Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$58.68
▲ $0.80 (+1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/30 08:30 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$57.37 - $60.72
52-Week Range
$51.60 - $107.46
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
Support
$54.29
Resistance
$76.41
SHAK is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-37.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/30 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 354.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $32.01 vs. price $58.68 (-45.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (79/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
54
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
79
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
42
Risk
46
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
52
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 on Shake Shack (SHAK) has primarily focused on its stock performance and financial valuation. Analysts highlight potential undervaluation, citing margin improvements and better cash flow prospects, while also comparing it to peers like BJ’s Restaurants. The company’s stock is noted for modest declines since its last earnings report, with discussions on whether it remains an attractive investment. No major operational or product-related news is explicitly mentioned in these sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Shake Shack, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 6 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
52
Technical
42
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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)
+4%
Market Narrative
57
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence—driven by a disconnect between strong DCF valuation (+117%) and weak price momentum—suggests investors may be overestimating growth potential despite lagging performance. The narrative gap (28 points) further implies optimism exceeds tangible reality. Key uncertainty remains whether fundamentals will justify the valuation premium or if overconfidence will correct. Herding and euphoria are muted by underperformance relative to peers, reinforcing cautious optimism. The open question: *Will earnings or guidance bridge the gap between valuation and price action?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 04:34 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Shake Shack (SHAK) Could Be 15% Undervalued On Its Margin Improvement Story"
"Shake Shack (SHAK) Could Be 15% Undervalued On Its Margin Improvement Story"
"Why Is Shake Shack (SHAK) Down 1.3% Since Last Earnings Report?"
"Shake Shack Called Their Invention Its ‘Favorite Courier.’"
📈 4D 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
Peter Lynch — 89/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for SHAK reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen’s high scores (89 and 78) suggest they see strong growth potential—Lynch believes the stock’s price hasn’t yet reflected its underlying momentum, while Veblen aligns with real-value creation. Meanwhile, Samuel Armstrong Nelson (79) and Walter Bagehot (72) focus on cyclical positioning and liquidity, respectively, signaling tactical opportunities rather than long-term conviction. At the opposite end, Benjamin Graham’s low scores (20 and 29) reject the stock outright, citing defensive criteria and valuation concerns, while Jesse Livermore’s 27 points to a negative trend, contradicting the bullish growth narratives. The middle ground—where Fisher, Marks, and Smith hover around 60—reflects cautious optimism, balancing solid fundamentals with reservations about exceptional quality or long-term fit. Even efficient-market skeptics like Schwager and Bogle (48) dismiss the stock as unconvincing, highlighting how subjective signals clash with broader market rationality.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 89
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 79
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 78
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 73
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 72
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 71
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 64
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 62
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 54
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 51
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 42
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 37
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 29
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 20
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 290 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 6 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.
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
4.3%
Net Margin
3.2%
EBITDA Margin
11.7%
ROE
8.7%
ROA
2.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.14
Cash
$360.12M
Total Debt
$247.73M
Current Ratio
1.76
Debt/Equity
0.47
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$58.68
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$32.01
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-45.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
17.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17.1% | $66.18M | $60.71M |
| 2 | 13.5% | $75.08M | $63.19M |
| 3 | 9.8% | $82.44M | $63.66M |
| 4 | 6.2% | $87.52M | $62.00M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $89.70M | $58.30M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$56.51M
Terminal Value
$1.41B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$919.37M
Enterprise Value
$1.23B
Net Debt
$-112.39M
Equity Value
$1.34B
*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
$12.55
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.55
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 4 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Quartz · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
The Fly · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Shake Shack, Inc. (SHAK) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
SHAK currently scores 54/100 (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, SHAK's estimated fair value is $32.01, which is 45.4% below the current price of $58.68. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SHAK's technical score is 42/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 354.2%; Free cash flow growth: 58.5%; Net income growth: 348.0%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $32.01 vs. price $58.68 (-45.4%); ATR: 4.6% of price; Calmar: -0.00 (3y annualized return -0.1% / max drawdown 63.1%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SHAK.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 1 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentell Stephanie Ann | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.7.2026 | 639 | -639 | $60.00 |
| Sentell Stephanie Ann | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.7.2026 | 14,445 | -639 | $60.00 |
| Pendarvis Christiane | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 2,480 | +2,480 | — |
| Pendarvis Christiane | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 2,480 | +2,480 | — |
| Hook Michelle Greig | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.6.2026 | 20,548 | +20,548 | — |
| Hook Michelle Greig | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.6.2026 | 20,548 | +20,548 | — |
| Chapman Charles J III | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 4,039 | +4,039 | $54.48 |
| Flug Jeffrey | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 2,891 | +2,891 | $54.48 |
| LAWRENCE JEFFREY D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 4,589 | +4,589 | $54.48 |
| Meyer Daniel Harris | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 6,333 | +6,333 | $54.48 |
| Walker Tristan | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 2,570 | +2,570 | $54.48 |
| Balbale Sumaiya | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 4,498 | +4,498 | $54.48 |
| GEORGE LORI A | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 2,754 | +2,754 | $54.48 |
| Flug Jeffrey | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 8,361 | +2,891 | $54.48 |
| Chapman Charles J III | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 8,464 | +4,039 | $54.48 |
| Meyer Daniel Harris | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 7,792 | +6,333 | $54.48 |
| LAWRENCE JEFFREY D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 9,378 | +4,589 | $54.48 |
| Balbale Sumaiya | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 17,905 | +4,498 | $54.48 |
| Walker Tristan | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 8,311 | +2,570 | $54.48 |
| GEORGE LORI A | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 6,274 | +2,754 | $54.48 |
| Lynch Robert | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.5.2026 | 3,687 | -3,687 | $62.72 |
| Lynch Robert | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.5.2026 | 2,305 | -2,305 | $62.72 |
| Lynch Robert | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.5.2026 | 74,158 | -3,687 | $62.72 |
| Lynch Robert | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.5.2026 | 71,853 | -2,305 | $62.72 |
| Chapman Charles J III | Open Market Purchase | 15.5.2026 | 780 | +780 | $61.43 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,642,420 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 3,605,752 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.8% 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