Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$31.60
▼ $0.06 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 06:09 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$2.96B
Day Range
$31.35 - $31.90
52-Week Range
$28.97 - $38.27
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.12.2026
Support
$28.97
Resistance
$33.98
FIZZ 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.
-18.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/30 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 28.9% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $24.93 vs. price $31.60 (-21.1%)
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
42
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
26
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
21
Risk
54
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
77
Institutional
22
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of **National Beverage Corp.** has focused on its stock performance and valuation concerns, particularly around declining sales of its LaCroix brand and stagnant growth. Analysts like UBS have maintained a **Sell rating** while slightly lowering their price target to **$32**, citing weak volume trends. The company’s earnings, though not expected to shift long-term outlook, have drawn scrutiny amid broader industry comparisons to Coca-Cola, which has seen stronger investor interest. Overall, the narrative emphasizes **valuation fairness and growth challenges**.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about National Beverage Corp.. News trend score: 44. Reason: 6 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
9
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
24
Fundamentals
77
Technical
21
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
48
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+11
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a mix of cautious optimism and defensive positioning, with traders anchored near resistance while selectively ignoring weak fundamentals. Overconfidence in momentum over fundamentals and confirmation bias toward a positive narrative may be reinforcing buying interest despite stagnant earnings. The key open question is whether the narrative gap will widen further or if reality—like a revenue miss—will force a reassessment. Loss aversion could persist if the stock remains near resistance, but herding behavior may keep it aligned with peers rather than diverging sharply.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:01 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"UBS Adjusts National Beverage price target to $32 from $33"
"LaCroix volume declines and stalled growth keep valuation fair"
"Coca-Cola's stock is running hot on the back of a genuinely powerful business"
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of investors who emphasize liquidity, market cycles and crowd behavior—such as Bagehot, Mackay, and Howard Marks—the model estimates that FIZZ appears financially robust and not overextended. Conversely, Graham’s defensive and enterprising frameworks, as well as Smith and Nelson, assign low scores, indicating that the stock fails key safety and stability tests and looks stretched toward overbought. Growth‑oriented criteria from Fisher, Lynch, and Livermore also rate the stock poorly, reflecting insufficient quality, an unreasonable price, and a negative price trend. Thus, while liquidity‑ and cycle‑focused methodologies view FIZZ favorably, value‑ and quality‑centric approaches view it as risky, leading to divergent overall assessments.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 90
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 66
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 53
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 52
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 48
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 45
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 40
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 39
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 30
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
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)
🔴 22
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 18
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 17
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 · 7 bearish · 3 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid accumulation phase — a trading range after a decline with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$28.97
Range Bottom
$33.98
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
37.0%
Operating Margin
19.5%
Net Margin
15.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
28.9%
ROA
21.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.96
Cash
$349.54M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.39
Debt/Equity
0.00
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 13.7.2026 | $3.250 |
| 12.7.2026 | $3.250 |
| 24.6.2024 | $3.250 |
| 23.6.2024 | $3.250 |
| 10.12.2021 | $3.000 |
| 9.12.2021 | $3.000 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$31.60
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$24.93
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-21.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
0.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.2% | $156.47M | $143.55M |
| 2 | 0.8% | $157.71M | $132.74M |
| 3 | 1.4% | $159.86M | $123.44M |
| 4 | 1.9% | $162.95M | $115.44M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $167.02M | $108.55M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$156.11M
Terminal Value
$2.63B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.71B
Enterprise Value
$2.34B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$2.34B
*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
$6.79
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.77
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 9 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Motley Fool · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Associated Press · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Trefis · 19.8.2026
Trefis · 12.8.2026
Trefis · 3.8.2026
Yahoo · 3.8.2026
Trefis · 29.7.2026
National Beverage Corp. (FIZZ) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, 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.
FIZZ currently scores 42/100 (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, FIZZ's estimated fair value is $24.93, which is 21.1% below the current price of $31.60. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FIZZ's technical score is 21/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 28.9% — strong; Debt/equity: 0.00; Current ratio: 4.39.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $24.93 vs. price $31.60 (-21.1%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: -0.29 (3y annualized return -12.3% / max drawdown 42.5%).
Yes — FIZZ 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 — 2 purchases and 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waldman Glenn J. | Open Market Purchase | 20.7.2026 | 2,000 | +250 | $31.78 |
| Waldman Glenn J. | Open Market Purchase | 20.7.2026 | 250 | +250 | $31.78 |
| sheridan stanley michael | Open Market Sale | 15.4.2025 | 8,000 | -8,000 | $43.40 |
| sheridan stanley michael | Open Market Sale | 31.12.2024 | 6,100 | -6,100 | $42.49 |
| HATHORN SAMUEL C | Gift | 30.12.2024 | 20,000 | -20,000 | $42.50 |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Open Market Sale | 13.12.2024 | 5,264 | -5,264 | $46.76 |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Open Market Sale | 12.12.2024 | 2,736 | -2,736 | $47.01 |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Open Market Sale | 11.7.2024 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $50.11 |
| sheridan stanley michael | Open Market Sale | 5.7.2024 | 16,000 | -16,000 | $51.81 |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.6.2024 | 6,000 | +6,000 | $0.01 |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.6.2024 | 4,400 | -4,400 | — |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.6.2024 | 1,600 | -1,600 | — |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Open Market Sale | 9.4.2024 | 12,000 | -12,000 | $47.94 |
| sheridan stanley michael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.12.2023 | 16,000 | -16,000 | — |
| BRACKEN GEORGE R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.12.2023 | 30,000 | +30,000 | $4.60 |
| BRACKEN GEORGE R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.12.2023 | 30,000 | -30,000 | — |
| sheridan stanley michael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.12.2023 | 16,000 | +16,000 | $1.50 |
| HATHORN SAMUEL C | Gift | 26.12.2023 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $49.80 |
| HATHORN SAMUEL C | Gift | 22.12.2023 | 6,000 | -6,000 | $49.34 |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.12.2023 | 24,000 | -24,000 | — |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 22.12.2023 | 24,000 | +24,000 | $1.50 |
| CONLEE CECIL D | Gift | 13.12.2023 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $51.96 |
| CAPORELLA JOSEPH G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.12.2023 | 40,000 | -40,000 | — |
| CAPORELLA JOSEPH G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.12.2023 | 40,000 | +40,000 | $4.60 |
| sheridan stanley michael | Gift | 14.11.2023 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $49.14 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,218,416 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,331,658 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
50.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.3% 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