Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$6.04
▲ $0.09 (+1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/21 04:26 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$1.28B
Day Range
$5.85 - $6.05
52-Week Range
$5.85 - $13.28
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$5.86
Resistance
$8.89
FLO 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.
-55.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/31 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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $15.81 vs. price $6.04 (+162.0%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
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
31
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
17d ago · $6.35
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 17 to 51 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
45
Quality
42
Value
67
Momentum
6
Risk
26
Sentiment
0
Fundamental
36
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 Flowers Foods, Inc. has primarily focused on its financial struggles and market challenges. The company’s stock has faced significant declines, with a 41.89% drop year-to-date and an 11.69% loss over seven days, partly due to broader industry pressures like cattle shortages and inflation. After reporting a 4% drop in net sales and a 30.3% decline in net income in Q2, management acknowledged weak retail volume, especially for branded products. Despite reaffirming its quarterly dividend and updating bylaws, analysts remain cautious about its valuation and growth prospects amid broader food industry downturns.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Flowers Foods, Inc.. News trend score: 0. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 1 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
73
Fundamentals
36
Technical
6
Valuation
67
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-24%
Market Narrative
0
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
-35
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for FLO is dominated by **anchoring**, as the stock’s price aligns precisely with support, creating a psychological reference point. The narrative-reality gap (-35) further suggests investors may be fixated on past price levels rather than current fundamentals or external developments. While **panic selling** and **loss aversion** are present, they are secondary, indicating cautious but not extreme behavior. The key open question is whether the anchoring effect will persist or if a break below support could trigger further liquidation, shifting behavior away from hesitation.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:45 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Flowers Foods (FLO) has drawn fresh attention after its board approved amended bylaws, reaffirmed a quarterly dividend of $0.1250 per share"
"Net sales fell 4% to $1.193 billion, as a 5.8% drop in volume overwhelmed the modest gains the company squeezed out on price"
"national cattle shortages and volatile livestock prices squeezed operating margins and prompted outlook cuts across the food production industry"
"Investors looking for hidden gems should keep an eye on small-cap stocks... but it is also a high-risk, high-reward environment"
📈 8D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 4/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: those who see it as a cyclical or disciplined opportunity and those who flag it as structurally risky or overvalued. The highest-scoring investors—Charles Mackay, Samuel Armstrong Nelson, and Howard Marks (Market Cycle)—view it as a favorable setup, either because it lacks crowd mania or aligns with an early-to-mid cycle, suggesting patience could pay off. Meanwhile, the lowest scorers—Walter Bagehot, Gerald M. Loeb, and Peter Lynch—reject it outright, with Bagehot citing liquidity risks and Loeb warning of a dangerous capital threat, while Lynch and Fisher dismiss it for lacking growth or quality. The middle ground, where Graham, Marks, and Schwager land, shows a cautious optimism: Graham sees mixed signals, Marks accepts reasonable risk, and Schwager approves of the reward/risk tradeoff, but none fully embrace it as a slam-dunk. The divide underscores whether the stock’s volatility or cyclicality is a feature (for the bulls) or a flaw (for the bears).
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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)
🟢 98
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 82
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 62
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 37
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
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 31
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 30
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 29
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)
🔴 29
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 22
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 11
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 4
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 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
—
Operating Margin
3.3%
Net Margin
1.6%
EBITDA Margin
6.5%
ROE
6.4%
ROA
2.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.40
Cash
$12.10M
Total Debt
$1.76B
Current Ratio
0.75
Debt/Equity
1.35
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 11.9.2026 | $0.125 |
| 12.6.2026 | $0.125 |
| 11.6.2026 | $0.125 |
| 6.3.2026 | $0.248 |
| 5.3.2026 | $0.248 |
| 28.11.2025 | $0.248 |
| 27.11.2025 | $0.248 |
| 5.9.2025 | $0.248 |
| 4.9.2025 | $0.248 |
| 5.6.2025 | $0.248 |
| 4.6.2025 | $0.248 |
| 28.2.2025 | $0.240 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$6.04
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$15.81
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+162.0%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
3.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.1% | $328.85M | $301.70M |
| 2 | 2.9% | $338.45M | $284.87M |
| 3 | 2.8% | $347.86M | $268.61M |
| 4 | 2.6% | $357.04M | $252.94M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $365.97M | $237.85M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$319.09M
Terminal Value
$5.77B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$3.75B
Enterprise Value
$5.10B
Net Debt
$1.74B
Equity Value
$3.35B
*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
$6.15
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.20
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 1 positive, 6 neutral, 13 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
StockStory · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
StockStory · 4.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.8.2026
Flowers Foods, Inc. (FLO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 31/100, 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.
FLO currently scores 31/100 (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, FLO's estimated fair value is $15.81, which is 162.0% above the current price of $6.04. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FLO'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: Estimated fair value: $15.81 vs. price $6.04 (+162.0%); Free cash flow growth: 13.7%; P/E: 14.8.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 4.4% of price; Current ratio: 0.75.
Yes — FLO 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COURTNEY H MARK | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.6.2026 | 25,980 | +25,980 | — |
| COURTNEY H MARK | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.6.2026 | 129,319 | +25,980 | — |
| SCAGLIONE DIEGO ANTHONY | Open Market Purchase | 8.6.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $7.51 |
| SCAGLIONE DIEGO ANTHONY | Open Market Purchase | 8.6.2026 | 194,180 | +5,000 | $7.51 |
| Chubb Thomas Caldecot III | Disposition to the Company | 4.6.2026 | 18,550 | -18,550 | — |
| Chubb Thomas Caldecot III | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.6.2026 | 3,710 | +3,710 | — |
| Chubb Thomas Caldecot III | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.6.2026 | 3,710 | -3,710 | — |
| Chubb Thomas Caldecot III | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.6.2026 | 58,921 | +3,710 | — |
| Chubb Thomas Caldecot III | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.6.2026 | 18,550 | -3,710 | — |
| Chubb Thomas Caldecot III | Disposition to the Company | 4.6.2026 | 0 | -18,550 | — |
| McFadden William Jameson | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 9,350 | -9,350 | — |
| Casey Edward J. Jr. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 9,350 | -9,350 | — |
| McFadden William Jameson | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 9,350 | +9,350 | — |
| SPEAR JAMES T | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 22,260 | +22,260 | — |
| KING BRIGITTE | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 22,260 | +22,260 | — |
| DEESE GEORGE E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 9,350 | -9,350 | — |
| McFadden William Jameson | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 22,260 | +22,260 | — |
| Smith Joanne D | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 22,260 | +22,260 | — |
| Spainhour Sterling A Jr. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 7,900 | +7,900 | — |
| LEWIS MARGARET G | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 22,260 | +22,260 | — |
| Chubb Thomas Caldecot III | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 9,350 | +9,350 | — |
| LEWIS MARGARET G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 9,350 | +9,350 | — |
| GASS RHONDA | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 22,260 | +22,260 | — |
| Spainhour Sterling A Jr. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 7,900 | -7,900 | — |
| Chubb Thomas Caldecot III | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.5.2026 | 9,350 | -9,350 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
45,041,055 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 44,005,171 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 64.9% 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