Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Basic Materials · ·
$79.42
▼ $0.07 (-0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/28 09:06 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/28/2026
News analyzed: 09/28/2026
Market Cap
$4.38B
Day Range
$78.25 - $80.29
52-Week Range
$77.89 - $118.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$78.07
Resistance
$94.93
UFPI is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
-13.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/31 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: 0.08
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 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
46
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
26
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
29
Risk
54
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
50
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 UFP Industries, Inc. has focused on its stock performance and valuation concerns, with analysts noting weak demand, pricing pressure, and declining segment margins. The company’s shares have seen modest declines since its last earnings report, prompting mixed ratings—including a "Hold" designation with a raised price target of $90 by Stifel. While UFP’s dividend status was briefly mentioned, broader attention centered on its financial challenges within the industrials sector. Separately, its Deckorators brand received attention for a community-focused volunteer event, though unrelated to UFP’s core financial discussions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about UFP Industries, Inc.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 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)
37
Psychology
66
Fundamentals
50
Technical
29
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-12%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+23
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (score 42) reflects traders’ fixation on the 2.9% support level, a common reaction when price hovers near a psychological barrier. Confirmation bias (18) further amplifies this by reinforcing narratives that align with stagnant fundamentals (flat revenue/margins), while overconfidence (9) hints at lingering DCF-driven optimism despite underperformance. The narrative gap (+14) underscores a disconnect between investor expectations and reality, yet the absence of panic (17) or FOMO (9) suggests a cautious, anchored stance. The key question: will traders break free from support anchoring if fundamentals fail to improve, or will they hold despite the gap?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:19 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Dividend Champion, Contender, And Challenger Highlights: Week August 30 — dividend activity recap for Champions, Contenders & Challengers"
"valuation still rich amid weak demand, pricing pressure, and segment margin strains"
"plans to establish a new UFP Packaging manufacturing facility in South Carolina, expanding Structural Packaging capacity"
"Stifel maintains Hold on UFP Industries, Raises Price Target to $90"
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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for UFPI reflects deep methodological divides between investors prioritizing resilience, cyclical positioning, and fundamental quality versus those skeptical of growth or trend alignment. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights its liquidity and credit strength—key for his credit-focused framework—while Samuel Nelson’s high score suggests it’s positioned favorably in a market cycle, possibly oversold. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham and Howard Marks’ mixed verdicts reveal a stock that meets some fundamentals but lacks the deep undervaluation or margin-of-safety they demand. On the other end, Fisher’s near-zero score and Livermore’s negative trend verdict underscore a stock that fails to align with growth-driven quality or trend-following discipline, while Veblen’s low score flags it as a speculative, non-essential growth play. The divide between high-scoring liquidity/cycle investors and low-scoring quality/trend skeptics underscores how UFPI’s perceived risk-reward shifts entirely based on whether the focus is on defensive stability or aggressive growth.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 90
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)
🟢 79
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 67
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 67
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)
🟢 65
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
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 53
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 52
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 39
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)
🔴 28
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
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
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 286 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 7 bearish · 3 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.
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
16.8%
Operating Margin
5.8%
Net Margin
4.7%
EBITDA Margin
5.8%
ROE
9.6%
ROA
7.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$5.00
Cash
$914.20M
Total Debt
$229.76M
Current Ratio
4.59
Debt/Equity
0.08
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 1.9.2026 | $0.360 |
| 1.6.2026 | $0.360 |
| 31.5.2026 | $0.360 |
| 2.3.2026 | $0.360 |
| 1.3.2026 | $0.360 |
| 1.12.2025 | $0.350 |
| 30.11.2025 | $0.350 |
| 29.8.2025 | $0.350 |
| 28.8.2025 | $0.350 |
| 2.6.2025 | $0.350 |
| 1.6.2025 | $0.350 |
| 3.3.2025 | $0.350 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$79.42
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$76.34
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-3.9%
🔴 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% | $262.54M | $240.86M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $254.34M | $214.07M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $251.16M | $193.94M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $252.73M | $179.04M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $259.05M | $168.36M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$276.36M
Terminal Value
$4.08B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.65B
Enterprise Value
$3.65B
Net Debt
$-684.44M
Equity Value
$4.34B
*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
$53.92
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$45.51
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 27.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
Zacks · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 26.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 25.8.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.8.2026
Yahoo · 18.8.2026
PR Newswire · 18.8.2026
Yahoo · 18.8.2026
StockStory · 18.8.2026
PR Newswire · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
UFP Industries, Inc. (UFPI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, 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.
UFPI currently scores 46/100 (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, UFPI's estimated fair value is $76.34, which is 3.9% below the current price of $79.42. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
UFPI's technical score is 29/100, 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: 0.08; Current ratio: 4.59; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: -0.19 (3y annualized return -8.1% / max drawdown 43.3%); Revenue growth (last year): -5.0%.
Yes — UFPI 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COLE MICHAEL R | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 32,619 | +17 | $84.52 |
| Tarvin Landon C | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 3,375 | +13 | $84.52 |
| Guerre Robert Paul | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 1,256 | +17 | $84.52 |
| MISSAD MATTHEW J | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 95,757 | +17 | $84.52 |
| Ellerbrook Michael M | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 19,331 | +13 | $84.52 |
| MISSAD MATTHEW J | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 17 | +17 | $84.52 |
| COLE MICHAEL R | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 17 | +17 | $84.52 |
| Guerre Robert Paul | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 17 | +17 | $84.52 |
| Tarvin Landon C | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 13 | +13 | $84.52 |
| Ellerbrook Michael M | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 13 | +13 | $84.52 |
| Budden Joan A | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 368 | +368 | $91.68 |
| McLean Benjamin J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 593 | +593 | $91.68 |
| Grubbs Ronald K Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 73 | +73 | $91.68 |
| Wooldridge Michael G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 368 | +368 | $91.68 |
| Rhodes Thomas Wayne | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 653 | +653 | $91.68 |
| WALKER BRIAN C | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 368 | +368 | $91.68 |
| Grubbs Ronald K Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 294 | +294 | $91.68 |
| Tuuk Kuras Mary | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 368 | +368 | $91.68 |
| WALKER BRIAN C | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 34,528 | +368 | $91.68 |
| Tuuk Kuras Mary | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 22,757 | +368 | $91.68 |
| Rhodes Thomas Wayne | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 68,478 | +653 | $91.68 |
| Budden Joan A | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 2,135 | +368 | $91.68 |
| Wooldridge Michael G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 15,783 | +368 | $91.68 |
| McLean Benjamin J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 15,452 | +593 | $91.68 |
| Grubbs Ronald K Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 81 | +73 | $91.68 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,172,925 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 2,182,613 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.0% 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