Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$11.51
▼ $0.19 (-1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/19 04:15 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$5.94B
Day Range
$11.47 - $12.26
52-Week Range
$9.81 - $230.70
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$9.81
Resistance
$20.31
BYND is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
-86.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/30 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 24.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$12.65 vs. price $11.51 (-209.9%)
Fair Value
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
45
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
47
Value
38
Momentum
24
Risk
46
Sentiment
86
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 Beyond Meat has centered on its **financial volatility and strategic shifts**, particularly after a **30-for-1 reverse stock split** in August 2026, which reshaped its valuation and sparked debate among investors. Analysts question its long-term viability, citing **cash burn risks** and declining stock performance, while recent partnerships—like its collaboration with **MILK BAR**—highlight efforts to expand plant-based product offerings. Some investors remain bullish, but skepticism persists over sustainability amid broader market uncertainty.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Beyond Meat, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
33
Psychology
61
Fundamentals
50
Technical
24
Valuation
38
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.
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.
Price (3M)
-46%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
33
Narrative Gap
+17
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant loss aversion—scored at 100—reflects a deep-seated reluctance to further accept declines after a 45.2% drop over three months, despite muted volume activity. The absence of FOMO, euphoria, or herding suggests traders are prioritizing risk mitigation over chasing momentum or mimicking peers. The narrative gap (-10) hints at a disconnect where sentiment (23) lags reality (33), possibly reinforcing caution. The key question is whether the subdued volume (0.64x avg) signals capitulation or merely consolidation, given the lack of extreme volatility or panic indicators. The low ATR (0.37x) suggests traders remain cautious rather than frantic.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:38 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Beyond Meat's 1-for-30 reverse stock split was supposed to solve a Nasdaq compliance problem, but the stock keeps falling anyway"
"3 Cash-Burning Stocks We Find Risky"
"'Is the ‘high’ worth it?' — questioning speculative investments"
"Should investors feast on Beyond Meat stock, or is it time to stick a fork in it?"
📈 10D 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 27/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep philosophical and methodological splits among the investors. The highest-scoring methodologies—Bagehot’s liquidity focus, Graham’s defensive and enterprising frameworks, and Mackay’s absence of crowd mania—all suggest structural resilience, emphasizing financial stability, valuation, and rational pricing. In contrast, Fisher’s skepticism about qualitative growth and Schwager’s absence of a clear technical setup highlight the stock’s lack of Fisherian ‘quality’ or Schwagerian ‘edge,’ while Livermore’s and Housel’s low scores flag volatility and trend resistance. Meanwhile, the middle-ground approaches—like Marks’ balanced risk assessment or Nelson’s cyclical optimism—struggle to reconcile the stock’s perceived growth potential with its volatility, illustrating a tension between growth enthusiasm and risk aversion.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 86
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 78
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)
🟢 78
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 74
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)
🟢 70
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 69
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 50
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 35
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 27
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 8 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
2.8%
Operating Margin
-121.1%
Net Margin
79.5%
EBITDA Margin
-109.2%
ROE
-21968.3%
ROA
35.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.15
Cash
$203.89M
Total Debt
$415.74M
Current Ratio
4.56
Debt/Equity
-416.99
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$11.51
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$12.65
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-209.9%
🔴 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% | $-149.38M | $-137.04M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-144.71M | $-121.80M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-142.90M | $-110.35M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-143.79M | $-101.87M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-147.39M | $-95.79M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-157.24M
Terminal Value
$-2.32B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.51B
Enterprise Value
$-2.08B
Net Debt
$211.85M
Equity Value
$-2.29B
*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
-$0.01
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.01
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 6 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Moneywise · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Just Food · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Barchart · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 6.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Moneywise · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Motley Fool · 3.9.2026
Beyond Meat, Inc. (BYND) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, 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.
BYND currently scores 45/100 (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, BYND's estimated fair value is -$12.65, which is 209.9% below the current price of $11.51. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BYND's technical score is 24/100, 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: 24.7%; Net income growth: 236.7%; Debt/equity: -416.99.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$12.65 vs. price $11.51 (-209.9%); Operating margin: -121.1% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BYND.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KUTUA LUBI | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.7.2026 | 1,209 | -1,209 | $0.62 |
| KUTUA LUBI | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.7.2026 | 6,307,344 | -1,209 | $0.62 |
| LUFKIN PAUL ANDREW | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.7.2026 | 1,107 | -1,107 | $0.66 |
| LUFKIN PAUL ANDREW | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.7.2026 | 563,274 | -1,107 | $0.66 |
| KUTUA LUBI | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 3,553 | -3,553 | $0.78 |
| Brown Ethan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 12,583 | -12,583 | $0.78 |
| WITTEMAN TERI L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 2,007 | -2,007 | $0.78 |
| Ajami Dariush | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 3,036 | -3,036 | $0.78 |
| WITTEMAN TERI L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 4,561,213 | -2,007 | $0.78 |
| Ajami Dariush | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 3,294,000 | -3,036 | $0.78 |
| Brown Ethan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 25,655,516 | -12,583 | $0.78 |
| KUTUA LUBI | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 6,308,553 | -3,553 | $0.78 |
| KOCH C JAMES | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| GRAYSON CHELSEA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| Goldman Seth | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| Waller Kathy N | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| Lane Raymond J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| Murray Joshua M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| ZYNGIER ALEXANDRE | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| Jay Colleen | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| Wallander Raphael | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 152,555 | +152,555 | — |
| KOCH C JAMES | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 195,270 | +152,555 | — |
| Lane Raymond J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 216,166 | +152,555 | — |
| Waller Kathy N | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 181,008 | +152,555 | — |
| GRAYSON CHELSEA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 192,780 | +152,555 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,672,133 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 130,476,904 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.6% 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