Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$15.02
▲ $0.23 (+1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/16 11:05 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$7.19B
Day Range
$14.62 - $15.08
52-Week Range
$12.53 - $20.32
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.09.2026
CAG is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
-19.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 1/31 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Relative strength vs. S&P 500
+10.1% over the last 3 months relative to the index
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -14.4% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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
32
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
26
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
26
Risk
34
Sentiment
32
Fundamental
23
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of ConAgra Brands highlights financial challenges and investor concerns. The company has faced margin pressure and profit declines, with a 25% drop in earnings noted, despite leadership changes. Stock declines are tied to broader industry struggles—rising livestock costs and reduced guidance from peers like Campbell’s—raising questions about its turnaround potential. Analysts debate whether upcoming pricing adjustments and reinvestments can offset current volatility.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ConAgra Brands, Inc.. News trend score: 32. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 7 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
34
Psychology
22
Fundamentals
23
Technical
26
Valuation
50
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+14%
Market Narrative
29
Fundamental Reality
34
Narrative Gap
-5
👥 What the crowd believes
"national cattle shortages and volatile livestock prices squeezed operating margins"
"Conagra and Campbell's already made their moves... warning patterns separate a frozen payout from the next cut"
"Conagra Brands is rated Hold as the recovery is still unproven despite CEO changes"
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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CAG reflects deep methodological contrasts between investors who prioritize macroeconomic cycles, technical trends, and defensive valuation versus those who demand growth, stability, or liquidity. Mackay and Nelson, both attuned to crowd psychology and cyclical positioning, see relative safety—Mackay noting no mania, while Nelson finds the stock closer to oversold than overbought. In contrast, Fisher and Lynch, who emphasize organic growth and reasonable valuation, dismiss it outright, with Fisher’s quality-focused approach and Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price rule both failing. Meanwhile, Graham’s defensive criteria and Loeb’s risk aversion flag it as structurally weak, while Marks’ mixed verdict highlights a tension between a solid business and potentially inflated expectations. The efficient-market camp and Livermore’s trend-following rule further split the pack, with the former questioning active selection and the latter seeing it as counter-trend. This spectrum underscores how even high-scoring methodologies like Mackay’s or Nelson’s can coexist with near-universal rejection by others, driven by fundamentally different risk tolerances and investment philosophies.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 97
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)
🟢 80
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 74
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 63
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 37
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 35
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 35
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 33
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 26
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 15
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 12
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 9
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 277 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 8 bearish · 2 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 uptrend 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
23.9%
Operating Margin
-14.4%
Net Margin
-17.0%
EBITDA Margin
-10.9%
ROE
-30.1%
ROA
-11.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$4.00
Cash
$218.00M
Total Debt
$7.23B
Current Ratio
0.90
Debt/Equity
1.14
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 30.7.2026 | $0.175 |
| 29.7.2026 | $0.175 |
| 30.4.2026 | $0.350 |
| 29.4.2026 | $0.350 |
| 27.1.2026 | $0.350 |
| 26.1.2026 | $0.350 |
| 30.10.2025 | $0.350 |
| 29.10.2025 | $0.350 |
| 30.7.2025 | $0.350 |
| 29.7.2025 | $0.350 |
| 28.4.2025 | $0.350 |
| 27.4.2025 | $0.350 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$15.02
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$13.83
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-7.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-2.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -2.8% | $951.53M | $872.96M |
| 2 | -1.5% | $937.66M | $789.21M |
| 3 | -0.1% | $936.37M | $723.05M |
| 4 | 1.2% | $947.42M | $671.18M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $971.11M | $631.15M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$978.70M
Terminal Value
$15.31B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$9.95B
Enterprise Value
$13.64B
Net Debt
$7.02B
Equity Value
$6.62B
*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
$13.27
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$7.50
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 3 neutral, 10 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
StockStory · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Barrons.com · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
ConAgra Brands, Inc. (CAG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 32/100, 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.
CAG currently scores 32/100 (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, CAG's estimated fair value is $13.83, which is 7.9% below the current price of $15.02. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CAG's technical score is 26/100, 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: +10.1% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -14.4% (negative); Net margin: -17.0% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
Yes — CAG 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 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MARSHALL RUTH ANN | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 1,629.42 | +1,629.42 | $16.11 |
| Bartell Carey | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 2,429 | -2,429 | $14.77 |
| O'Mara Noelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 7,308 | +7,308 | — |
| McGough Thomas M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 11,419 | -11,419 | — |
| Napier Melissa C. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 1,196 | -1,196 | $14.77 |
| Eboli Alexandre | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 10,962 | -10,962 | — |
| Eboli Alexandre | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 10,962 | +10,962 | — |
| Eboli Alexandre | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 4,857 | -4,857 | $14.77 |
| Bartell Carey | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 5,481 | -5,481 | — |
| Bartell Carey | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 5,481 | +5,481 | — |
| Brock Charisse | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 5,481 | -5,481 | — |
| Brock Charisse | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 5,481 | +5,481 | — |
| Brock Charisse | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 2,429 | -2,429 | $14.77 |
| McGough Thomas M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 11,419 | +11,419 | — |
| MARBERGER DAVID S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 11,419 | +11,419 | — |
| O'Mara Noelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 4,568 | +4,568 | — |
| Napier Melissa C. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 2,698 | +2,698 | — |
| Napier Melissa C. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 2,698 | +2,698 | — |
| McGough Thomas M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 3,346 | -3,346 | $14.77 |
| O'Mara Noelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 34,257 | -34,257 | — |
| O'Mara Noelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 34,257 | +34,257 | — |
| O'Mara Noelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 7,308 | -7,308 | — |
| MARBERGER DAVID S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 5,059 | -5,059 | $14.77 |
| MARBERGER DAVID S | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.7.2026 | 11,419 | -11,419 | — |
| O'Mara Noelle | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.7.2026 | 20,438 | -20,438 | $14.77 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
46,842,863 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 43,083,539 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.3% 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