Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$87.57
▼ $1.19 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:33 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$12.35B
Day Range
$87.02 - $88.80
52-Week Range
$69.50 - $106.98
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
Support
$77.18
Resistance
$98.20
HAS is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+16.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/31 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Relative strength vs. S&P 500
+1.3% over the last 3 months relative to the index
Technical
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $60.46 vs. price $87.57 (-31.0%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
83/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
-0.7%
Median 40D Outcome
36/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+4.3% … +7.0%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.3% … +0.3%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-21.6% … -5.0%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.3%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
7 occurrence(s) · 71% 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 | 27% (11%–52%) | -0.3% | -2.8% … +0.9% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.1% | -6.7% … +2.0% | +0.2% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.3% | -5.6% … +5.3% | +0.9% |
| 40D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.7% | -8.7% … +4.5% | +1.8% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.3% | -8.5% … +8.3% | +1.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-20 | 83/100 | Consolidation | +4.7% | -6.8% |
| 2019-02-21 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -1.5% | +12.6% |
| 2018-10-29 | 82/100 | Downtrend | +3.9% | -1.4% |
| 2020-02-11 | 82/100 | Downtrend | -37.1% | -31.7% |
| 2021-02-09 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +6.6% | +9.6% |
| 2020-01-15 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -5.9% | -28.0% |
| 2026-06-23 | 80/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +7.4% | +7.1% |
| 2023-10-03 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -28.3% | -18.3% |
| 2017-09-08 | 79/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +2.3% | -2.1% |
| 2025-03-21 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -14.9% | +11.4% |
| 2021-10-01 | 79/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +7.5% | +10.8% |
| 2017-10-31 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +0.3% | +1.7% |
| 2026-04-07 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +6.0% | -10.3% |
| 2024-12-17 | 76/100 | Downtrend | -4.7% | -0.3% |
| 2026-05-26 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -5.4% | +6.3% |
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 XLY (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
38
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
45
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
23
Risk
36
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
32
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING HAS...
Recent media coverage of Hasbro highlights its strong financial momentum, with the stock rising nearly 11% over three months and a 21.87% total return over a year. The company has expanded its partnership with Upper Deck for trading cards and tabletop games featuring iconic brands like Transformers and Power Rangers. Analysts note positive earnings momentum, cost savings, and an upgraded 2026 outlook, though challenges like tariffs and digital impairments remain. No direct Hasbro-specific news beyond these themes is present in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Hasbro. News trend score: 74. Reason: 6 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
21
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
40
Fundamentals
32
Technical
23
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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)
+3%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+24
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers despite HAS’s slight underperformance today, consistent with relative valuation (+48% DCF) and muted volatility. Overconfidence in valuation (+48% DCF vs. weak momentum) may reinforce herd-driven positioning, while neutral RSI (40) and low volatility (0.84x ATR) dampen extreme bias. The key question is whether the narrative gap (39 points) reflects overestimation of fundamentals or external catalysts driving herd behavior. Extreme sentiment (100/100) and peer underperformance may limit panic or FOMO, but the open question is whether herding persists or shifts if momentum reverses.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 02:19 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""HAS' Magic momentum, cost savings and raised 2026 outlook support growth""
""multi-year licensing deal with Upper Deck to create trading cards and tabletop games""
📈 11D 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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between cyclical optimism and deep structural concerns. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score suggests the stock sits in a favorable cycle phase, possibly oversold and ripe for a rebound, while Charles Mackay and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) see early signs of crowd-driven excitement or mid-cycle caution—both hinting at potential upside but with mixed urgency. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of methodologies—from Graham’s defensive framework to Fisher’s quality focus—flag severe red flags, with scores as low as 5, painting a picture of overvaluation, poor growth fundamentals, or excessive risk. Even the more pragmatic investors like Lynch or Housel, who might tolerate moderate holdings, dismiss it outright, reinforcing the idea that this stock’s appeal is purely speculative rather than fundamentally sound.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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)
🟢 74
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)
🟡 59
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 49
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
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 33
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 33
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 29
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 26
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 23
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 19
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)
🔴 15
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 5
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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.
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
75.8%
Operating Margin
0.2%
Net Margin
-6.0%
EBITDA Margin
2.7%
ROE
-57.0%
ROA
-5.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.30
Cash
$776.60M
Total Debt
$3.26B
Current Ratio
1.38
Debt/Equity
5.77
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 19.8.2026 | $0.700 |
| 1.6.2026 | $0.700 |
| 31.5.2026 | $0.700 |
| 18.2.2026 | $0.700 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.700 |
| 19.11.2025 | $0.700 |
| 18.11.2025 | $0.700 |
| 20.8.2025 | $0.700 |
| 19.8.2025 | $0.700 |
| 21.5.2025 | $0.700 |
| 20.5.2025 | $0.700 |
| 3.3.2025 | $0.700 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$87.57
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$60.46
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-31.0%
🔴 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% | $788.40M | $723.31M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $763.77M | $642.85M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $754.22M | $582.40M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $758.93M | $537.65M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $777.91M | $505.59M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$829.90M
Terminal Value
$12.27B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$7.97B
Enterprise Value
$10.96B
Net Debt
$2.49B
Equity Value
$8.48B
*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
$4.03
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$8.19
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 12 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
StockStory · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Motley Fool · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo Finance Video · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Business Wire · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Hasbro (HAS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 38/100, 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.
HAS currently scores 38/100 (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, HAS's estimated fair value is $60.46, which is 31.0% below the current price of $87.57. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HAS'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: +1.3% over the last 3 months relative to the index; Gross margin: 75.8% — strong; Revenue growth (last year): 13.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $60.46 vs. price $87.57 (-31.0%); Net margin: -6.0% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
Yes — HAS 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 14 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbacovi Holly | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 5,057 | -5,057 | $94.20 |
| Hamren Elizabeth | Gift | 26.8.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | — |
| Hight John | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 11,593 | -11,593 | $94.63 |
| Hight John | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 11,229 | -11,229 | $96.29 |
| Hight John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 545 | -545 | $97.15 |
| Barbacovi Holly | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 6,891 | -6,891 | $97.15 |
| Barbacovi Holly | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 538 | -538 | $97.15 |
| Barbacovi Holly | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.8.2026 | 1,187 | +1,187 | $97.15 |
| Hight John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 6,977 | -6,977 | $97.15 |
| Hight John | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.8.2026 | 1,384 | +1,384 | $97.15 |
| Hamren Elizabeth | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 1,975 | -1,975 | $92.84 |
| Hamren Elizabeth | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 9,896 | -1,975 | $92.84 |
| Hamren Elizabeth | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 989 | -989 | $90.42 |
| Hamren Elizabeth | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 11,871 | -989 | $90.42 |
| GOETTER GINA M | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 8,265 | -8,265 | $93.96 |
| GOETTER GINA M | Open Market Sale | 31.7.2026 | 79,839 | -8,265 | $93.96 |
| Hight John | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 3,186 | -3,186 | $93.71 |
| Hight John | Open Market Sale | 30.7.2026 | 67,557 | -3,186 | $93.71 |
| KILPIN TIMOTHY J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $61.71 |
| KILPIN TIMOTHY J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $61.71 |
| KILPIN TIMOTHY J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 20,000 | -20,000 | $61.71 |
| KILPIN TIMOTHY J. | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $94.25 |
| GOETTER GINA M | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 11,000 | -11,000 | $95.45 |
| KILPIN TIMOTHY J. | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $92.00 |
| KILPIN TIMOTHY J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.7.2026 | 64,229 | +10,000 | $61.71 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,195,118 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,387,791 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.9% 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