The framework reads distribution. Smart money appears to be selling into strength. Institutional holders may be rotating out. Price has moved up 9.8% since our last review. Ethical screening: FAIL. This security does not pass our values-based screening criteria. The risk-adjusted return profile shows negative risk-adjusted returns. Our composite framework grades it D, carrying a low risk profile. Technically it is sitting below its long-term trend line with momentum reading bearish. Over the past year the shares are down 36%. Our forward projection puts the odds of a 10% gain over the next month near 6%. The street (17 analysts) rates it hold, with a mean price target of $16.
Conagra Brands CAG
Outside both standards
An entry written while the outcome is still unknown. It will be scored by what the market does next, and it will never be edited to look cleverer than it was.
In plain words · Conagra Brands, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a consumer packaged goods food company primarily in the United States.
read at $14.51
Conagra Brands holds its Markup at $14.51.
- PHPhase · the trend structure carries the Markup label
- INInsiders · no filings inside 60 days, left as found
- POPositioning · no disclosures inside 60 days, left as found
- OPOptions · no verdict drawn today, left as found
- SCScreen · does not pass the values gate
- edge confirmed
- edge broken
- edge forming
Each arm is one independent read. Conviction is not a single call, it is how many edges converge.
The investor read · the season, not the day
| Phase | Markup |
| Quantitative state | Consolidating, no directional conviction, held for 51 days |
| Price | $14.51 |
| Valuation | N/A trailing · 9.35 forward price to earnings |
| Values screen | FAIL · score 10.0 |
| Beta | -0.05 |
The opportunity · what the numbers say it is worth
Our framework reads AVOID — it trades at roughly a 5% discount to our $15.16 fair value, weak competitive moat, 3.60% revenue growth.
Price history & projections · where it has been, where the models see it going
The valuation journey · where the price sits against fair value and the Street
Green marks levels above today's price, red below; the shaded band is the gap between the price and our fair value.
Reading the gap · Our model sees value the Street hasn't fully caught up to yet.
| Revenue growth | 3.60% |
| Profit margin | -16.99% |
| Debt to equity | 117.58 |
| Analyst consensus | Hold · 16 covering |
Fair value and rating are our own model estimates; target range reflects third-party analyst estimates. Analysis, not advice.
The values screen, explained · five checks, plain English
This company is excluded by both standards. There are two widely recognised ways to check whether a company is suitable for a Muslim investor. It fails on both:
Used by most halal investing apps ✗ DOES NOT PASS
The one Titan applies ✗ DOES NOT PASS
Why it fails. The problem is its debt ratio. Because both standards agree on this, it is a clear exclusion, not a borderline case.
What these two standards are, and how they differ →
- Business activity Its core business isn't built on prohibited lines — no gambling, alcohol, tobacco, weapons, or interest-based lending. Pass
- Debt load Interest-bearing debt is 38.5% of its assets, above the one-third ceiling the screen allows. Fail
- Interest-bearing cash Cash held in interest-bearing accounts and securities is 0.0% of assets, under the one-third limit. Pass
- Receivables Money owed to the company is 4.0% of assets, under the 49% limit. Pass
- Revenue purity Only 0.0% of revenue comes from non-compliant sources — under the 5% line. Pass
Every security is read against two recognised standards: our stricter asset-based screen (ratios measured against total assets) and the more widely used market-value standard (measured against market capitalisation). Where they agree we say so plainly; where they part ways — almost always on the debt check — we show both readings and mark it, because that disagreement is the finding, not a fault. We report the score; you and your scholar make the call.
The business, in plain words · what the numbers mean
Packaged food shelves hide weak returns and debt
Walk down any supermarket aisle and the familiar brands sit on every shelf. Yet Conagra carries a debt load that trips the ethical screen while posting a negative 17% profit margin and negative 25% return on equity. Revenue edges up just 4% and the moat looks weak, so the business earns an AVOID rating despite a modest 7% gap to fair value.
The forward multiple of 9.1 times offers little comfort once peak earnings risk and thin growth enter the frame. Sixteen analysts sit on hold with a median target matching the current price, confirming the market sees no obvious catalyst. Currency moves or input costs could quickly widen the gap between reported numbers and cash reality.
High leverage remains the core ethical failure here, and cyclical packaged-food margins have a habit of disappointing when volumes soften. Analysis, not advice.
| Forward P/E | 9.4x expensive even after accounting for its growth |
| Revenue growth | 3.6% slow but positive growth |
| Profit margin | -17.0% currently unprofitable |
| Return on equity | -25.1% not currently earning a positive return on equity |
| Debt to equity | 1.18 a meaningful debt load worth watching |
| Current ratio | 0.90 below 1 — short-term bills exceed liquid assets |
| Beta | -0.05 barely tracks the market's swings |
| Market cap | $6.9B |
| Employees | 18,300 |
The risks · The main risks here are ordinary market swings and the chance our fair-value read proves too optimistic.
Plain-English interpretation of our own screen data. Analysis, not advice.
Related securities · others in CAG's space worth a look
Screened names in the same industry · explore each on its own page.
Where & how to trade · wherever in the world you are
CAG trades on a US exchange. As a US-listed security it is accessible through almost any international broker offering US markets. New to this, or investing from outside the US? Our guide to accessing global markets covers brokers, currencies and the practical steps.
The trader read · the latest dated commentary
The dated journal · newest first, never edited
The framework reads distribution. Smart money appears to be selling into strength. Institutional holders may be rotating out. Price has moved down 0.0% since our last review. Ethical screening: FAIL. This security does not pass our values-based screening criteria. The risk-adjusted return profile shows negative risk-adjusted returns. Our composite framework grades it D, carrying a low risk profile. Technically it is sitting below its long-term trend line with momentum reading bearish. Over the past year the shares are down 36%. Our forward projection puts the odds of a 10% gain over the next month near 6%. The street (17 analysts) rates it hold, with a mean price target of $16.
The framework reads distribution. Smart money appears to be selling into strength. Institutional holders may be rotating out. Price has moved down 0.0% since our last review. Ethical screening: FAIL. This security does not pass our values-based screening criteria. The risk-adjusted return profile shows negative risk-adjusted returns.
The framework reads distribution. Smart money appears to be selling into strength. Institutional holders may be rotating out. Ethical screening: FAIL. This security does not pass our values-based screening criteria. The risk-adjusted return profile shows negative risk-adjusted returns.
Each entry above was written on its date, before the outcome. A journal you can prune is not a journal.
The insider ledger · Form 4 filings, as filed
| Date | Insider | Title | Type | Shares | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-14 | MULLIGAN JOHN J | Director | 17,500 | $250,402 | |
| 2026-03-02 | MULLIGAN JOHN J | Director | 3,228 | · | |
| 2026-03-02 | SATRIANO PIETRO | Director | 3,228 | · | |
| 2026-03-02 | MARSHALL RUTH ANN | Director | 1,629 | $31,250 | |
| 2025-12-01 | MARSHALL RUTH ANN | Director | 1,768 | $31,250 | |
| 2025-11-04 | NAPIER MELISSA C | Officer | 13,011 | $223,659 | |
| 2025-10-07 | BROWN THOMAS K | Director | 10,000 | $187,200 | |
| 2025-09-02 | MARSHALL RUTH ANN | Director | 1,664 | $31,250 | |
| 2025-07-24 | MARBERGER DAVID S | Chief Financial Officer | 11,419 | $220,387 | |
| 2025-07-24 | CONNOLLY SEAN | Chief Executive Officer | 42,935 | $828,646 |
Public filings, recorded as found. The full tape lives at Insider Intelligence.
The political ledger · congressional disclosures
| Date | Politician | Party | Type | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 Jun2026 | Gil Cisneros | Democrat | buy | 15K–50K |
| 16 Jun2026 | Gil Cisneros | Democrat | sell | 15K–50K |
What holding actually paid · price plus dividends
| Period | Price then | Price return | Divs per share | $1,000 became | Total return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | $13.93 | -4.5% | · | $955 | -4.5% |
| 2 months | $14.81 | -10.1% | $0.35 | $922 | -7.8% |
| 3 months | $15.77 | -15.6% | $0.35 | $866 | -13.4% |
| 6 months | $16.83 | -21.0% | $0.70 | $832 | -16.8% |
| 1 year | $20.65 | -35.6% | $1.40 | $712 | -28.8% |
| 2 years | $25.60 | -48.0% | $2.80 | $629 | -37.1% |
| 3 years | $28.68 | -53.6% | $4.20 | $610 | -39.0% |
| 5 years | $28.94 | -54.0% | $6.77 | $694 | -30.6% |
Historical returns from market close data. Past performance does not guarantee future results.