Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$54.67
▼ $0.02 (-0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/23 05:42 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/23/2026
Market Cap
$2.97B
Day Range
$54.66 - $54.71
52-Week Range
$24.29 - $56.93
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
Support
$37.30
Resistance
$55.56
CBZ is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+1.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/32 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 52.1%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $48.09 vs. price $54.67 (-12.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — 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
56
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
42
Value
38
Momentum
65
Risk
50
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
38
Institutional
No data available
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 on CBIZ, Inc. (CBZ) has primarily centered on its strong earnings growth and valuation debates, with analysts questioning whether its stock is fairly priced amid rising profit estimates. Some reports suggest CBIZ may be outperforming peers in the business services sector, though broader industry comparisons are noted. The focus remains on investor sentiment and potential undervaluation, with no major corporate developments beyond financial performance discussions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CBIZ, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
37
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
67
Fundamentals
38
Technical
65
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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 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.
Price (3M)
+80%
Market Narrative
55
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+18
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 1.2% resistance gap, likely due to recent price action. Euphoria and herding scores indicate speculative interest, but flat momentum and overvaluation metrics (e.g., +14% DCF premium) temper blind optimism. The key question is whether the narrative gap (55 vs. 37) will widen—if fundamentals fail to justify the price, anchoring could shift to loss aversion. FOMO’s muted momentum (0.0% ROC) hints at speculative fatigue, not a rush to buy.
Updated: 09/05/2026, 12:17 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"CBIZ and Huron Consulting Group highlighted in 'prospering Consulting Services Industry' alongside Gartner (article 11)"
"'Are Investors Undervaluing CBIZ (CBZ) Right Now?' (article 3) and 'Is CBIZ Fully Valued Following Rising Earnings Estimates?' (article 1)"
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
Peter Lynch — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 14/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Peter Lynch and Morgan Housel both seeing strong potential—Lynch highlights its growth potential where the price hasn’t fully reflected fundamentals, while Housel frames it as a quiet, patient-friendly compounder. Meanwhile, more cautious or contrarian voices like Benjamin Graham, Samuel Nelson, and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) dismiss it outright, with Graham calling it a defensive failure and Nelson warning of overbought cycle risks. The middle ground is occupied by Fisher and Livermore, who acknowledge solid qualities but lack the conviction for aggressive bets, while the efficient-market camp and Bagehot flag liquidity and market efficiency concerns. The contrast underscores whether the stock’s growth is sustainable (or already priced in) versus whether it’s a speculative bet or a liquidity trap.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 85
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 80
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 60
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 58
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
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)
🟡 57
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 55
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 42
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
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)
🟡 37
Cycle looks stretched toward 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)
🔴 33
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 29
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 21
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 14
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
Based on the last 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (6 bullish · 4 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.
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
12.9%
Operating Margin
8.5%
Net Margin
4.2%
EBITDA Margin
12.0%
ROE
6.6%
ROA
2.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.84
Cash
$18.29M
Total Debt
$1.46B
Current Ratio
1.22
Debt/Equity
0.83
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$54.67
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$48.09
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-12.0%
🔴 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% | $219.41M | $201.29M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $261.92M | $220.45M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $297.93M | $230.06M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $322.14M | $228.21M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $330.19M | $214.60M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$175.53M
Terminal Value
$5.21B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$3.38B
Enterprise Value
$4.48B
Net Debt
$1.44B
Equity Value
$3.04B
*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
$27.86
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$8.98
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 8 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Fintel · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
CBIZ, Inc. (CBZ) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
CBZ currently scores 56/100 (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, CBZ's estimated fair value is $48.09, which is 12.0% below the current price of $54.67. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CBZ's technical score is 65/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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): 52.1%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 134.6%; Free cash flow growth: 58.4%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $48.09 vs. price $54.67 (-12.0%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.02 (3y annualized return 1.6% / max drawdown 71.6%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CBZ.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHERMAN A HAAG | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 50,000 | -50,000 | — |
| SHERMAN A HAAG | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | $24.62 |
| SHERMAN A HAAG | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 22,354 | -22,354 | $55.07 |
| SHERMAN A HAAG | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 70,125 | +50,000 | $24.62 |
| SHERMAN A HAAG | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 47,771 | -22,354 | $55.07 |
| SHERMAN A HAAG | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.8.2026 | 0 | -50,000 | — |
| MARABITO RICHARD T | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 6,051 | +6,051 | — |
| France Gina D | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 6,051 | +6,051 | — |
| YOUNG RODNEY A | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 6,051 | +6,051 | — |
| BURDICK RICK L | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 6,051 | +6,051 | — |
| Raffa Kathy A | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 6,051 | +6,051 | — |
| SLOTKIN TODD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 6,051 | +6,051 | — |
| SHERMAN A HAAG | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 6,051 | +6,051 | — |
| BURDICK RICK L | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 8,412 | +6,051 | — |
| SLOTKIN TODD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 57,229 | +6,051 | — |
| YOUNG RODNEY A | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 15,361 | +6,051 | — |
| MARABITO RICHARD T | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 18,887 | +6,051 | — |
| SHERMAN A HAAG | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 20,125 | +6,051 | — |
| France Gina D | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 76,086 | +6,051 | — |
| Raffa Kathy A | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 8,412 | +6,051 | — |
| Lakhia Brad S. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.3.2026 | 1,647 | -1,647 | $26.49 |
| Lakhia Brad S. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.3.2026 | 146,833 | -1,647 | $26.49 |
| GRISKO JEROME P | Gift | 13.3.2026 | 38,595 | +38,595 | — |
| GRISKO JEROME P | Gift | 13.3.2026 | 33,166 | +33,166 | — |
| GRISKO JEROME P | Gift | 13.3.2026 | 38,595 | -38,595 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,976,976 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,379,175 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
41.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 25.2% 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