Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$37.04
▼ $0.34 (-0.9%)
Market data updated: 09/21 05:31 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$3.79B
Day Range
$36.89 - $37.81
52-Week Range
$21.83 - $46.70
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
Support
$32.90
Resistance
$46.70
RHI is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+7.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/31 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.00
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
47
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
12d ago · $38.52
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 4 to 33 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
26
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
35
Risk
46
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
56
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 **Robert Half Inc.** highlights its strong stock performance, rising **87.6% in six months**, driven by broader industry trends in commercial staffing. The company benefits from job market uncertainty, with professional staffing and HR solutions stocks surging as businesses seek flexible workforce solutions. While unrelated sources mention AI adoption in finance and Protiviti’s consulting accolades (a separate entity), Robert Half’s focus remains on staffing growth amid economic shifts. No direct company-specific news beyond market trends is evident.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Robert Half Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 10 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
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
38
Fundamentals
56
Technical
35
Valuation
50
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+26%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
RHI’s psychology is dominated by **Euphoria**, driven by a stark disconnect between valuation (+32% above 200-day avg) and weak momentum. The **Confirmation Bias** (narrative gap of +30) suggests investors prioritize optimism over fundamentals, while **Overconfidence** hints at overvaluation relative to growth. The key tension lies between extreme sentiment (98/100) and underperforming peers—does the gap persist, or will reality intrude? The open question: *Will the narrative hold, or will fundamentals force a re-evaluation?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 02:52 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"RHI Shares Rise 87.6% in Six Months"
"Professional Staffing & HR Solutions Stocks’ Q2 Earnings: Robert Half (NYSE:RHI) Vs The Rest Of The Pack"
"Job Market Uncertainty Pushes Commercial Staffing Stocks Up 80% This Year"
"Robert Half's Q3 Guidance Tests the Strength of Its Staffing Rebound"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 6D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on each investor's documented principles, the model estimates that the assessments range dramatically—from Nelson’s high 84 indicating a favorable, oversold‑leaning cycle position, down to Housel’s zero reflecting volatility that would shake patient holders. Cycle‑focused thinkers such as Nelson and Marks‑cycle assign relatively upbeat scores because they view the stock as near the attractive part of the market cycle, while value‑oriented frameworks like Graham, Graham‑Enterprising, Lynch, and Fisher give very low scores, citing insufficient cheapness, quality, or growth‑at‑reasonable‑price characteristics. More neutral or mixed approaches—including the efficient‑market view, Livermore, Schwager, Bagehot, and Smith—land in the mid‑40s to low‑50s, suggesting modest liquidity, crowd excitement, or no clear edge rather than a strong buy or sell signal. Together, these divergent scores illustrate how differing methodological lenses—cycle timing, strict valuation safety margins, or the search for a clear trading edge—lead to contrasting conclusions about the same stock.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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)
🟡 63
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 62
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 57
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 52
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 47
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)
🟡 43
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 41
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)
🔴 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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 27
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 26
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
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 22
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
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 8 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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low 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
37.2%
Operating Margin
3.4%
Net Margin
2.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
10.4%
ROA
4.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.33
Cash
$464.44M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.53
Debt/Equity
0.00
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 25.8.2026 | $0.590 |
| 22.5.2026 | $0.590 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.590 |
| 25.2.2026 | $0.590 |
| 24.2.2026 | $0.590 |
| 25.11.2025 | $0.590 |
| 24.11.2025 | $0.590 |
| 25.8.2025 | $0.590 |
| 24.8.2025 | $0.590 |
| 23.5.2025 | $0.590 |
| 22.5.2025 | $0.590 |
| 25.2.2025 | $0.590 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$37.04
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$35.14
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-5.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $253.47M | $232.54M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $245.55M | $206.67M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $242.48M | $187.24M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $243.99M | $172.85M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $250.09M | $162.54M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$266.81M
Terminal Value
$3.94B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.56B
Enterprise Value
$3.53B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$3.53B
*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
$12.61
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.60
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 6 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
CNW Group · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Robert Half Inc. (RHI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
RHI currently scores 47/100 (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, RHI's estimated fair value is $35.14, which is 5.1% below the current price of $37.04. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
RHI's technical score is 35/100, 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: 0.00; Current ratio: 1.53; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 4.2% of price; Calmar: -0.27 (3y annualized return -20.4% / max drawdown 75.2%).
Yes — RHI 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richman Frederick A | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 10,803 | +10,803 | — |
| Morial Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 10,803 | +10,803 | — |
| Barsten Jana | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 10,803 | +10,803 | — |
| Wilking Marnie Huss | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 10,803 | +10,803 | — |
| Coronado Julia Lynn | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 10,803 | +10,803 | — |
| Pace Robert J | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 10,803 | +10,803 | — |
| Richman Frederick A | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 67,569 | +10,803 | — |
| Pace Robert J | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 127,933 | +10,803 | — |
| Morial Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 37,742 | +10,803 | — |
| Coronado Julia Lynn | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 41,741 | +10,803 | — |
| Wilking Marnie Huss | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 24,795 | +10,803 | — |
| Barsten Jana | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.5.2026 | 20,739 | +10,803 | — |
| Tarantino Joseph A | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.3.2026 | 724 | +724 | — |
| WADDELL M KEITH | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.3.2026 | 33,120 | -33,120 | $24.82 |
| Tarantino Joseph A | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.3.2026 | 80,580 | +80,580 | — |
| GENTZKOW PAUL F | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.3.2026 | 27,910 | -27,910 | $24.82 |
| GENTZKOW PAUL F | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.3.2026 | 2,164 | +2,164 | — |
| MESSMER HAROLD M JR | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.3.2026 | 5,896 | -5,896 | $24.82 |
| WADDELL M KEITH | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.3.2026 | 2,554 | +2,554 | — |
| GLASS ROBERT W | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.3.2026 | 20,145 | +20,145 | — |
| GLASS ROBERT W | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.3.2026 | 6,114 | -6,114 | $24.82 |
| BUCKLEY MICHAEL C | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.3.2026 | 845 | +845 | — |
| MESSMER HAROLD M JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.3.2026 | 649 | +649 | — |
| GENTZKOW PAUL F | Grant/Award from Employer | 23.3.2026 | 149,073 | +149,073 | — |
| Tarantino Joseph A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.3.2026 | 9,077 | -9,077 | $24.82 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
21,602,663 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 23,403,143 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 65.2% 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