AI-generated analysis for informational purposes only. Not financial advice.
Crunching the numbers…
Crunching the numbers…
Price above 50d & 200d averages. RSI 65 — neutral.
Closest historical profiles by multi-factor similarity.
Sign in to connect your holdings with this analysis.
Sign in to track this thesis — we'll watch whether the assumptions behind it still hold and flag any drift.
An absolute −99…+99 blend of news tone and recent price momentum, with a quarter-over-quarter delta (the change matters more than the level). This differs from the peer-relative Sentiment dimension in the score above — which ranks news tone vs comparable names — so a name can read “Bullish” here on momentum while its score Sentiment sits lower vs peers. Per-headline tags come from a finance lexicon on the headline text only (not the full article) — a fast heuristic that can misread sarcasm or a mixed headline, so treat them as a rough cue, not a judgment.
Peer-relative, six dimensions at a glance.
Logistic model on real price features (980 real samples). A weak directional signal, not a forecast — see Track Record for the honest out-of-sample score. Not advice.
Discounted free cash flow on the company’s real trailing FCF/share: stage-1 growth fading to a terminal rate, discounted at a CAPM (Blume-adjusted) cost of capital.
Top value driver: fcf0 — swings fair value the most.
What the price expects: at today’s price the market is pricing in about 21.6%/yr free-cash-flow growth for 10 years, vs the 6.4% the company is actually running. The price expects materially more than it delivers — a lot has to go right.
Why this can differ from the score: the Average 54 score is peer-relative (how this ranks vs comparable names), while the DCF is an absolute fair-value estimate. A good score with a negative margin of safety = attractive relative to peers, but expensive on absolute cash-flow value.
Drag the sliders to see how the fair value reacts — recomputed live, nothing is saved.
A distribution of outcomes over 5Y, not a single price target.
Median 1.50x vs a diversified market’s 1.49x over the same horizon — this name’s outlook is in line with the market (both medians, so the comparison is fair).
| Regime | Chance | Return / year |
|---|---|---|
| Bull | 20% | +31% |
| Base | 44% | +9% |
| Bear | 20% | -2% |
| Stress | 7% | -21% |
| Ruin | 8% | -60% |
Why these numbers: the regimes center on an expected return of +9.2%/yr — the three sources of a stock's return: income (0.3% dividend) + earnings growth (+15.0%/yr, capped for prudence), anchored toward the 8% long-run market average, plus a valuation headwind (-1.7%/yr) because it trades above DCF fair value. The band's width comes from 28% realized volatility — modeled log-normally with the volatility drag and fat tails priced in, plus uncertainty in the estimate itself, so it widens correctly over longer horizons. Not advice.
Consensus median across 20 analyst price targets. Individual per-firm targets aren’t shown.