Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$32.78
▼ $0.25 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/17 02:29 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$17.08B
Day Range
$32.76 - $33.87
52-Week Range
$28.36 - $60.37
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
TSCO is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-44.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/32 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $19.25 vs. price $32.78 (-41.3%)
Fair Value
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
🐂🐻 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
58
Value
38
Momentum
23
Risk
42
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
64
Institutional
100
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING TSCO...
Recent media coverage of Tractor Supply Company has focused on its strategic partnerships and investor sentiment. The retailer announced its annual vendor recognition during a Nashville conference, honoring partners for innovation and customer value. Meanwhile, analysts adjusted their price target slightly upward to $35 while maintaining a "Hold" rating, reflecting cautious optimism amid broader macroeconomic challenges affecting hardline retailers. No major operational or financial disruptions were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Tractor Supply. News trend score: 68. Reason: 6 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
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
64
Technical
23
Valuation
38
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+11%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+18
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
TSCO’s market behavior suggests traders are overconfident, trading above intrinsic value (+83% DCF premium) while momentum slightly outpaces fundamentals. The narrative gap (60 vs. 40) implies optimism may outpace tangible progress, a classic overconfidence red flag. Anchoring near resistance (4.5% away) could reinforce holding bias, while FOMO remains muted due to subdued volume. The key question: *Is the premium justified by future growth, or is overconfidence masking overvaluation?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 08:04 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""the discount may be a warning sign in disguise""
""Investor sentiment toward US hardline retailers has become uneven and is likely to remain so""
""Honorees were selected for their commitment to innovation, collaboration, service and delivering quality products""
📈 5D 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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 19/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for TSCO reflects deep methodological contrasts. Thorstein Veblen and Charles Mackay’s high scores (72 and 70) suggest they’d see organic growth or rational valuation—Veblen’s focus on real value creation and Mackay’s skepticism of speculative bubbles aligning with a measured outlook. In contrast, Benjamin Graham’s near-failures (25 and 23) stem from his strict margin-of-safety framework, where TSCO’s valuation likely flunks defensive metrics like earnings stability or low debt. Meanwhile, mid-range scores (e.g., Marks at 46, Fisher at 42) highlight nuanced concerns: Marks questions whether expectations are already baked in, while Fisher’s absence of ‘quality/growth’ signals a mismatch with his long-term, high-bar philosophy. Even ‘growth-oriented’ models like Veblen and Smith (63) diverge from ‘value’ purists like Graham, illustrating how TSCO’s profile—appealing to some as a *real* business but risky or overpriced to others—becomes a battleground for opposing investment philosophies.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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)
🟢 77
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 72
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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)
🟡 56
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 41
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 40
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 37
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 26
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)
🔴 21
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)
🔴 19
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
Based on the last 277 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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
36.4%
Operating Margin
9.5%
Net Margin
7.1%
EBITDA Margin
12.6%
ROE
42.5%
ROA
10.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.07
Cash
$194.11M
Total Debt
$1.76B
Current Ratio
1.34
Debt/Equity
0.68
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.8.2026 | $0.240 |
| 27.5.2026 | $0.240 |
| 26.5.2026 | $0.240 |
| 24.2.2026 | $0.240 |
| 23.2.2026 | $0.240 |
| 24.11.2025 | $0.230 |
| 23.11.2025 | $0.230 |
| 25.8.2025 | $0.230 |
| 24.8.2025 | $0.230 |
| 28.5.2025 | $0.230 |
| 27.5.2025 | $0.230 |
| 26.2.2025 | $0.230 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$32.78
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$19.25
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-41.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
3.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.0% | $762.77M | $699.79M |
| 2 | 2.9% | $784.75M | $660.51M |
| 3 | 2.8% | $806.37M | $622.66M |
| 4 | 2.6% | $827.55M | $586.26M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $848.24M | $551.30M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$740.49M
Terminal Value
$13.38B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$8.69B
Enterprise Value
$11.81B
Net Debt
$1.57B
Equity Value
$10.24B
*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
$4.85
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.10
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 11 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
StockStory · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Barchart · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Trefis · 10.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Tractor Supply (TSCO) 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.
TSCO 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, TSCO's estimated fair value is $19.25, which is 41.3% below the current price of $32.78. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TSCO's technical score is 23/100, 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 is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 42.5% — strong; +5.8% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $19.25 vs. price $32.78 (-41.3%); Calmar: -0.14 (3y annualized return -7.6% / max drawdown 53.5%); Net income growth: -0.5%.
Yes — TSCO 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 — 8 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ham Margaret M | L | 4.9.2026 | 84.895 | +84.895 | $35.05 |
| Ledbetter Samuel Craig | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.8.2026 | 27.545 | -27.545 | $33.98 |
| Ledbetter Samuel Craig | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.8.2026 | 8,515 | -28 | $33.98 |
| Estep Jonathan S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 794 | +794 | — |
| Ordus John P | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 1,588 | +1,588 | — |
| Estep Jonathan S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 3,062 | +3,062 | — |
| Ordus John P | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 6,124 | +6,124 | — |
| Ordus John P | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 97,180 | +1,588 | — |
| Ordus John P | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 6,124 | +6,124 | — |
| Estep Jonathan S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 80,482 | +794 | — |
| Estep Jonathan S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 3,062 | +3,062 | — |
| Ledbetter Samuel Craig | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 9,214 | +9,214 | — |
| DAHL AMY E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 13,626 | +13,626 | — |
| Ledbetter Samuel Craig | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 2,404 | +2,404 | — |
| DAHL AMY E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 13,626 | +13,626 | — |
| Ledbetter Samuel Craig | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 8,542 | +2,404 | — |
| Ledbetter Samuel Craig | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 9,214 | +9,214 | — |
| Lawton III Harry A | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 2,655 | +2,655 | $31.90 |
| Lawton III Harry A | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 12,945 | +12,945 | $32.20 |
| MORRIS EDNA | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 1,560 | +1,560 | $32.44 |
| MORRIS EDNA | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 279,720 | +1,560 | $32.44 |
| Lawton III Harry A | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 2,655 | +2,655 | $31.90 |
| Lawton III Harry A | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 15,600 | +12,945 | $32.20 |
| Hawaux Andre J | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2026 | 3,150 | +3,150 | $31.83 |
| Hawaux Andre J | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2026 | 3,150 | +3,150 | $31.83 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
43,402,123 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 28,974,573 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 51.4% 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