Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$42.55
▲ $0.57 (+1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:12 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$2.57B
Day Range
$41.61 - $42.93
52-Week Range
$37.89 - $65.20
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$40.66
Resistance
$60.28
AAP is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-29.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/31 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 113.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$74.58 vs. price $42.55 (-275.3%)
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
35
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
54
Quality
42
Value
33
Momentum
22
Risk
34
Sentiment
26
Fundamental
41
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 Advance Auto Parts Inc. has centered on its strong financial recovery, with Q2 2026 earnings marking its best performance in years. The company reported a significant jump in adjusted earnings per share and returned to positive free cash flow after two years of outflows, signaling operational improvement. However, analysts remain cautious, with Citigroup lowering its price target and others noting mixed market reactions amid weak DIY sales. The focus is on its turnaround potential despite revenue challenges.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Advance Auto Parts Inc.. News trend score: 26. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 5 positive.
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)
36
Psychology
71
Fundamentals
41
Technical
22
Valuation
33
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-29%
Market Narrative
34
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
-2
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here strongly suggests **loss aversion** is the dominant psychological force, as evidenced by the prolonged decline (-22.2% in three months) and subdued trading volume (0.71x average). Investors appear hesitant to crystallize losses, even as peers outperform, creating a narrative-reality gap where sentiment (13) lags reality (36). The absence of FOMO, euphoria, or herding further implies a defensive stance, though panic selling (55) hints at lingering unease. The key open question is whether this reluctance to act will persist or if a catalyst—like a break below support—could trigger a shift in behavior.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:19 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"free cash flow turned positive for the first time in two years"
"One turnaround story shows recovery despite revenue headwinds"
"lowers the price target from $57 to $45"
"improving margins, cash flow, and analyst and institutional support suggest the decline may be a buying opportunity"
📈 21D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between cyclical optimism and fundamental caution. The highest-scoring methodologies—Charles Mackay, Howard Marks (Market Cycle), and Samuel Armstrong Nelson—all see it as undervalued or favorably positioned within a market cycle, suggesting it’s a buying opportunity in a broader uptrend. Meanwhile, disciplined contrarians like Jack Schwager and Peter Lynch acknowledge potential upside but temper enthusiasm, warning that the stock’s price may already embed much of its growth or that the reward/risk balance isn’t as compelling as other setups. At the opposite end, Graham’s defensive criteria, Loeb’s risk aversion, and Housel’s volatility concerns paint a picture of instability or overvaluation, while Fisher’s near-zero score dismisses it outright as lacking the quality and growth traits he prized. The divide underscores whether the stock’s cyclical tailwinds justify its risks or if it’s a speculative gamble rather than a core holding.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 67
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 64
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 60
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 36
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 34
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 34
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 32
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 23
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 22
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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 (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 downtrend 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
43.4%
Operating Margin
-0.5%
Net Margin
0.5%
EBITDA Margin
2.7%
ROE
2.0%
ROA
0.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.73
Cash
$3.12B
Total Debt
$3.41B
Current Ratio
1.75
Debt/Equity
1.55
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 10.7.2026 | $0.250 |
| 9.7.2026 | $0.250 |
| 10.4.2026 | $0.250 |
| 9.4.2026 | $0.250 |
| 9.1.2026 | $0.250 |
| 8.1.2026 | $0.250 |
| 10.10.2025 | $0.250 |
| 9.10.2025 | $0.250 |
| 11.7.2025 | $0.250 |
| 10.7.2025 | $0.250 |
| 11.4.2025 | $0.250 |
| 10.4.2025 | $0.250 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$42.55
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$74.58
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-275.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-2.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -2.0% | $-292.03M | $-267.91M |
| 2 | -0.9% | $-289.46M | $-243.64M |
| 3 | 0.2% | $-290.18M | $-224.07M |
| 4 | 1.4% | $-294.17M | $-208.40M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-301.52M | $-195.97M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-298.00M
Terminal Value
$-4.75B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-3.09B
Enterprise Value
$-4.23B
Net Debt
$289.00M
Equity Value
$-4.52B
*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
$36.27
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$19.77
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 6 neutral, 9 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 28.8.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Motley Fool · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
Motley Fool · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
MarketBeat · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Advance Auto Parts Inc. (AAP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 35/100, 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.
AAP currently scores 35/100 (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, AAP's estimated fair value is -$74.58, which is 275.3% below the current price of $42.55. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AAP's technical score is 22/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 113.0%; Net income growth: 113.1%; Current ratio: 1.75.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$74.58 vs. price $42.55 (-275.3%); Operating margin: -0.5% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
Yes — AAP 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bailo Carla Jean | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 65.221 | +65.221 | $55.80 |
| Smith Gregory L | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 43.353 | +43.353 | $55.80 |
| Ferraro John Francis | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 118.618 | +118.618 | $55.80 |
| Seboldt Thomas W | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 27.29 | +27.29 | $53.90 |
| Seboldt Thomas W | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 44.661 | +44.661 | $55.80 |
| Johnson Richard A | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 18.652 | +18.652 | $55.80 |
| Windom Brent | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 43.353 | +43.353 | $55.80 |
| Hilson Joan M | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 57.971 | +57.971 | $55.80 |
| LEE EUGENE I JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 388.37 | +388.37 | $55.80 |
| JAMISON CYNTHIA T | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 16.514 | +16.514 | $55.80 |
| Seboldt Thomas W | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 15,858 | +27 | $53.90 |
| Seboldt Thomas W | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 15,903 | +45 | $55.80 |
| Bailo Carla Jean | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 15,327 | +65 | $55.80 |
| Ferraro John Francis | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 27,207 | +119 | $55.80 |
| Hilson Joan M | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 12,997 | +58 | $55.80 |
| Smith Gregory L | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 9,720 | +43 | $55.80 |
| LEE EUGENE I JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 90,199 | +388 | $55.80 |
| Windom Brent | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 9,720 | +43 | $55.80 |
| JAMISON CYNTHIA T | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 3,703 | +17 | $55.80 |
| Johnson Richard A | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.7.2026 | 4,182 | +19 | $55.80 |
| Starnes Bruce | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.6.2026 | 3,003 | -3,003 | $62.18 |
| Soler Kristen L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.6.2026 | 759 | -759 | $60.80 |
| Soler Kristen L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.6.2026 | 31,311 | -759 | $60.80 |
| Seboldt Thomas W | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 86.73 | +86.73 | $57.65 |
| Johnson Richard A | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 4,163.053 | +4,163.053 | $57.65 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,801,676 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,032,772 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
63.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 68.9% 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