Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$179.84
▲ $0.00 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 10/01 08:30 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$2.11B
Day Range
$179.84 - $179.84
52-Week Range
$104.50 - $208.53
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$163.10
Resistance
$208.53
SENEB 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.
+72.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/31 factors positiveRisk: Low
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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $646.56 vs. price $179.84 (+259.5%)
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 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
48
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
48
Quality
42
Value
62
Momentum
39
Risk
72
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
42
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 Seneca Foods Corp. has primarily focused on its recent bylaw amendments, including updates to its Certificate of Incorporation to clarify preferred share designations and adjust its registered office and mailing address in New York. Investors have also scrutinized the company’s short-term stock performance, with a slight decline of 1.89% in one day and a 6.81% drop over 30 days, though it has seen a 12.38% gain over 90 days and positive year-to-date returns. Analysts are evaluating whether these changes impact valuation.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Seneca Foods Corp.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 1 of the last 1 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
15
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
17
Fundamentals
42
Technical
39
Valuation
62
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+13%
Market Narrative
29
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
-7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
👥 What the crowd believes
"share price has eased in the very short term, with a 1-day move down of 1.89% and a 30-day share price return down 6.81%"
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 — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 23/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with top-tier technical and contrarian investors like Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Charles Mackay seeing strong potential—Nelson’s near-perfect score suggests a cyclical oversold opportunity, while Mackay’s high rating implies no speculative frenzy. Meanwhile, value-focused thinkers like Gerald M. Loeb and Howard Marks lean cautiously positive, emphasizing reasonable risk and cyclical positioning, though their scores dip below Nelson’s. In contrast, growth-oriented and efficiency-based investors like Philip Fisher, Peter Lynch, and the Efficient Market Hypothesis camp (Malkiel/Bogle) dismiss it outright, with Fisher and Lynch rejecting its lack of growth momentum and the EMH crowd seeing no clear edge over passive indexing. The divide widens further when comparing cyclical purists like Jesse Livermore (who flags a negative trend) to stability-driven investors like Edgar Lawrence Smith, whose low scores reflect concerns about long-term reliability. The contrast highlights how technical, contrarian, and value-driven models often overlap in bullishness, while growth and efficiency-based approaches remain skeptical.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 96
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)
🟢 83
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 83
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 78
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 74
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 60
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 59
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 58
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 42
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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)
🟡 41
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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)
🟡 36
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
🔴 31
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 24
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)
🔴 23
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
Based on the last 288 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 7 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.
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
9.5%
Operating Margin
4.9%
Net Margin
2.6%
EBITDA Margin
7.8%
ROE
6.5%
ROA
3.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$5.95
Cash
$42.69M
Total Debt
$465.88M
Current Ratio
3.52
Debt/Equity
0.74
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$179.84
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$646.56
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+259.5%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
4.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.6% | $312.01M | $286.25M |
| 2 | 4.1% | $324.76M | $273.34M |
| 3 | 3.6% | $336.31M | $259.69M |
| 4 | 3.0% | $346.49M | $245.46M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $355.15M | $230.83M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$298.25M
Terminal Value
$5.60B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$3.64B
Enterprise Value
$4.94B
Net Debt
$423.19M
Equity Value
$4.51B
*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
$90.70
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$90.70
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 1 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 1 articles.
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Seneca Foods Corp. (SENEB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
SENEB currently scores 48/100 (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, SENEB's estimated fair value is $646.56, which is 259.5% above the current price of $179.84. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SENEB's technical score is 39/100, 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: $646.56 vs. price $179.84 (+259.5%); Free cash flow growth: 349.4%; ATR: 1.0% of price.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -31.1%; Net income growth: -34.9%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SENEB.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 7 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palmby Paul Laurence | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 21,184 | -914 | — |
| Wolcott Michael S | Gift | 31.3.2026 | 16,085 | +250 | $148.03 |
| KAYSER KRAIG H | Gift | 15.1.2026 | 130,836 | +640 | $119.71 |
| Erstad Dean Everett | I | 26.11.2025 | 0 | -2,084 | $119.38 |
| Palmby Paul Laurence | Gift | 11.11.2025 | 22,098 | -1,000 | — |
| Palmby Paul Laurence | I | 27.8.2025 | 0 | -403 | $110.01 |
| Wolcott Michael S | Gift | 25.8.2025 | 15,835 | +320 | $108.51 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,031 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 1,145 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 72.4% 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