Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$137.99
▲ $2.24 (+1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 08:29 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$37.66B
Day Range
$134.26 - $138.32
52-Week Range
$134.26 - $170.14
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$134.26
Resistance
$166.31
YUM is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-5.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/32 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
🔴 Bearish
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: $102.66 vs. price $137.99 (-25.6%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (61/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — 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 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
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
61
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
13
Risk
48
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
67
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING YUM...
Recent media coverage of Yum! Brands has focused on its strategic shifts and corporate updates. Notably, KFC announced the appointment of its first global chief brand officer as part of a broader identity overhaul, including a refresh of its branding and menu, particularly emphasizing boneless chicken. Additionally, Yum! Brands confirmed its participation in the Barclays Annual Global Consumer Conference, signaling ongoing investor engagement. No financial performance or major operational changes were highlighted in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Yum! Brands. News trend score: 56. Reason: 7 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
22
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
46
Fundamentals
67
Technical
13
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-9%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
YUM’s dominant **Overconfidence** (score 45) reflects a disconnect between modest earnings growth (+0.1% EPS) and aggressive valuation (+46% above DCF), consistent with traders overestimating future performance. The **narrative gap** (9-point divergence) suggests market expectations outpace fundamentals, while **Herding** (score 25) indicates relative outperformance may attract opportunistic buyers. The absence of panic or loss aversion signals confidence, though weak momentum (+3.3% ROC) and neutral RSI (48) temper euphoric extremes. The key question: *Will traders reassess valuation or double down on momentum-driven optimism?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 09:53 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"The chain created the post as it refreshes iconic assets, including Colonel Sanders, and recenters its menu on offerings like boneless chicken."
"YUM! BRANDS, INC. TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BARCLAYS ANNUAL GLOBAL CONSUMER CONFERENCE"
📈 11D 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 — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on their documented principles, the model estimates that Housel, Mackay and Smith, who value quiet compounding and lack of crowd mania, rate YUM highly (≈80) and view it as a potential long‑term hold. In contrast, Marks, Fisher, Loeb and Nelson give moderate scores (56‑69), recognizing a solid business but noting it is not exceptional, with concerns about cycle stage and valuation. The efficient‑market view, Veblen, Schwager, Lynch, Livermore and both Graham frameworks assign lower scores (23‑46), highlighting liquidity limits, questionable growth‑to‑profit translation, trend weakness and insufficient margin of safety. These differences illustrate how each methodology’s weighting of factors such as compounding, cycle position, growth quality and safety leads to divergent overall assessments.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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)
🟢 89
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 80
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 73
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 64
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 58
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
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)
🟡 51
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 40
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 32
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 27
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: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 24
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 15
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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 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
69.8%
Operating Margin
31.3%
Net Margin
19.0%
EBITDA Margin
33.8%
ROE
-21.3%
ROA
19.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$5.59
Cash
$709.00M
Total Debt
$38.00M
Current Ratio
1.35
Debt/Equity
-0.01
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 9.9.2026 | $0.750 |
| 27.5.2026 | $0.750 |
| 26.5.2026 | $0.750 |
| 20.2.2026 | $0.750 |
| 19.2.2026 | $0.750 |
| 2.12.2025 | $0.710 |
| 1.12.2025 | $0.710 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.710 |
| 1.9.2025 | $0.710 |
| 27.5.2025 | $0.710 |
| 26.5.2025 | $0.710 |
| 21.2.2025 | $0.710 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$137.99
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$102.66
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-25.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
6.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.3% | $1.74B | $1.60B |
| 2 | 5.4% | $1.84B | $1.54B |
| 3 | 4.4% | $1.92B | $1.48B |
| 4 | 3.5% | $1.98B | $1.40B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.03B | $1.32B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.64B
Terminal Value
$32.04B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$20.83B
Enterprise Value
$28.18B
Net Debt
$-671.00M
Equity Value
$28.85B
*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
-$26.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$32.75
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 7 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Fintel · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yum! Brands (YUM) 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.
YUM 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, YUM's estimated fair value is $102.66, which is 25.6% below the current price of $137.99. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
YUM's technical score is 13/100, 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; Debt/equity: -0.01; Gross margin: 69.8% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $102.66 vs. price $137.99 (-25.6%); Calmar: 0.15 (3y annualized return 2.9% / max drawdown 19.3%); Return on equity (ROE): -21.3% (negative).
Yes — YUM 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 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turner Christopher Lee | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 261 | -261 | $153.64 |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 482 | +482 | $68.00 |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 268 | -268 | $153.64 |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 482 | -482 | — |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Disposition to the Company | 1.9.2026 | 214 | -214 | $153.31 |
| Bratspies Stephen B | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 166 | +166 | — |
| Bratspies Stephen B | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 310 | +310 | — |
| Bratspies Stephen B | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 309.563 | +309.563 | — |
| Bratspies Stephen B | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 165.838 | +165.838 | — |
| Skeans Tracy L | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 3,494 | -3,494 | $158.00 |
| Skeans Tracy L | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 3 | -3,494 | $158.00 |
| Tresvant Sean | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.8.2026 | 4,101 | +4,101 | $144.86 |
| Tresvant Sean | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.8.2026 | 2,035 | -2,035 | $144.86 |
| Tresvant Sean | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.8.2026 | 4,101 | -4,101 | — |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Disposition to the Company | 3.8.2026 | 215 | -215 | $153.28 |
| Russell David Eric | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 7,961 | -7,961 | $153.15 |
| Russell David Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 23,163 | +23,163 | $68.00 |
| Russell David Eric | Disposition to the Company | 3.8.2026 | 15,202 | -15,202 | $153.28 |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 483 | +483 | $68.00 |
| Russell David Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 23,163 | -23,163 | — |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 483 | -483 | — |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 268 | -268 | $153.15 |
| Turner Christopher Lee | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 261 | -261 | $153.15 |
| Turner Christopher Lee | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 63,771 | -261 | $153.15 |
| Mezvinsky Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 483 | +483 | $68.00 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,895,907 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,565,184 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
50.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.8% 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