PEP — PepsiCo, Inc.

Report date: 2026-05-26  |  Sector: Consumer Defensive  |  Last price: $150.57  |  Horizon: 30d  |  Generated: 2026-05-26T07:32:39.082046Z

Forecast summary

Ensemble point +4.42%
80% CI [-1.74%, +10.99%]
95% CI [-4.77%, +14.60%]
Method dispersion 0.0443
Beats RW baseline YES
MC drift (annual) 72.33%
MC sigma (annual) 22.45%
MC paths 1000
Bull target (90th pct) +19.75% -> $180.31
Base target (50th) +8.72% -> $163.70
Bear target (10th pct) -1.61% -> $148.14
Macro regime risk_on_growth
10y yield 4.56%
3m yield 3.59%
Yield-curve slope +0.97%
VIX level 16.59
VIX z-score (252d) -0.48
Sector ETF XLP
Sector relative (90d) +0.40%

Forecast plot (interactive)

Realised volatility

Yang-Zhang annualized (60d) 22.45%
Close-to-close annualized (60d) 19.21%

Per-method comparison

MethodWeightPoint80% lo80% hi95% lo95% hi
linear 25.0% +8.99% +5.31% +12.65% +3.73% +14.66%
monte_carlo 25.0% +8.72% -1.61% +19.75% -6.86% +25.67%
ar1 25.0% -0.01% -1.71% +1.72% -2.60% +2.65%
random_walk 25.0% +0.00% -8.95% +9.83% -13.36% +15.42%

Factor contributions (interactive waterfall)

Factor contribution table

FactorLoadingTicker valueContribution
value_score +0.0495 -0.1092 -0.0054
quality_score +0.0192 +2.8879 +0.0556
momentum_score +0.0286 +0.3451 +0.0099
lowvol_score +0.0173 +0.5393 +0.0093
revisions_score +0.0236 +0.8900 +0.0210
news_activity_score +0.0402 +0.0000 +0.0000
(intercept) - - -0.0005

Factor decay over horizon

Factor IC over time

Per-factor IC backtest summary

FactorMean ICICIR% positiveCumulative attributionn periods
value_score +0.2563 +2.690 100.0% +0.5383 252
quality_score +0.1105 +1.096 86.5% +0.2401 252
momentum_score +0.1428 +1.354 92.5% +0.2460 252
lowvol_score +0.0878 +0.887 82.1% +0.1870 252
revisions_score +0.1375 +1.319 88.9% +0.2738 252
news_activity_score +0.3540 +3.832 100.0% +1.0893 252

Snapshot — fundamentals + technical

Market cap $205.82B
P/E (trailing) 23.6
P/B 9.6
Forward P/E 16.5
PEG 1.62
Dividend yield 393.00%
Beta 0.39
52w high / low $171.48 / $127.60
Distance from 52w high -12.19%
Cross-sectional rank 26 / 92 above median
Panel source (trained model: 2026-05-26 (0d old), universe_size=92, lookback_days=252)
RSI(14) 44.5
SMA50 / SMA200 $154.09 / $148.96
ATR(14) $3.09
Avg volume (20d) 6.13M
Profit margin 9.15%
ROE 43.88%
Revenue growth (YoY) +8.50%
Earnings growth (YoY) +27.80%
Debt/Equity 244.8
Current ratio 0.90
Short ratio 3.88

Forecast accuracy — walk-forward backtest (60d lookback)

Horizonn predictionsDirectional accuracyMAE (return)RMSE80% CI hit ratePearson(pred, real)
1d 691 49.1% 0.93% 1.27% 82.2% +0.024
30d 662 42.6% 6.60% 8.20% 67.8% -0.263
60d 632 47.0% 9.47% 11.97% 70.4% -0.207

Volume momentum (Granville / CGW / Quong-Soudack)

Composite z -0.104
Active signals 7 of 7
MFI(14) 36.76
CMF(20) -0.0682
OBV z (252d) -0.784
VPT z (252d) +1.078
VW-momentum z -0.739
Volume z (60d) +0.808
Relative volume (vs 20d ADV) 1.27x
CMF z (252d) -0.674

Sector rotation & AI-spillover (v6)

Sector ETF XLP
Rel-return 5d / 20d / 60d +0.78% / -5.05% / -5.70%
Sector mom-z 1m / 3m / 6m -0.41 / -1.10 / +0.59
Rotation phase cyclical
AI-factor beta (60d) -0.521
AI spillover score -0.0479
Risk-off corr regime (60d) 0.33 (>0.6 = risk-off; <0.35 = stock-picking)
Sector breadth (% > SMA50) -
Sector dispersion 20d -

Peer comparison (sector-relative valuation & momentum)

Peer signal
MIXED
score -0.44 (9 peers)
P/E percentile
44% (44% cheaper than this)
20d momentum percentile
0% (0% lag this)
Market-cap percentile
56%
Peer set (mcap band 0.2x-5x, same sector)
BUD PM BTI PG UL MO KO COST MNST
9 peers in Consumer Defensive (mcap band 0.2x-5x); signal=mixed; score=-0.44
Decision input: cheap_leader → nudge bias one bucket toward LONG; expensive_laggard → nudge toward SHORT; cheap_laggard = value-trap (neutralize); expensive_leader = crowding risk (neutralize). Folded into Claude critique and one-line PM summary.

Multi-timeframe technical analysis (1wk / 1d / 1h)

Per-timeframe verdict (TradingView-style aggregate of 17 indicators: RSI, MACD, BBands, ADX, Stoch, %R, OBV, MFI, CMF, ATR, SMA50/200, EMA9/21, Donchian, price-vs-SMA200). Counts = how many indicators fired BUY / SELL / NEUTRAL; net strength is the weight-sum delta. Crosses (golden/death, MACD signal cross, Donchian breakout) and the SMA200 trend filter carry 1.5x weight.
1wk verdict
NEUTRAL
4 buy / 2 sell / 11 neutral · net +4.5
1d verdict
NEUTRAL
1 buy / 4 sell / 12 neutral · net -3.5
1h verdict
SELL
2 buy / 7 sell / 8 neutral · net -10.5

1wk NEUTRAL 4/2/11

RSI(14) 47.2
MACD hist -1.2853
Bollinger %b 0.34
ADX(14) 13.7
ATR % 4.54%
MFI(14) / CMF(20) 30.4 / +0.206
Donchian pos / break 0.41
vs SMA200 BELOW
n_bars521

1d NEUTRAL 1/4/12

RSI(14) 44.5
MACD hist -0.2347
Bollinger %b 0.34
ADX(14) 18.6 RISING
ATR % 2.05%
MFI(14) / CMF(20) 36.8 / -0.068
Donchian pos / break 0.31
vs SMA200 BELOW
n_bars1253

1h SELL 2/7/8

RSI(14) 61.5
MACD hist +0.2447
Bollinger %b 0.87
ADX(14) 17.9
ATR % 0.57%
MFI(14) / CMF(20) 61.1 / +0.019
Donchian pos / break 0.94
vs SMA200 BELOW
n_bars1729

Cross-timeframe confluence

Confluence LONG (0-1) 0.00
Confluence SHORT (0-1) 0.00
Patterns are intentionally selective (Elder triple-screen, daily/hourly divergence, BB-squeeze+breakout, SMA-alignment, MACD/OBV). Most tickers fire 0-2 patterns on any given day. Below: each pattern with its current state (✓ firing / ✗ not firing).
Long patterns
elder_triple
daily_oversold_hourly_bull
bb_squeeze_break_up
sma_align_long
macd_cross_obv
Short patterns
elder_triple
daily_overbought_hourly_div
bb_squeeze_break_dn
sma_align_short
macd_cross_obv

Intraday nowcast — 1h-bar short-horizon (v6)

Next 24h nowcast
+0.18%
over next 24h on 1h bars
80% band
[-2.75%, +3.19%]
n_bars = 1729 · sigma_1h = 0.0047
Direction vs 30d ensemble
AGREES
1h direction: LONG · 30d direction: LONG
Source: intraday_forecaster_v10_trained_lgbm.
(trained model: 2026-05-26 (0d old), mean_directional_accuracy=0.523, n_features=17) Decision input only -- the 30d ensemble + factor regression remain the primary call. Conflicts surfaced into the Claude critique as horizon_conflict flag when |1h move| > 1%.

Meta-label gate — AFML Ch.3 secondary classifier (v6)

Verdict
meta-label: NEUTRAL
p_take = 0.48 · threshold 0.60
Bias adjustment
meta-label NEUTRAL (p_take=0.48 between 0.40 and 0.60) -- no adjustment.
Method: secondary LightGBM trained on (features + primary direction) -> P(primary is right). Source: meta_labeler_v10_trained_lgbm.
(trained model: 2026-05-26 (0d old), roc_auc=0.641, accuracy=0.608, n_train_rows=8,284) When ABSTAIN with p_take < 1-threshold AND bias non-neutral, the bias is demoted one bucket and a meta_abstain flag is added to the critique. See AFML Ch.3.6 (Lopez de Prado 2018).

Implied vol vs realized vol — options-trade gate (v8 W2)

Regime
NEUTRAL
no decisive vol mispricing — delta-1 setup over options
IV / RV ratio
0.75
z-score: n/a (insufficient history)
30d IV vs 30d RV
IV 17.3% (Polygon)
RV 23.1% (yang-zhang)
Provenance: source polygon_options:contracts_call; expiry 2026-06-26 (31d) · strike $150.00 · 1 strike(s) used.
Caveat: 15-min delayed end-of-day quotes; free-tier Polygon (no Greeks, no real-time). Regime is qualitative input only — NOT a numeric factor on the regression.

FMP fundamentals & analyst consensus (v7)

Quality / leverage

ROE 43.9%
ROIC -
FCF yield -
Debt / EBITDA -
Current ratio 0.90

Margins / valuation

Gross margin 54.4%
Operating margin 17.0%
Net margin 9.1%
P/E (TTM) 23.6
EV / EBITDA 13.3

Analyst consensus

Target mean -
Target high / low - / -
Upside vs last close -
Revisions score +0.000

Trade-bias signal — foundation for trade-guidance layer

Bias strong_buy
Composite z-score +2.260
Conviction 0.9040285645715663
Recommended playbook A_strong
Suggested position size 0% (no Kelly)
no Kelly: not a conformal singleton (proxy off) / meta_p_take=0.48 <= 0.5; singleton-proxy: news_activity_z=+0.00 (nonzero=False), wf30d_dir_acc=0.4259818731117825 (>0.55=False)
Strategies on bias side
Aggressive long-call (40-60 DTE, delta 0.55-0.70, size up)
Bull call-debit spread (long ATM + short 1 SD OTM, 40-60 DTE)
Long-dated LEAPS for thesis with multi-month conviction
Cash-secured short put as covered-position entry
Why this bias
composite_z = +2.26 | bias = strong_buy | conviction = 0.90 | macro_regime = risk_on_growth | ensemble = +4.42%

Sensitivity (OFAT tornado ±1 sd) and stress scenarios

FactorLoading wiTicker z-value+1 sd impact-1 sd impact
value_score +0.0495 -0.109 +0.0495 -0.0495
news_activity_score +0.0402 +0.000 +0.0402 -0.0402
momentum_score +0.0286 +0.345 +0.0286 -0.0286
revisions_score +0.0236 +0.890 +0.0236 -0.0236
quality_score +0.0192 +2.888 +0.0192 -0.0192
lowvol_score +0.0173 +0.539 +0.0173 -0.0173

Stress scenarios (forecast shift from base point)

ScenarioDescriptionStressed pointDelta vs base
rates_+100bps Yield curve +100bps (lowvol -1sd, value -0.5sd) +4.79% -4.20%
recession_risk_off Recession (momentum -1.5sd, lowvol +1sd, news -1sd) +2.41% -6.58%
quality_flight Quality flight (quality +1sd, revisions +1sd, momentum -0.5sd) +11.85% +2.86%

Multi-source live sentiment (free real-time)

Composite z-score -1.200
Active signals 2 of 3
Sources stocktwits, iv_skew
StockTwits bull 4
StockTwits bear 1
StockTwits net +0.60
Message volume 29
ApeWisdom mentions 0
24h change +0
Reddit rank -
25-delta IV skew +1.5035
IV-skew read bearish

Analyst critique

Agreement with model agree_with_caveats
Confidence 0.55
PM one-liner PEP Consumer Defensive: quant +4.42%/30d, disp +0.0443, beats RW, macro neutral, 0 catalyst(s).
Sensitivity concern If value_score (the highest-loading factor) is mis-measured by +/-1 stdev, the bias likely flips.

What the model may have missed

Critique flags

Factor contribution methodology — where the numbers come from

Point return formula (linear factor model): r_hat = alpha + sum_i (w_i × f_i) where w_i is the cross-sectional loading for factor i (estimated from the cross-section of US large-cap names) and f_i is the z-scored factor value for this ticker (Grinold-Kahn winsorization at ±3).

Per-factor contribution shown in the waterfall above is exactly w_i × f_i (decimal-return units), so the bars sum (with intercept) to the linear forecast point. The ensemble point combines linear / Monte Carlo / AR(1) / random-walk per per-method-comparison table.

Bias mapping (composite z-score → LONG/NEUTRAL/SHORT): weighted sum of value (1.0), quality (0.7), momentum (1.0), low-vol (0.5), revisions (1.0), news-activity (0.6); thresholds ±1.0 with macro override (risk-off + LONG → reduce to NEUTRAL; risk-on-growth + SHORT → reduce to NEUTRAL). LONG → Playbook A (long-call / call-debit-spread / covered-call); SHORT → Playbook B (long-put / put-debit-spread / bear-call-spread); NEUTRAL → cash.

Sensitivity (one-factor-at-a-time tornado above): impact = w_i × 1sd per factor (MSCI / Two-Sigma Venn convention). Stress scenarios are canned multi-factor shocks (rates +100bps; recession risk-off; quality flight).

Factor decay uses exponential half-life per factor type: catalysts 7d, news 14d, revisions 30d, momentum 45d, value 90d, quality 90d (Tetlock 2007; Cohen-Malloy-Pomorski 2012). The heatmap above shows contribution × exp(-ln(2) × t / half_life) on a 5-day grid.

Factor IC backtest: Spearman rank correlation between each factor's cross-sectional ranking on day t and the realized h-day-forward return, aggregated across the panel (Grinold-Kahn 2000 ch.4 fundamental law of active management). Source for this report: synthetic_panel_252d_100tickers_seed42 (parallel runner).

Placebo audit (v6, GT-Score): GT-score = 0.55 SPURIOUS — setup likely lacks real signal . Computed from 3 seed(s) across placebo kinds: shuffled, gaussian_iid, garch. Method: real directional accuracy = 49.1%; max placebo accuracy = 54.2%; AMG = -0.051. Source: placebo_audit_v6_ar1_runner. Provenance: arXiv 2604.15531 "Spurious Predictability in Financial ML" (Paper #3). Risk-flag spurious_predictability_audit_failed added to narrative.

Catalysts in window (30d)

No catalysts within the forecast window.

Analyst narrative

Bull case

PEP ensemble forecast is +4.42% with 80% band [-1.74%, +10.99%] over 30 days. Positive drivers: quality_score, revisions_score. 0 catalyst(s) in the window provide event-driven upside potential.

Bear case

Inter-method dispersion (+0.0443) and beats random-walk argue caution. Negative drivers: few headwinds in the factor stack. Macro regime risk_on_growth historically caps single-name conviction.

Synthesis

Weight the ensemble's +4.42% center against +0.0443 method dispersion. Risk On Growth regime + 0 catalyst(s) define the setup. Treat the 80% band as the working trade-sizing envelope.

Risk flags