Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$32.06
▼ $0.66 (-2.0%)
Market data updated: 09/23 05:04 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/22/2026
News analyzed: 09/23/2026
Market Cap
$1.20B
Day Range
$31.86 - $33.19
52-Week Range
$31.41 - $53.26
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$31.41
Resistance
$51.62
HUBG is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-11.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/30 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
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.16
Risk
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
30
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
47
Value
55
Momentum
6
Risk
40
Sentiment
8
Fundamental
45
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 of Hub Group, Inc. has primarily focused on its underperforming stock and operational challenges. Over the past six months, the company’s shares have declined by around 11.8% to 14.6%, lagging behind the S&P 500’s gains, prompting investor caution. Additionally, Hub Group received a Nasdaq deficiency notice in August 2026 for failing to file its quarterly 10-Q report on time, raising concerns about compliance and governance. Analysts have flagged the company as risky, with warnings about its small-cap status and potential expansion hurdles.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Hub Group, Inc.. News trend score: 8. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 3 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
43
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
83
Fundamentals
45
Technical
6
Valuation
55
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.
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)
-27%
Market Narrative
3
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
-34
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for HUBG suggests a dominant loss aversion bias, likely due to the pronounced 14.6% decline over three months and subdued trading activity. While herding (42) and panic selling (40) are present, they are secondary to the reluctance to crystallize losses, especially with the stock trading near support (3.4% away). The narrative gap (-29) further implies a disconnect between market sentiment (low narrative score, 8) and objective reality (higher reality score, 37), reinforcing defensive positioning. The key open question is whether traders will hold or exit near support, given the lack of euphoric or overconfident signals.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:28 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Hub Group’s shares posted a disappointing 14.6% loss, well below the S&P 500’s 11.7% gain"
"3 Reasons to Sell HUBG and 1 Stock to Buy Instead"
"Hub Group received a notice indicating non-compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5250(c)(1) due to delayed Form 10-Q filing"
📈 11D 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
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for HUBG reflects deep methodological disagreements about valuation, timing, and risk. The highest-scoring approaches—Mackay, Nelson, and Howard Marks’ cycle-focused models—see it as a low-risk, cyclically favorable opportunity, with Mackay even dismissing crowd-driven hype and Marks’ cycle analysis suggesting it’s still early in its upward trajectory. Meanwhile, Fisher’s near-zero score and Veblen’s warning highlight a stark contrast: Fisher’s quality-growth framework rejects it outright, while Veblen’s critique flags speculative overreach, implying the stock lacks the fundamentals or discipline he prioritized. The middle ground, represented by Graham (both traditional and enterprising) and Schwager, acknowledges some merit but stops short of full endorsement, with Graham’s tests failing and Schwager’s disciplined setup still carrying moderate uncertainty. The lowest scores—from Livermore, Lynch, and the efficient-market camp—paint a picture of poor trend alignment, weak growth justification, or even a trap for patient investors, underscoring how different frameworks prioritize momentum, fundamentals, or market efficiency.
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)
🟢 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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 84
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)
🟢 82
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)
🟢 74
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 59
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 58
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 55
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 36
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 30
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 22
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 22
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
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 283 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
3.6%
Net Margin
2.6%
EBITDA Margin
8.4%
ROE
6.3%
ROA
3.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.72
Cash
$98.25M
Total Debt
$264.36M
Current Ratio
1.33
Debt/Equity
0.16
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 5.6.2026 | $0.125 |
| 4.6.2026 | $0.125 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.125 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.125 |
| 5.12.2025 | $0.125 |
| 4.12.2025 | $0.125 |
| 12.9.2025 | $0.125 |
| 11.9.2025 | $0.125 |
| 23.6.2025 | $0.125 |
| 22.6.2025 | $0.125 |
| 18.3.2025 | $0.125 |
| 17.3.2025 | $0.125 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$32.06
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$31,915.63
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
-0.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -0.4% | $142.99M | $131.18M |
| 2 | 0.3% | $143.44M | $120.73M |
| 3 | 1.0% | $144.95M | $111.92M |
| 4 | 1.8% | $147.52M | $104.50M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $151.20M | $98.27M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$143.57M
Terminal Value
$2.38B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.55B
Enterprise Value
$2.12B
Net Debt
$166.11M
Equity Value
$1.95B
*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
$26,921.27
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$9,219.22
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 7 neutral, 10 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 21.9.2026
MT Newswires · 18.9.2026
FreightWaves · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
CFO.com · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
MT Newswires · 17.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Trucking Dive · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Hub Group, Inc. (HUBG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 30/100, 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.
HUBG currently scores 30/100 (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.
HUBG'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: Debt/equity: 0.16; NAV per share: $9,219.22; Debt/equity: 0.16.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 5.5% of price; Calmar: -0.18 (3y annualized return -7.3% / max drawdown 41.2%).
Yes — HUBG 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mathews Dennis P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 111 | -111 | $36.61 |
| Mathews Dennis P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.4.2026 | 9,516 | -111 | $36.61 |
| Mathews Dennis P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 107 | -107 | $42.75 |
| Mathews Dennis P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 4,679 | +4,679 | — |
| Beth Kevin | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 10,068 | +10,068 | — |
| Beth Kevin | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 11,696 | +11,696 | — |
| Bansal Dhruv | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 13,840 | +13,840 | — |
| Bansal Dhruv | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 10,527 | +10,527 | — |
| Beth Kevin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 6,999 | -6,999 | $42.75 |
| YEAGER DAVID P | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 28,609 | -28,609 | $42.75 |
| Bansal Dhruv | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 8,287 | -8,287 | $42.75 |
| Meents Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 6,687 | -6,687 | $42.75 |
| Meents Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 10,068 | +10,068 | — |
| YEAGER DAVID P | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 19,884 | +19,884 | — |
| Meents Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 10,527 | +10,527 | — |
| Yeager Phillip D | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 30,104 | -30,104 | $42.75 |
| Yeager Phillip D | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 44,348 | +44,348 | — |
| Yeager Phillip D | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 43,275 | +43,275 | — |
| Ross Jenell | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 4,679 | +4,679 | — |
| FLANNERY MICHAEL E | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 4,679 | +4,679 | — |
| Ross Jenell | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 1,695 | -1,695 | $42.75 |
| LaFrance Thomas P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 8,398 | -8,398 | $42.75 |
| MCNITT PETER | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 4,679 | +4,679 | — |
| MCNITT PETER | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.1.2026 | 1,695 | -1,695 | $42.75 |
| YEAGER DAVID P | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 41,044 | +41,044 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,536,267 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,801,416 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 20.3% 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