Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$2.88
▼ $0.03 (-1.0%)
Market data updated: 09/19 11:22 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$40.93M
Day Range
$2.75 - $2.92
52-Week Range
$2.25 - $3.75
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$2.82
Resistance
$3.50
RAVE is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-18.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/25 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
🔴 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: $3.76 vs. price $2.88 (+30.4%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): -0.9%
Growth
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
53
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
59
Quality
No data available
Value
67
Momentum
16
Risk
56
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
66
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 **Rave Restaurant Group, Inc.** has primarily focused on its stock performance and financial analyst interest. Headlines highlight a **35.4% stock gain over three months**, positioning it as a potential investment opportunity among microcap food stocks. Analysts have included Rave in research reports alongside major companies, suggesting optimism about its growth prospects. The company’s broader industry context remains limited, with no recent operational or strategic updates beyond the appointment of **Mike Burns as CEO of Cafe Rio**, a brand under its portfolio.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Rave Restaurant Group, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 6 of the last 8 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
58
Fundamentals
66
Technical
16
Valuation
67
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).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
38
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+0
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (score 86) reflects traders’ fixation on RAVE’s proximity to support (0.7% above), likely due to its technical proximity to a critical level. While FOMO and panic selling scores are elevated, they’re muted by weak momentum and low volatility, suggesting hesitation rather than extreme action. The narrative gap (-2) implies minor misalignment between market perception and fundamentals, but the key question remains: *Will traders break above support, or will the stock test the 0.7% anchor further?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:16 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""RAVE Restaurant Stock Gains 35.4% in the Past 3 Months: Time to Buy?""
""The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights ... Rave and Vaso""
📈 12D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Edgar Lawrence Smith — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of the various investors, the model estimates that RAVE scores very high under liquidity‑focused Bagehot (100) and Veblen’s growth‑value alignment (91), while lower under Graham’s strict valuation tests (56) and Fisher’s quality criteria (49). The more cycle‑aware thinkers such as Nelson (82) and Mackay (78) see a favorable position, whereas trend‑oriented Livermore (32) and Smith (8) find the stock unattractive. Mid‑range scores from Marks (63) and Housel (51) reflect mixed views about expectations and holdability, and the efficient‑market view (39) suggests limited upside versus an index. These divergences stem from each methodology’s emphasis on liquidity, growth, valuation safety margins, market cycles, and trend analysis, leading to a spectrum of conclusions.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 91
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 89
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 79
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 67
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)
🟡 59
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 53
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 49
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 49
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 41
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 35
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 10
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 8
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 9 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 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
—
Net Margin
22.4%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
19.1%
ROA
16.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.19
Cash
$2.86M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
6.61
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.88
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$3.76
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+30.4%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
4.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.2% | $3.48M | $3.19M |
| 2 | 3.7% | $3.61M | $3.04M |
| 3 | 3.3% | $3.73M | $2.88M |
| 4 | 2.9% | $3.84M | $2.72M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.93M | $2.56M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$3.34M
Terminal Value
$62.02M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$40.31M
Enterprise Value
$54.69M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$54.69M
*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
$0.97
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.96
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 8 articles.
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 7.9.2026
Zacks · 10.7.2026
Zacks · 2.7.2026
Zacks · 25.6.2026
Zacks · 24.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 12.6.2026
Nation's Restaurant News · 2.6.2026
Rave Restaurant Group, Inc. (RAVE) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
RAVE currently scores 53/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). 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, RAVE's estimated fair value is $3.76, which is 30.4% above the current price of $2.88. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
RAVE's technical score is 16/100, 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: $3.76 vs. price $2.88 (+30.4%); Free cash flow growth: 20.6%; Current ratio: 6.61.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Revenue growth (last year): -0.9%; Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RAVE.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 4 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rooney Jay | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.10.2025 | 17,112 | +17,112 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.10.2025 | 99,464 | +99,464 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.10.2025 | 258,236 | +99,464 | — |
| Rooney Jay | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.10.2025 | 35,803 | +17,112 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Disposition to the Company | 15.10.2024 | 262,500 | +262,500 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.10.2024 | 125,000 | +125,000 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.10.2024 | 73,414 | -73,414 | $2.65 |
| Rooney Jay | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.10.2024 | 18,690 | +18,690 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.10.2024 | 105,848 | +105,848 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.10.2024 | 262,500 | +262,500 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Open Market Purchase | 12.3.2024 | 5,600 | +5,600 | $1.74 |
| Solano Brandon | Open Market Purchase | 11.3.2024 | 5,776 | +5,776 | $1.71 |
| IMA value LLP | Open Market Purchase | 29.1.2024 | 51,921 | +51,921 | $1.96 |
| IMA value LLP | Open Market Purchase | 22.1.2024 | 46,241 | +46,241 | $1.98 |
| FENDLEY CLINTON DAYNE | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.11.2023 | 26,460 | +26,460 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.11.2023 | 105,000 | +105,000 | — |
| BURNS MICHAEL F JR | Disposition to the Company | 16.10.2023 | 53,663 | -53,663 | — |
| FENDLEY CLINTON DAYNE | Disposition to the Company | 16.10.2023 | 25,900 | -25,900 | — |
| BURNS MICHAEL F JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 16.10.2023 | 42,260 | +42,260 | — |
| FENDLEY CLINTON DAYNE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.10.2023 | 8,741 | -8,741 | $1.99 |
| FENDLEY CLINTON DAYNE | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 16.10.2023 | 20,397 | +20,397 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 16.10.2023 | 369,456 | +369,456 | — |
| Solano Brandon | Disposition to the Company | 16.10.2023 | 443,625 | -443,625 | — |
| BURNS MICHAEL F JR | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.10.2023 | 18,112 | -18,112 | $1.99 |
| Solano Brandon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.10.2023 | 129,623 | -129,623 | $1.99 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
36,468 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 40,169 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
36.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 66.4% 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