Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$41.37
▼ $2.68 (-6.1%)
Market data updated: 09/17 02:35 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$41.17 - $42.49
52-Week Range
$41.17 - $74.02
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
BROS is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-29.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/31 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 27.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $11.59 vs. price $41.37 (-72.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
42
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.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
82
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
6
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
52
Institutional
100
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Dutch Bros Inc. has centered on its stock performance and strategic decisions. The company reported strong second-quarter earnings and raised full-year guidance, but its stock declined after declining to acquire Salad and Go locations, prioritizing disciplined expansion instead. Analysts discuss its focus on growth targets (2,029 stores by 2029) and its niche branding around iced tea and water. Market reactions and trading activity have also been noted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Dutch Bros Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 8 vs. 8 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
80
Fundamentals
52
Technical
6
Valuation
33
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-40%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
BROS’s dominant **herding** behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers’ modest gains (+1.3% sector average) rather than chasing momentum or sentiment. The **anchoring** score (43) and proximity to support (2.9%) imply traders may be waiting for confirmation before committing, while **overconfidence** (45) and **loss aversion** (31) reveal tension between detached valuation expectations (+302% DCF premium) and recent underperformance. The **narrative-reality gap** (9-point divergence) hints at a disconnect between optimistic narratives and weak technicals. The key question: *Will traders exit herding if BROS fails to hold support, or will anchoring keep them anchored near key levels?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 09:24 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Dutch Bros (BROS) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock? We take a look at earnings estimates for some clues."
"The decision to walk away from the Salad and Go deal may reshape Dutch Bros’ disciplined expansion over rapid site accumulation."
"HTeaO built its whole brand around iced tea and purified water."
📈 3D 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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of each investor, the model estimates that cycle‑focused analysts like Howard Marks (market cycle) and Samuel Armstrong Nelson assign the highest scores (100 and 99) because they see BROS as early‑to‑mid cycle and not overextended, while growth‑oriented thinkers such as Peter Lynch, Charles Mackay, Thorstein Veblen, Jack Schwager and Philip Fisher also rate the stock favorably (scores ranging from 75 to 91) due to perceived growth, quality and disciplined risk‑reward. In contrast, more valuation‑centric perspectives—from Howard Marks’ broader view (score 57) to the efficient‑market duo of Malkiel & Bogle (48) and especially Benjamin Graham’s defensive and enterprising screens (20 and 21)—are far less enthusiastic, citing high expectations, limited margin of safety and only moderate liquidity. The divergence stems from the fact that the higher‑scoring methodologies prioritize cyclical position, growth momentum and company quality, whereas the lower‑scoring approaches weigh price relative to intrinsic value and broader market efficiency, leading to a split assessment of BROS’s attractiveness.
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 91
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 81
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 79
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 73
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 60
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 57
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 54
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 40
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 25
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 21
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 20
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 278 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 bearish · 0 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.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Medium confidence
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
25.9%
Operating Margin
9.8%
Net Margin
4.9%
EBITDA Margin
16.9%
ROE
11.7%
ROA
2.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.64
Cash
$269.40M
Total Debt
$200.18M
Current Ratio
1.49
Debt/Equity
0.29
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$41.37
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$11.59
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-72.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $68.01M | $62.40M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $81.19M | $68.34M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $92.36M | $71.32M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $99.86M | $70.74M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $102.36M | $66.52M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$54.41M
Terminal Value
$1.61B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.05B
Enterprise Value
$1.39B
Net Debt
$-69.23M
Equity Value
$1.46B
*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
$5.41
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$5.23
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 4 neutral, 8 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Fintel · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Dutch Bros Inc. (BROS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
BROS currently scores 42/100 (Weak) 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, BROS's estimated fair value is $11.59, which is 72.0% below the current price of $41.37. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BROS's technical score is 6/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 27.9%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 88.2%; Free cash flow growth: 120.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $11.59 vs. price $41.37 (-72.0%); ATR: 4.7% of price; Calmar: 0.36 (3y annualized return 18.4% / max drawdown 50.8%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BROS.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARCHISOTTO KORY | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | +775 | — |
| Miller Ann M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | +775 | — |
| MARCHISOTTO KORY | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | -775 | — |
| Maw Scott Harlan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | +775 | — |
| Penegor Todd Allan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | +775 | — |
| Cone C. David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | +775 | — |
| Penegor Todd Allan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | -775 | — |
| Gillett Stephen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | -775 | — |
| Hart Gerard Johan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | +775 | — |
| Miller Ann M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | -775 | — |
| Maw Scott Harlan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | -775 | — |
| Cone C. David | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | -775 | — |
| Gillett Stephen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | +775 | — |
| Hart Gerard Johan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 775 | -775 | — |
| Penegor Todd Allan | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $51.56 |
| Penegor Todd Allan | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 7,358 | +2,000 | $51.56 |
| DAVILA TANA | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 5,655 | -5,655 | — |
| DAVILA TANA | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 8,787 | +8,787 | — |
| DAVILA TANA | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 2,367 | -2,367 | $73.31 |
| DAVILA TANA | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 3,678 | -3,678 | $73.31 |
| DAVILA TANA | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 8,787 | -8,787 | — |
| DAVILA TANA | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 5,655 | +5,655 | — |
| DAVILA TANA | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 26,483 | +8,787 | — |
| DAVILA TANA | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 22,805 | -3,678 | $73.31 |
| DAVILA TANA | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 28,460 | +5,655 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
17,133,875 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 13,780,964 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.8% 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