness, with speculation about whether the firm is adapting or facing challenges. Analysts remain divided on whether the stock is a buy despite its dividend stability.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Brown & Brown. News trend score: 56. Reason: 4 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
20
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
68
Fundamentals
51
Technical
23
Valuation
62
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.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
+11%
Market Narrative
24
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
-14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests **herding** is the dominant psychological state, driven by relative underperformance (-4.5% vs. peers). The narrative-reality gap (11 points) hints at a disconnect between positive sentiment (86/100) and valuation (-12% vs. DCF), which may fuel herd-driven adjustments. Euphoria’s score (18) reflects residual optimism from long-term strength (+10.9% above 200-day avg), but this conflicts with valuation metrics. The key open question: *Will traders double down on relative weakness or pivot if peers stabilize?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:21 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Wall Street analysts remain cautious about the stock’s prospects"
"The stock also fell short of the S&P 500’s 12.9% gain"
"Morgan Stanley Adjusts PT on Brown & Brown to $60 From $56"
📈 13D 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
Charles Mackay — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented and value/cycle-sensitive methodologies. Top scorers like **Edgar Lawrence Smith (89)** and **Philip Fisher (83)** see it as a high-quality, long-term hold—Smith even calls it a 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate, while Fisher praises its exceptional business fundamentals. Meanwhile, **Samuel Armstrong Nelson (66)** and **Morgan Housel (67)** lean bullish on cyclical positioning and quiet compounding, respectively, suggesting it’s undervalued relative to its sector. However, **Howard Marks (57)** and **Jesse Livermore (48)** introduce caution, warning that the stock may already reflect high expectations or lack a clear trend, while **Graham’s defensive (44) and Enterprising Investor (15) frameworks** outright reject it as too risky or statistically overpriced. The contrast between Fisher/Smith’s enthusiasm and Graham/Bagehot’s skepticism highlights whether the stock’s growth potential or liquidity/valuation risks dominate.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 99
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 89
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
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)
🟢 83
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 76
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 72
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
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)
🟢 66
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 48
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 42
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 41
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 34
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 33
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
🔴 19
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 17
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$64.82
Range Bottom
$75.63
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
17.9%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
8.4%
ROA
3.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.37
Cash
$1.08B
Total Debt
$7.61B
Current Ratio
1.04
Debt/Equity
0.61
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 12.8.2026 | $0.165 |
| 11.5.2026 | $0.165 |
| 10.5.2026 | $0.165 |
| 4.2.2026 | $0.165 |
| 3.2.2026 | $0.165 |
| 5.11.2025 | $0.165 |
| 4.11.2025 | $0.165 |
| 13.8.2025 | $0.150 |
| 12.8.2025 | $0.150 |
| 12.5.2025 | $0.150 |
| 11.5.2025 | $0.150 |
| 5.2.2025 | $0.150 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$65.12
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$77.39
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+18.8%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
18.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18.3% | $1.63B | $1.50B |
| 2 | 14.3% | $1.87B | $1.57B |
| 3 | 10.4% | $2.06B | $1.59B |
| 4 | 6.4% | $2.20B | $1.56B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.25B | $1.46B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.38B
Terminal Value
$35.50B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$23.07B
Enterprise Value
$30.76B
Net Debt
$6.53B
Equity Value
$24.22B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$40.17
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$23.71
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 13 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Zacks · 28.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 25.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 25.8.2026
Brown & Brown (BRO) 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.
BRO 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, BRO's estimated fair value is $77.39, which is 18.8% above the current price of $65.12. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BRO's technical score is 23/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $77.39 vs. price $65.12 (+18.8%); Revenue growth (last year): 22.8%; Free cash flow growth: 26.6%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.06 (3y annualized return -3.5% / max drawdown 56.3%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -8.7%; Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — BRO 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 — 2 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOHNSON JOIA M | Open Market Purchase | 9.6.2026 | 860 | +860 | $58.05 |
| JOHNSON JOIA M | Open Market Purchase | 9.6.2026 | 860 | +860 | $58.05 |
| Hunt James S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| JOHNSON JOIA M | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| GELLERSTEDT LAWRENCE L III | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| Main Timothy R.M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| Reilly Wendell | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| Masojada Bronislaw Edmund | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| PROCTOR H PALMER JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| JENNINGS TONI | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| Savio Kathleen A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| PATEL JAYMIN B | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| KRUMP PAUL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| Hoepner Theodore J | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| GELLERSTEDT LAWRENCE L III | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 23,241 | +2,434 | — |
| Hoepner Theodore J | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 72,185 | +2,434 | — |
| KRUMP PAUL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 7,787 | +2,434 | — |
| JENNINGS TONI | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 57,859 | +2,434 | — |
| JOHNSON JOIA M | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 2,434 | +2,434 | — |
| PATEL JAYMIN B | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 6,957 | +2,434 | — |
| PROCTOR H PALMER JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 50,055 | +2,434 | — |
| Reilly Wendell | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 42,731 | +2,434 | — |
| Main Timothy R.M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 36,023 | +2,434 | — |
| Hunt James S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 27,109 | +2,434 | — |
| Masojada Bronislaw Edmund | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.5.2026 | 5,109 | +2,434 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
13,892,771 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,576,313 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
41.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.3% 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