Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$226.61
▼ $2.87 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 07:09 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$72.39B
Day Range
$226.39 - $230.24
52-Week Range
$143.71 - $257.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
18.11.2026
Support
$218.07
Resistance
$257.00
ROST is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+55.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/31 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
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 34.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $127.73 vs. price $226.61 (-43.6%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (64/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
86/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
+3.5%
Median 40D Outcome
71/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+2.7% … +7.3%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
33%
-6.7% … -4.8%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 20 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +2.3%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
4 occurrence(s) · 75% 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.6% | -2.9% … +2.9% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.7% | -2.7% … +4.6% | +0.9% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.3% | -3.6% … +6.3% | +2.0% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.5% | -5.2% … +9.6% | +3.9% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.3% | -5.2% … +11.6% | +5.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-03 | 86/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.5% | +11.5% |
| 2018-04-03 | 85/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.2% | +11.4% |
| 2018-03-16 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.1% | +11.7% |
| 2021-08-17 | 83/100 | Consolidation | -6.5% | -1.7% |
| 2025-02-03 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -7.5% | -5.5% |
| 2025-01-17 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -6.7% | -5.4% |
| 2018-04-24 | 82/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +5.9% | +12.5% |
| 2023-03-08 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -2.4% | -5.3% |
| 2021-06-16 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +4.0% | -5.2% |
| 2023-10-13 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +10.1% | +21.3% |
| 2021-07-28 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +2.3% | -8.6% |
| 2024-11-19 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +6.7% | +0.3% |
| 2025-03-06 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -4.8% | +3.3% |
| 2025-10-10 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +9.1% | +26.6% |
| 2026-06-24 | 77/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.7% | -0.9% |
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
59
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
63
Value
38
Momentum
37
Risk
62
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
74
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING ROST...
Recent media coverage of Ross Stores has highlighted its strong financial performance and market momentum. Analysts, including Jim Cramer, have praised the company for its "kicking butt" results, particularly its **10% comp sales growth in Q2 2026** and margin improvements tied to tariff refunds. The stock’s long-term outperformance—with a **15-year annualized return of 18.23%**—has also drawn attention, reinforcing its status as a top-performing off-price retailer. While broader retail trends are noted, Ross Stores’ resilience and leadership under CEO Jim Conroy remain focal points.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Ross Stores. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
74
Technical
37
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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-3%
Market Narrative
75
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixated on the 2.1% support level, likely due to its proximity. Overconfidence and euphoria scores are elevated but tempered by weak momentum and neutral RSI, indicating potential overestimation of value. The narrative gap (35) hints at a disconnect between market perception (optimistic) and fundamentals (more muted). The key question is whether traders will hold or adjust positions if the stock tests support, given the lack of panic or FOMO signals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Ross Stores (ROST) Q2 earnings call recap: 10% comp sales growth, margin lift from tariff"
"Morgan Stanley makes a buy call on tumbling retail giant stock"
"One analyst says the company appears to be following the TJX playbook"
"Ross Stores (ROST) has outperformed the market over the past 15 years by 5.01% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 18.23%"
📈 14D 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
Morgan Housel — 81/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with some models seeing it as a high-potential opportunity while others dismiss it outright. The top scorers—Samuel Armstrong Nelson, Morgan Housel, and Edgar Lawrence Smith—all highlight its cyclical strength and long-term compounding potential, framing it as a patient investor’s dream. Meanwhile, Fisher, Veblen, and even Loeb temper enthusiasm, either because the stock lacks Fisher’s ‘exceptional quality’ or because Veblen questions whether growth will translate into sustainable profits. At the lower end, Graham’s strict valuation rules and Livermore’s trend-following discipline outright reject it, while Marks and the Efficient Market theorists see it as unexceptional or overpriced relative to broader market benchmarks. The contrast underscores how some approaches prioritize macro trends or defensive metrics, while others focus on qualitative growth or cyclical positioning.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 81
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 78
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
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)
🟢 75
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
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)
🟡 62
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 61
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 58
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 52
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 30
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
🔴 24
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 21
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 (2 bullish · 6 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.
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
27.7%
Operating Margin
11.9%
Net Margin
9.4%
EBITDA Margin
14.1%
ROE
34.7%
ROA
13.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.66
Cash
$4.59B
Total Debt
$1.52B
Current Ratio
1.58
Debt/Equity
0.25
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 8.9.2026 | $0.445 |
| 9.6.2026 | $0.445 |
| 8.6.2026 | $0.445 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.445 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.445 |
| 9.12.2025 | $0.405 |
| 8.12.2025 | $0.405 |
| 9.9.2025 | $0.405 |
| 8.9.2025 | $0.405 |
| 10.6.2025 | $0.405 |
| 9.6.2025 | $0.405 |
| 18.3.2025 | $0.405 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$226.61
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$127.73
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-43.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
6.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.8% | $2.36B | $2.16B |
| 2 | 5.7% | $2.49B | $2.10B |
| 3 | 4.6% | $2.61B | $2.01B |
| 4 | 3.6% | $2.70B | $1.91B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.77B | $1.80B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.21B
Terminal Value
$43.66B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$28.37B
Enterprise Value
$38.36B
Net Debt
$-3.08B
Equity Value
$41.44B
*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
$19.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$19.07
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Ross Stores (ROST) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, 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.
ROST currently scores 59/100 (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, ROST's estimated fair value is $127.73, which is 43.6% below the current price of $226.61. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ROST's technical score is 37/100, 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: 34.9%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 34.7% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $127.73 vs. price $226.61 (-43.6%); Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — ROST 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mueller Patricia H | Gift | 29.5.2026 | 1,354 | -1,354 | — |
| GARRETT SHARON D | Gift | 29.5.2026 | 1,354 | +1,354 | — |
| Mueller Patricia H | Gift | 29.5.2026 | 1,354 | +1,354 | — |
| GARRETT SHARON D | Gift | 29.5.2026 | 1,354 | -1,354 | — |
| GARRETT SHARON D | Gift | 29.5.2026 | 2,113 | -1,354 | — |
| GARRETT SHARON D | Gift | 29.5.2026 | 215,059 | +1,354 | — |
| Mueller Patricia H | Gift | 29.5.2026 | 2,113 | -1,354 | — |
| Mueller Patricia H | Gift | 29.5.2026 | 3,513 | +1,354 | — |
| Cannizzaro Edward G | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 896 | +896 | — |
| Sutton Doniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 896 | +896 | — |
| MILLIGAN STEPHEN D | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 896 | +896 | — |
| BJORKLUND GUNNAR K | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 643 | +643 | — |
| Mueller Patricia H | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 896 | +896 | — |
| GARRETT SHARON D | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 896 | +896 | — |
| BUSH MICHAEL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 896 | +896 | — |
| BJORKLUND GUNNAR K | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 896 | +896 | — |
| GARRETT SHARON D | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 3,467 | +896 | — |
| BJORKLUND GUNNAR K | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 23,838 | +896 | — |
| BJORKLUND GUNNAR K | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 24,481 | +643 | — |
| BUSH MICHAEL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 37,554 | +896 | — |
| MILLIGAN STEPHEN D | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 22,888 | +896 | — |
| Mueller Patricia H | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 3,467 | +896 | — |
| Sutton Doniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 8,917 | +896 | — |
| Cannizzaro Edward G | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 8,273 | +896 | — |
| Burrill Jeffrey P | Gift | 27.3.2026 | 565 | -565 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,548,588 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,738,039 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.8% 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