Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$163.13
▼ $1.18 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/19 06:32 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$18.60B
Day Range
$162.31 - $164.93
52-Week Range
$133.83 - $242.26
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$143.04
Resistance
$186.91
BR is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-32.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/32 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
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: 35.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.09 (3y annualized return -4.2% / max drawdown 49.3%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
69/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
86/100
Analog Quality
+0.5%
Median 40D Outcome
60/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+6.2% … +10.5%
🟡 Base
20%
-0.0% … +0.5%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-10.8% … -5.2%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.3%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
8 occurrence(s) · 38% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.1% | -2.7% … +2.1% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.7% | -3.7% … +4.1% | +0.8% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.3% | -5.3% … +6.2% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.5% | -11.3% … +6.7% | +2.6% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.0% | -10.1% … +9.4% | +3.8% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-22 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +11.8% | +1.0% |
| 2022-05-12 | 66/100 | Downtrend | +2.7% | +23.9% |
| 2018-12-21 | 63/100 | Downtrend | +6.3% | +9.4% |
| 2026-01-30 | 62/100 | Downtrend | -5.4% | -19.4% |
| 2020-02-10 | 61/100 | Downtrend | -15.9% | -1.9% |
| 2018-10-17 | 61/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -11.2% | -15.8% |
| 2026-03-31 | 61/100 | Downtrend | -1.1% | -15.1% |
| 2023-02-27 | 61/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.3% | +7.5% |
| 2022-10-14 | 60/100 | Downtrend | +0.6% | +3.2% |
| 2022-01-28 | 60/100 | Downtrend | -5.2% | -5.0% |
| 2022-06-21 | 60/100 | Downtrend | +13.2% | +21.4% |
| 2022-02-18 | 60/100 | Downtrend | +6.7% | -1.3% |
| 2023-03-14 | 60/100 | Downtrend | +6.2% | +12.4% |
| 2026-05-08 | 59/100 | Downtrend | -0.3% | +9.3% |
| 2026-03-17 | 58/100 | Downtrend | -9.7% | -18.7% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLI (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
56
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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 22, 2026
Then
70
$182.18
Now
56
$163.13
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
73
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
23
Risk
42
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
72
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING BR...
Recent media coverage of Broadridge Financial Solutions has focused on its **financial performance and strategic expansions**. The company saw a **9% stock increase** since its last earnings report, with analysts highlighting its **dividend quality**—noted for a **1.71% yield, 11% growth, and strong profitability**—while also emphasizing its **undervalued valuation** despite a **19.24% year-to-date decline**. A key development was the **expansion of its Distributed Ledger Repo (DLR) solution to include G7 securities**, enabling faster cross-border collateral and settlement trades for institutional clients. No unrelated company details (e.g., First Phosphate) were included.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Broadridge Financial Solutions. 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
22
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
42
Fundamentals
72
Technical
23
Valuation
50
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own 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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+19%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a disconnect between extreme positive sentiment (100/100) and weak technicals, consistent with *euphoria* driven by narrative dominance (narrative gap: +17) rather than fundamentals. Herding is active due to relative underperformance, but momentum and volume lack panic urgency. The key question: will sentiment sustain despite lagging price action? Overconfidence remains muted, but euphoria’s persistence may rely on external catalysts.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:46 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"qualifies for the Best Dividend screen, balancing a 1.71% yield with 11% dividend growth and strong profitability"
"expanding its Distributed Ledger Repo solution to include G7 securities, giving institutional clients a tokenized platform"
📈 8D 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 — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented and value-focused methodologies. Thorstein Veblen, Peter Lynch, and Samuel Armstrong Nelson all score it highly (80, 79, and 79 respectively), praising its growth alignment, undervalued potential, and favorable cycle positioning—suggesting it meets their criteria for real value creation or momentum-driven opportunities. In contrast, Benjamin Graham and his Enterprising Investor variant (scores of 19 and 24) dismiss it outright, arguing it fails defensive metrics and isn’t cheap enough for even a risk-tolerant investor. The middle ground, represented by Fisher, Marks, and Malkiel/Bogle (scores between 47 and 52), acknowledges its solidity but questions whether it’s exceptional enough to justify a premium or if market expectations already price in its strengths. The divergence highlights a core tension: growth hunters see untapped upside, while value purists see no margin of safety.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 93
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)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 79
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 56
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 52
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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)
🟡 43
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 42
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 42
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 32
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 26
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
🔴 20
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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 300 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.
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
31.8%
Operating Margin
17.4%
Net Margin
15.0%
EBITDA Margin
19.2%
ROE
39.6%
ROA
12.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$9.67
Cash
$402.90M
Total Debt
$3.25B
Current Ratio
1.24
Debt/Equity
1.15
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 3.9.2026 | $1.090 |
| 12.6.2026 | $0.975 |
| 11.6.2026 | $0.975 |
| 16.3.2026 | $0.975 |
| 15.3.2026 | $0.975 |
| 12.12.2025 | $0.975 |
| 11.12.2025 | $0.975 |
| 11.9.2025 | $0.975 |
| 10.9.2025 | $0.975 |
| 12.6.2025 | $0.880 |
| 11.6.2025 | $0.880 |
| 13.3.2025 | $0.880 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$163.13
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$167.34
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+2.6%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
7.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.3% | $1.37B | $1.26B |
| 2 | 6.1% | $1.45B | $1.22B |
| 3 | 4.9% | $1.53B | $1.18B |
| 4 | 3.7% | $1.58B | $1.12B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.62B | $1.05B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.28B
Terminal Value
$25.56B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$16.61B
Enterprise Value
$22.45B
Net Debt
$2.85B
Equity Value
$19.60B
*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
$24.26
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$18.34
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
PR Newswire · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Broadridge Financial Solutions (BR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
BR currently scores 56/100 (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, BR's estimated fair value is $167.34, which is 2.6% above the current price of $163.13. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BR'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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 35.2%; Net income growth: 33.9%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.09 (3y annualized return -4.2% / max drawdown 49.3%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — BR 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ghei Ashima | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 466 | +466 | — |
| Gokey Timothy C | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 33,265 | +33,265 | — |
| DESCHUTTER DOUGLAS RICHARD | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 1,783 | +1,783 | — |
| Carey Thomas P | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 5,275 | +5,275 | — |
| PERRY CHRISTOPHER JOHN | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 9,308 | +9,308 | — |
| Stingi Richard John | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 2,172 | +2,172 | — |
| PERRY CHRISTOPHER JOHN | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 54,137 | +9,308 | — |
| DESCHUTTER DOUGLAS RICHARD | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 18,047 | +1,783 | — |
| Gokey Timothy C | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 176,141 | +33,265 | — |
| Carey Thomas P | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 11,301 | +5,275 | — |
| Ghei Ashima | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 6,027 | +466 | — |
| Stingi Richard John | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2026 | 7,681 | +2,172 | — |
| MURRAY EILEEN K | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 18 | +18 | — |
| Zavery Amit | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 33 | +33 | — |
| Markus Maura A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 36 | +36 | — |
| Zavery Amit | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 27 | +27 | — |
| Mosconi Patricia Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 2 | +2 | — |
| MURRAY EILEEN K | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 20 | +20 | — |
| FLOWERS MELVIN L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 18 | +18 | — |
| Nazareth Annette L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 18 | +18 | — |
| Duelks Robert N | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 143 | +143 | — |
| Nazareth Annette L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 21 | +21 | — |
| Markus Maura A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 98 | +98 | — |
| Mosconi Patricia Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 1 | +1 | — |
| FLOWERS MELVIN L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 2,694 | +18 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,931,225 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,935,035 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 38.0% 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