Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$91.93
▲ $1.57 (+1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/19 10:31 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$14.48B
Day Range
$90.10 - $92.46
52-Week Range
$80.82 - $117.48
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$88.95
Resistance
$117.47
PFGC is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-14.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/32 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 46.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $79.72 vs. price $91.93 (-13.3%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (64/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
43
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
64
Quality
58
Value
33
Momentum
12
Risk
56
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
42
Institutional
0
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 **Performance Food Group Company** has been limited, with no direct mentions in the provided sources. The available headlines primarily focus on **United Natural Foods** (a separate company) and **Sysco**, as well as **SupplyCaddy**, a subsidiary or partner of Performance Food Group. SupplyCaddy received growth funding from CEAS Investments, expanding its supply chain services for restaurant brands like Burger King and Dave’s Hot Chicken. No substantive updates on Performance Food Group’s core operations or financial performance were found.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Performance Food Group Company. News trend score: 86. Reason: 8 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
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
35
Fundamentals
42
Technical
12
Valuation
33
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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)
-11%
Market Narrative
52
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests traders are fixating on a near-term support level (anchoring), despite a narrative-reality gap where optimism (narrativeScore 60) vastly exceeds observable fundamentals (realityScore 41). The +21% premium to DCF fair value, combined with weak momentum and oversold RSI, indicates overconfidence in an outdated valuation anchor. The lack of panic or herding implies traders remain detached from recent underperformance, focusing instead on the immediate price floor. The key question: *Will traders break free from the support anchor, or will the gap between narrative and reality widen further?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:06 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"SupplyCaddy has received growth investment from CEAS Investments"
"Performance Food Group (NYSE:PFGC) has outperformed the market over the past 10 years by 1.57% on an annualized basis"
"Hugh Patrick Hatcher sold 3,000 shares under a pre-established Rule 10b5-1 trading plan"
📈 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 — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles, the model estimates that investors who emphasize market cycles and disciplined setups (Nelson, Schwager, Mackay) give the stock high scores, reflecting a favorable oversold position and lack of crowd mania. More balanced approaches that weigh business quality, expectations, and moderate risk (Marks, Fisher, Housel) assign middle‑range scores, indicating solid but not outstanding attributes. Contrastingly, methodologies focused on long‑term stability, valuation cheapness, liquidity and trend adherence (Graham, Bagehot, Livermore, Lynch, Smith, efficient‑market) produce low scores, flagging issues such as insufficient safety margins, liquidity risk, and a negative price trend. These divergent outcomes illustrate how each historical framework prioritizes different factors—cycle timing, growth‑at‑reasonable‑price, intrinsic value, or market efficiency—leading to varying overall assessments of the same stock.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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)
🟢 86
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 77
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)
🟡 62
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 56
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 52
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
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)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 41
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)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 33
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 24
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 22
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 20
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 11
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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
11.9%
Operating Margin
1.3%
Net Margin
0.5%
EBITDA Margin
2.5%
ROE
7.3%
ROA
1.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.30
Cash
—
Total Debt
$5.01B
Current Ratio
1.51
Debt/Equity
1.02
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$91.93
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$79.72
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-13.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.9% | $1.09B | $999.93M |
| 2 | 5.0% | $1.14B | $963.40M |
| 3 | 4.2% | $1.19B | $920.80M |
| 4 | 3.3% | $1.23B | $872.98M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.26B | $820.92M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.03B
Terminal Value
$19.92B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$12.95B
Enterprise Value
$17.52B
Net Debt
$5.01B
Equity Value
$12.52B
*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
$31.21
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$1.34
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 10 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
StockStory · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Motley Fool · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
QSR · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Packaging Gateway · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Performance Food Group Company (PFGC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 43/100, 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.
PFGC currently scores 43/100 (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, PFGC's estimated fair value is $79.72, which is 13.3% below the current price of $91.93. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PFGC's technical score is 12/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 46.2%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 1.51.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $79.72 vs. price $91.93 (-13.3%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for PFGC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 13 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hatcher Hugh Patrick | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 2,900 | -2,900 | $99.16 |
| Hatcher Hugh Patrick | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 100 | -100 | $99.75 |
| Bulmer Donald S. | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 52,938 | -1,353 | $105.29 |
| DAVIS ERIKA T | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 40,402 | -1,320 | $105.29 |
| KING A BRENT | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 44,216 | -1,320 | $105.29 |
| DAVIS ERIKA T | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 1,320 | -1,320 | $105.29 |
| KING A BRENT | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 1,320 | -1,320 | $105.29 |
| Bulmer Donald S. | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 1,353 | -1,353 | $105.29 |
| Bulmer Donald S. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 54,291 | -4,900 | $106.33 |
| Bulmer Donald S. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 59,191 | -5,635 | $105.53 |
| Bulmer Donald S. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 5,635 | -5,635 | $105.53 |
| Bulmer Donald S. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 4,900 | -4,900 | $106.33 |
| HOLM GEORGE L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.8.2026 | 1,673,092 | -5,958 | $104.98 |
| HOLM GEORGE L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.8.2026 | 5,958 | -5,958 | $104.98 |
| KING A BRENT | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 45,536 | -1,086 | $104.98 |
| DAVIS ERIKA T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 41,722 | -1,086 | $104.98 |
| Hatcher Hugh Patrick | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 61,167 | -1,531 | $104.98 |
| Bulmer Donald S. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 64,826 | -1,053 | $104.98 |
| McPherson Scott E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 208,113 | -1,033 | $104.98 |
| Hatcher Hugh Patrick | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,531 | -1,531 | $104.98 |
| DAVIS ERIKA T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,086 | -1,086 | $104.98 |
| Bulmer Donald S. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,053 | -1,053 | $104.98 |
| KING A BRENT | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,086 | -1,086 | $104.98 |
| McPherson Scott E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.8.2026 | 1,033 | -1,033 | $104.98 |
| DAVIS ERIKA T | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 42,808 | -1,178 | $104.42 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,275,998 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,548,372 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.9% 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