Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$118.97
▼ $3.48 (-2.8%)
Market data updated: 09/19 06:54 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$118.91 - $122.01
52-Week Range
$118.91 - $168.60
Beta
—
Next Earnings
06.10.2026
Support
$120.25
Resistance
$139.75
STZ 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.
-8.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/28 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
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
46
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
46
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
21
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
73
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING STZ...
Recent coverage of Constellation Brands has centered on a sharp drop in its share price to 52‑week lows amid broader consumer‑defensive weakness, a pre‑maturity redemption of its $600 million 4.350% senior notes due 2027, and the company’s increased marketing spend for Modelo on college‑football platforms. The firm also appeared at Barclays’ Global Consumer Staples conference, while broader trade issues such as the Trump‑initiated Canada import ban were discussed as potential market influences.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Constellation Brands. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 7 vs. 7 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
14
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
64
Fundamentals
73
Technical
21
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+0
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s fixation on the 0.4% proximity to support suggests traders are anchoring to this near-term reference, despite weak momentum and oversold conditions. The absence of euphoria or overconfidence signals no speculative overreach, while loss aversion hints at defensive positioning. The key question remains whether the stock can sustain this fragile support or if a break will trigger deeper liquidation. Narrative-reality divergence (-9 gap) may further complicate anchoring, as external factors could shift focus away from this technical anchor.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:16 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Nike, McDonald's, and Constellation Brands plunged to 52-week lows amid negative company catalysts"
"STZ's premium strategy, strong beer portfolio and brand investments position it for market share gains"
"Company will see little bit of gross profit margin pressure in second half of the year"
"Modelo has made significant investments into sports as it attempts to grow its footprint"
📈 16D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 3/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for STZ reflects deep methodological disagreements about risk, valuation, and market psychology. Mackay and Nelson’s near-perfect scores suggest they’d see either no speculative bubble or a cyclically oversold opportunity, while Marks (both cycle and general) leans bullish but with caution, implying a mid-cycle position. Meanwhile, Veblen’s moderate score hints at a more nuanced growth alignment, whereas Graham (both defensive and enterprising) and Loeb’s low scores flag fundamental instability and excessive risk—prioritizing capital preservation over speculative upside. Fisher, Lynch, and Livermore’s disapproval underscores a lack of growth quality, reasonable valuation, or trend alignment, while Bagehot and Malkiel/Bogle’s warnings highlight liquidity concerns and the inefficiency of active picking over passive indexing. The contrast between cycle-focused optimists and risk-averse traditionalists reveals whether STZ’s volatility is a temporary correction or a structural red flag.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 93
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 89
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 49
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 34
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 31
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 29
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
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
🔴 28
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 20
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 17
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 16
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 11
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 8
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)
🔴 3
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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 (1 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
51.6%
Operating Margin
29.8%
Net Margin
18.5%
EBITDA Margin
34.4%
ROE
20.9%
ROA
7.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$102.40M
Total Debt
$10.30B
Current Ratio
1.08
Debt/Equity
1.27
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 30.7.2026 | $1.030 |
| 29.7.2026 | $1.030 |
| 29.4.2026 | $1.030 |
| 28.4.2026 | $1.030 |
| 29.1.2026 | $1.020 |
| 28.1.2026 | $1.020 |
| 30.10.2025 | $1.020 |
| 29.10.2025 | $1.020 |
| 30.7.2025 | $1.020 |
| 29.7.2025 | $1.020 |
| 29.4.2025 | $1.020 |
| 28.4.2025 | $1.020 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 6 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
MarketBeat · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
StockStory · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
PR Newswire · 10.9.2026
Constellation Brands (STZ) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, 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.
STZ currently scores 46/100 (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.
STZ'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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Net income growth: 2172.1%; Return on equity (ROE): 20.9% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: -0.40 (3y annualized return -22.2% / max drawdown 55.5%); Revenue growth (last year): -10.5%.
Yes — STZ 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daniels Jennifer | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| SANDS RICHARD | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Madero Garza Jose Manuel | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| GILES WILLIAM T | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Baldwin Christopher J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Flatley Edith Morgan | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Zaramella Luca | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Hernandez Ernesto M | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| MCCARTHY DANIEL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| SANDS ROBERT | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Clark Christy | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| MCCARTHY DANIEL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| GILES WILLIAM T | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| SANDS RICHARD | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| SANDS ROBERT | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Baldwin Christopher J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Daniels Jennifer | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Hernandez Ernesto M | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Zaramella Luca | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Clark Christy | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Madero Garza Jose Manuel | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| Flatley Edith Morgan | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.7.2026 | 1,400 | +1,400 | — |
| MCCARTHY DANIEL J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.7.2026 | 1,114 | -1,114 | — |
| Zaramella Luca | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.7.2026 | 1,114 | +1,114 | — |
| MCCARTHY DANIEL J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.7.2026 | 1,114 | +1,114 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,176,016 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,178,065 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
32.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 40.8% 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