Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$102.84
▲ $0.44 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/18 03:51 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$21.94B
Day Range
$102.62 - $103.75
52-Week Range
$85.22 - $122.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
TROW is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
-1.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/26 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: 29.9% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Death Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200
Technical
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
44
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
53
Quality
42
Value
55
Momentum
0
Risk
42
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
67
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING TROW...
Recent media coverage of T. Rowe Price highlights its strategic expansion into fixed-income investments, particularly through the launch of the **T. Rowe Price Securitized Income ETF (TSCZ)**. The fund, actively managed and targeting high income from asset-backed securities (ABS), CMBS, CLOs, and non-agency RMBS, marks a shift toward diversifying beyond traditional bonds. The announcement also underscores the firm’s broader ETF growth, now totaling 35 funds, as it emphasizes research-driven, high-yield opportunities. Analysts discuss whether this move will drive fixed-income growth and reflect future investment strategies.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about T. Rowe Price. News trend score: 80. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
27
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
73
Fundamentals
67
Technical
0
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-4%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 1.2% support level, likely due to its proximity to recent lows. The narrative gap (57 vs. 36) implies investors may be overestimating stability, while the lack of volatility (0.85x ATR) and neutral RSI (39) signal cautious, non-emotional positioning. Herding is present but passive, reflecting peer-driven underperformance rather than aggressive action. The key question: will traders break above support, or will the gap between narrative optimism and reality widen further?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:51 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"T. Rowe Price recently launched the T. Rowe Price Securitized Income ETF (ticker: TSCZ) ... targeting high current income from sectors such as ABS, CMBS, CLOs, and non-agency RMBS"
"T. Rowe Price is broadening its fixed-income ETF offerings through TSCZ and the F/m Investments deal"
"T. Rowe Price Group (TROW) has added PensionBee's Automatic Rollover IRA solution to its platform for eligible retirement plan clients"
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for TROW reflects a clash between cyclical, fundamental, and growth-oriented methodologies. At the top, Nelson’s cycle-based model sees it as oversold and favorably positioned, while Housel and Schwager—both favoring patient, disciplined compounding—view it as a solid, low-risk opportunity. Meanwhile, Graham’s strict valuation tests and Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price rule reject it outright, scoring poorly due to perceived overvaluation or lack of explosive growth. The middle-ground approaches—Marks, Loeb, and Smith—caution that while the business may be sound, market expectations or structural risks temper enthusiasm, while Fisher and Veblen dismiss it for failing to demonstrate the kind of qualitative or profit-driven growth they prioritize. The efficient-market camp, meanwhile, sees little justification for picking it over passive indexing, underscoring the tension between active stock-picking and broader market neutrality.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 82
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)
🟢 79
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 72
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)
🟡 63
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 62
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)
🟡 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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 52
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 46
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 28
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 12 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.
High 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
29.9%
Net Margin
28.5%
EBITDA Margin
29.9%
ROE
19.2%
ROA
14.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$9.26
Cash
$3.38B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.6.2026 | $1.300 |
| 14.6.2026 | $1.300 |
| 16.3.2026 | $1.300 |
| 15.3.2026 | $1.300 |
| 15.12.2025 | $1.270 |
| 14.12.2025 | $1.270 |
| 15.9.2025 | $1.270 |
| 14.9.2025 | $1.270 |
| 13.6.2025 | $1.270 |
| 12.6.2025 | $1.270 |
| 14.3.2025 | $1.270 |
| 13.3.2025 | $1.270 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$102.84
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$109.98
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+6.9%
🟢 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% | $1.54B | $1.41B |
| 2 | 3.7% | $1.60B | $1.35B |
| 3 | 3.3% | $1.65B | $1.28B |
| 4 | 2.9% | $1.70B | $1.20B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.74B | $1.13B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.48B
Terminal Value
$27.48B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$17.86B
Enterprise Value
$24.23B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$24.23B
*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
$49.30
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$36.06
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 9 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 15.9.2026
Verdict · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Forkast News · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
T. Rowe Price (TROW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 44/100, 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.
TROW currently scores 44/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, TROW's estimated fair value is $109.98, which is 6.9% above the current price of $102.84. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TROW's technical score is 0/100, 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: Operating margin: 29.9% — strong; Net margin: 28.5% — strong; Free cash flow growth: 17.2%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: -0.05 (3y annualized return -1.9% / max drawdown 35.6%).
Yes — TROW 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 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nelson Joshua B | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.8.2026 | 3.658 | +3.658 | $101.04 |
| Nelson Joshua B | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $111.82 |
| Nelson Joshua B | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 71,328 | -10,000 | $111.82 |
| Nelson Joshua B | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.8.2026 | 71,332 | +4 | $101.04 |
| WILSON ALAN D | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 691 | +691 | — |
| MacLellan Robert F. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 658 | +658 | — |
| DONNELLY WILLIAM P | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 576 | +576 | — |
| STEVENS ROBERT J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 537 | +537 | — |
| STEVENS ROBERT J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 25,246 | +537 | — |
| DONNELLY WILLIAM P | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 13,184 | +576 | — |
| WILSON ALAN D | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 41,818 | +691 | — |
| MacLellan Robert F. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 55,707 | +658 | — |
| STEVENS ROBERT J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 277.681 | +277.681 | $114.38 |
| Golston Allan C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 54.956 | +54.956 | $114.38 |
| MacLellan Robert F. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 184.553 | +184.553 | $114.38 |
| WILSON ALAN D | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 462.182 | +462.182 | $114.38 |
| DONNELLY WILLIAM P | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 141.685 | +141.685 | $114.38 |
| DUBLON DINA | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 108.82 | +108.82 | $114.38 |
| Smith Cynthia F | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 69.905 | +69.905 | $114.38 |
| WIJNBERG SANDRA S | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 147.897 | +147.897 | $114.38 |
| Verma Richard R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 54.956 | +54.956 | $114.38 |
| DUBLON DINA | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 15,533 | +109 | $114.38 |
| STEVENS ROBERT J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 24,709 | +278 | $114.38 |
| WIJNBERG SANDRA S | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 32,024 | +148 | $114.38 |
| DONNELLY WILLIAM P | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 12,608 | +142 | $114.38 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
26,224,508 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 25,488,484 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
71.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 70.0% 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