For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-10-07): Designation Watch · Gem Score -10 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 61 · Value -57 · Sentiment -2 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $158.73 vs $174.71 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Raymond James Financial Inc.
RJF NYSERaymond James Financial, Inc. is a diversified financial services company that provides wealth management, capital markets, asset management, and banking services to individuals, corporations, and municipalities. Raymond James Financial’s Private Client Group offers financial planning, investment advisory, securities transaction services, and other client-focused solutions through a large network of financial advisors. Its Capital Markets segment supports investment banking, institutional sales, securities trading, equity research, and the underwriting and syndication of specialized investments. The Asset Management segment serves retail and institutional clients with portfolio management and related administrative services, while the banking segment includes Raymond James Bank and TriState Capital Bank. Headquartered in St. Petersburg, Florida, Raymond James Financial plays a broad role in the U.S. and international financial services market through a combination of advisory, brokerage, lending, and investment solutions.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 10.30
Total Equity: $12.50B
Shares: 207,281,553
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $11.39B
EBITDA: N/A
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $11.39B
Revenue: $13.84B
Revenue: $13.84B
Revenue: $13.84B
Total Equity: $12.50B
Tax Rate: 21.3%
Equity: $12.50B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $11.39B
Current Liabilities: N/A
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $0.00
Total Equity: $12.50B
Shares: 207,281,553
Shares: 207,281,553
CapEx: -$188.00M
Shares: 207,281,553
Stock Price: $176.68
Net Income: $2.14B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 26, 2026 4:51am (42d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $9.6B | $10.9B | $11.5B | $12.6B | $13.8B |
| Cost of Revenue | — | — | — | — | — |
| Gross Profit | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Expenses | $6.6B | $7.3B | $7.3B | $8.2B | $9.1B |
| Operating Income | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Income | $1.4B | $1.5B | $1.7B | $2.1B | $2.1B |
| EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS | $6.81 | $7.16 | $8.16 | $9.94 | $10.53 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $6.63 | $6.98 | $7.97 | $9.70 | $10.30 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 26, 2026 4:30am (42d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $7.2B | $6.2B | $9.3B | $11.0B | $11.4B |
| Total Current Assets | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Assets | $61.9B | $81.0B | $78.4B | $83.0B | $88.2B |
| Current Liabilities | — | — | — | — | — |
| Long-Term Debt | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Liabilities | $53.6B | $71.5B | $68.2B | $71.3B | $75.7B |
| Total Equity | $8.3B | $9.4B | $10.2B | $11.7B | $12.5B |
| Retained Earnings | $7.6B | $8.8B | $10.2B | $11.9B | $13.6B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 26, 2026 4:51am (42d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $6.6B | $72.0M | -$3.5B | $2.2B | $2.4B |
| Capital Expenditure | -$74.0M | -$91.0M | -$173.0M | -$205.0M | -$188.0M |
| Free Cash Flow | $6.6B | -$19.0M | -$3.7B | $2.0B | $2.2B |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$266.0M | $1.5B | $0 | $0 | — |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | — | — | $0 | $0 | $1.5B |
| Dividends Paid | -$218.0M | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | -$128.0M | — | — | — | — |
| Net Change in Cash | $6.8B | -$1.8B | -$2.1B | $1.8B | $439.0M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 26, 2026 4:51am (42d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +12.7% | +5.7% | +10.2% | +9.5% |
| Gross Profit Growth | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Income Growth | — | — | — | — |
| Net Income Growth | +7.6% | +15.2% | +18.9% | +3.2% |
| EBITDA Growth | — | — | — | — |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 25, 2026 7:42am (43d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-01 | $0.54 | — | — | — |
| 2026-04-01 | $0.54 | — | — | — |
| 2026-01-02 | $0.54 | — | — | — |
| 2025-10-01 | $0.50 | — | — | — |
| 2025-07-01 | $0.50 | — | — | — |
| 2025-04-01 | $0.50 | — | — | — |
| 2025-01-02 | $0.50 | — | — | — |
| 2024-10-01 | $0.45 | — | — | — |
| 2024-07-01 | $0.45 | — | — | — |
| 2024-03-28 | $0.45 | — | — | — |
| 2023-12-29 | $0.45 | — | — | — |
| 2023-09-29 | $0.42 | — | — | — |
| 2023-06-30 | $0.42 | — | — | — |
| 2023-03-31 | $0.42 | — | — | — |
| 2022-12-30 | $0.42 | — | — | — |
| 2022-09-30 | $0.34 | — | — | — |
| 2022-06-30 | $0.34 | — | — | — |
| 2022-04-01 | $0.34 | — | — | — |
| 2022-01-03 | $0.34 | — | — | — |
| 2021-09-30 | $0.26 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — upside vs downside from this company's own quarters
Not computed yetNarrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-08-26 06:00The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.
Claude Reading
The synthesis verdict claiming RJF is 66% overvalued with a $58 fair value is, on its face, absurd for a wealth manager compounding at ~10% CAGR with 17% ROE and clean balance sheet. A $2.14B TTM net income business trading at $34B market cap is 15.9x earnings — that's a discount to the S&P, not a bubble. The DCF anchor the synthesis leans on must be assuming either draconian terminal growth or misreading a bank/broker cash flow statement (operating CF for financials is notoriously noisy because of client cash sweeps, trading assets, and payables swings — that's likely why "cash flow quality" is flagged as poor). This is a classic case of a generic DCF template being misapplied to a fee-plus-NII financial. The Thesis Evaluation's straw man — that the market prices 60% FCF CAGR — is not what a 15.9x P/E on a mature financial implies; it implies mid-single-digit growth and stable ROE.
The actual trajectory is solid but not electrifying. Revenue went from $9.63B (FY21) to $13.84B (FY25), a 9.5% CAGR, with net income $1.40B → $2.14B (11% CAGR). The most recent four quarters annualize to ~$17B revenue and ~$2.3B net income — Q3'26 hit $4.36B revenue and $595M NI, up meaningfully from $3.84B/$436M a year prior (13.5% revenue growth, 36% NI growth YoY). Margins have compressed from the 15% peak in late FY24 to 12.8-13.6% in the trailing three quarters, which is worth watching but not alarming — likely reflects normalizing NII spread and comp ratio drift. The $11.4B cash pile against $12.5B equity and zero reported net debt is a fortress; ROE of 17% on that capital structure is genuinely good. The Market Forces claim that RJF is "losing dramatic market share" needs evidence — nothing in the numbers supports it; revenue is growing above wealth-management peer averages.
Where I'd push back on the bull case: the recent margin compression is real, insider activity leans sell (45k+ shares sold in 2026 vs trivial buys/awards), and RJF's earnings sensitivity to equity market levels and NII means a 20%+ market drawdown or aggressive Fed cuts would compress both AUM fees and net interest margin simultaneously — that's not idiosyncratic risk, it's beta masquerading as quality. The narrative layer's "platform-monopoly" framing is overwrought; RJF is a good advisor franchise, not Visa. Fair multiple for a cyclical financial with 10% growth and 17% ROE is probably 14-17x — right where it trades. The stock isn't cheap, but it's not expensive either. A contrarian could argue that if wirehouse defection continues and RJF keeps recruiting advisors at current pace, revenue could sustain 8-10% for another 3-5 years, justifying 18-19x, or ~$210. Conversely, if NII normalizes hard (Fed cuts 150bp) and equity markets correct 15%, EPS could drop to ~$9 and the stock re-rates to $135-145.
I dissent strongly from the synthesis verdict of $58 fair value — that number is nonsensical and appears driven by a malfunctioning DCF applied to a financial services cash flow statement it can't interpret. I also dissent from Market Forces' "losing market share" claim, which isn't supported by 9.5% YoY revenue growth. I partially agree with Thesis Evaluation that the market isn't pricing 60% FCF growth — because the market isn't pricing anything remotely that aggressive; a 15.9x P/E on a mature financial is a benign expectation. My read: RJF is fairly valued to slightly rich near $177, with a reasonable fair value band of $155-190 depending on how you weight NII normalization risk against continued advisor headcount growth. Not a table-pounding short, not a compelling long. The margin trend (14.4% → 12.8% over four quarters) is the single most important thing to watch — if that stabilizes above 13%, the stock holds; if it drops below 12%, downside opens to $150.
GPT Reading
The raw numbers do not support the extreme “overvalued by two-thirds” conclusion. Raymond James looks like a high-quality, fairly mature compounder whose earnings power has risen steadily, not a story stock. Revenue has grown from $9.63B in 2021 to $13.84B in 2025, a 9-10% annualized clip, while net income climbed from $1.40B to $2.14B, about 11% CAGR. The quarterly run-rate is still improving: the last four quarters sum to roughly $16.99B of revenue and $2.31B of net income, ahead of fiscal 2025’s $13.84B and $2.14B. That means the business is entering FY2026 with an earnings base above the reported annual number, not below it. At a $33.9B market cap and 17.2x trailing earnings, the stock is not cheap, but it is nowhere near the kind of valuation that requires heroic assumptions for a firm producing a 17.1% ROE, mid-teens net margins, and over $2.2B of annual free cash flow.
What stands out most is consistency. Quarterly revenue has held in a tight but upward band from $4.00B in Sep-2024 to $4.36B in Jun-2026, and net income has mostly stayed between $544M and $604M despite market and rate noise. Margins did compress to 11.3% in Jun-2025, but then recovered back into the 13-14% range. That is the profile of a diversified financial franchise with some cyclicality, not a deteriorating one. The balance sheet also argues against a harsh discount: $11.39B of cash and equivalents against $12.50B of equity, with debt shown as zero in the canonical set. Even allowing for the accounting quirks common in broker-dealers and bank-adjacent institutions, this is not a balance sheet screaming stress. Price-to-book at 2.93x is not low, but for a business earning 17% on equity, that implies a justified premium to book rather than obvious excess. A rough Gordon-style intuition says a franchise that can retain capital and compound book value in the low teens can reasonably trade near 2.5-3.0x book; RJF already sits in that zone.
The key contradiction I see is between the models’ language and the actual valuation math embedded in the reported data. Calling cash-flow quality “poor” is hard to square with $2.43B of operating cash flow and $2.25B of free cash flow versus $2.14B of net income in the latest annual period. Free cash flow is not lagging earnings; it slightly exceeds them. Likewise, the idea that the market is pricing impossible FCF growth does not match a stock at 2.65x sales, 1.76x EV/revenue, and 17x earnings. Those are normal multiples for a conservatively run financial with decent growth and above-average returns. If anything, the current price looks like the market is giving Raymond James credit for durability, but still discounting the cyclicality of capital markets and the risk that net interest benefits fade. My read is that fair value is somewhat above today’s price if the firm can simply sustain roughly $2.3B-$2.5B of annual earnings over the next year or two; a 17x multiple on $2.4B would support a market cap around $40.8B, or about 20% upside before any book value growth.
The best bear case is not that the stock is absurdly expensive; it is that this is close to full value for a rate- and market-sensitive franchise at a favorable point in the cycle. Recent earnings growth has lagged revenue growth: the latest quarter’s revenue was up about 13.5% year over year ($4.36B vs $3.84B), but net income rose only 36% off an easier comp and remains roughly flat to slightly down versus the $600M-plus quarters seen in late 2024 and late 2025. On the annual figures, net income only increased from $2.07B to $2.14B in 2025 despite nearly $1.2B of added revenue, suggesting incremental margins may be lower than the topline trend implies. If net interest income mean-reverts, transactional businesses cool, and markets stop lifting client assets, a 17x multiple could compress toward 13-15x, which would make the current $176-177 price look rich. Insider activity also leans more sell than buy, even if the disclosed transactions are small and not inherently alarming.
What would change my mind is straightforward. If the next few quarters show revenue holding around $4.2B-$4.4B but net income slipping below $500M consistently, that would indicate the current earnings power is overstated and I’d move to fair value closer to $150 or below. A decline in annualized ROE from 17% toward the low teens, or free cash flow dropping materially below net income for a full year, would also validate the cash-quality concern that I currently reject. On the other hand, if RJF converts this revenue run-rate into a clean $2.4B-$2.6B annual earnings base while maintaining book growth and mid-teens margins, then the current multiple is too low for the quality on offer.
Grok Reading
Raymond James is a clean, high-quality mature earner whose numbers simply do not support the catastrophic overvaluation the quantitative stack is screaming. Annual revenue has compounded from $9.63B in FY2021 to $13.84B in FY2025 (roughly 9.5–10% CAGR), while net income climbed from $1.40B to $2.14B (about 11% CAGR). The last four reported quarters show sequential revenue still advancing—$4.19B, $4.18B, $4.26B, $4.36B—with net margins holding in a tight 12.8–14.4% band and trailing twelve-month net income already near $2.31B. Free-cash-flow conversion is excellent, not poor: FY2025 produced $2.43B operating cash flow and $2.25B FCF against $2.14B of earnings, with capex a trivial $188M. The balance sheet is a fortress—$11.39B cash, $12.50B equity, debt-to-equity reported at zero—and ROE sits at a respectable 17.1%. At $176.68 and a $33.9B market cap the stock trades at roughly 15–17× trailing earnings, 2.6× sales and 2.9× book; the EV/revenue multiple compresses further to ~1.8× once the cash hoard is netted. That is a market-discount multiple for a business growing mid-to-high single digits with above-market returns on equity and no leverage. The $58–61 “fair value” spit out by the composite model is arithmetically absurd: it implies an enterprise worth less than the cash on the balance sheet and would require the market to pay roughly 4–5× earnings for a 17% ROE compounder. That output is broken and should be discarded.
What the raw data actually narrate is a steady wealth-management and capital-markets franchise that has delivered consistent mid-teens profitability through rate and market cycles, with recent quarters still showing top-line momentum rather than decay. The 9.5% recent revenue growth and high revenue-confidence flag sit comfortably alongside the longer 9.9% revenue and 10.8% earnings CAGRs. Insider activity is a mixed bag of routine sales, option exercises and awards—nothing that looks like informed flight. Dividend yield is a modest 1.2%, so the story is capital retention and compounding, not yield. Against that backdrop the market is applying a modest discount to the S&P multiple (17× versus ~21×), which is exactly the haircut one would expect for residual capital-markets cyclicality and rate sensitivity; it is not the 60–66% overvaluation the DCF engine invented by reverse-engineering an impossible 60% FCF-growth trajectory that no one in the market is actually pricing.
The strongest opposing case starts with the same numbers viewed through a harsher lens. If revenue growth decelerates to mid-single digits—entirely plausible once equity-market appreciation and net-interest-income tailwinds fade—then 17× earnings becomes a full multiple for a cyclical financial. Net interest income mean-reversion risk is real; a handful of 100 bp rate cuts could pressure the bank segment faster than wealth-management fees can offset. Capital-markets revenue remains lumpy (the June 2025 quarter’s $436M net income and 11.3% margin already showed how quickly that can compress). Fee compression and direct-indexing disintermediation are secular, not cyclical, threats to the advisor-network moat that the bull narrative treats as permanent. The market-forces layer’s claim of “dramatic share loss” lacks hard AUM or recruiting data in this briefing, yet if true it would turn the 10% growth story into an AUM-beta story and justify a lower multiple. Finally, several large open-market sales (29k, 10k, 5.8k shares) in 2026, while not decisive, keep the insider tape from being cleanly constructive. Those points collectively argue for a fair-value band closer to 12–14× earnings ($140–160) rather than any premium.
I still weigh the opposing case as secondary because the observed FCF quality, zero leverage, 17% ROE and unbroken multi-year growth trajectory already embed a margin of safety at today’s 15–17×; the broken $58 DCF and the phantom 60% FCF-growth assumption are model artifacts, not market-implied expectations. What would flip the verdict is concrete evidence that the growth engine is stalling: two consecutive quarters of revenue decline or net-margin compression below 11%, AUM outflows or advisor-count contraction disclosed in the next 10-Q, or a sustained drop in FCF conversion below 80% of net income. A sharp, multi-quarter capital-markets drought that takes TTM earnings back under $1.8B while the multiple refuses to compress would also force a re-rating to overvalued. Until those numbers appear, the stock looks like a high-quality compounder priced at a reasonable, not egregious, multiple.
Qwen Reading local experiment · off-panel
The single most important thing in this briefing is that the prior model stack has produced a fair value of $61.27 for a company trading at $176.68, and I need to be blunt: that number is a computational artifact, not a valuation. Multiply $61.27 by roughly 192 million shares and you get an implied enterprise value of about $11.8 billion — less than the $11.39 billion of cash sitting on the balance sheet. The model is effectively telling you the operating business is worth negative money, which is absurd for a firm generating $2.14 billion in net income at a 17.1% ROE with zero debt. The "60% FCF growth" thesis that the Thesis Evaluation layer extracts from the market's pricing is equally nonsensical; at a 17.2x trailing P/E with roughly 10.8% earnings CAGR, the PEG ratio is about 1.6, which is a modest premium, not the kind of extrapolation that implies cash flow quintupling by 2030. The "Poor Cash Flow Quality" flag also doesn't survive contact with the actual numbers: operating cash flow of $2.43 billion against net income of $2.14 billion is a 1.14x conversion ratio, and with capex of just $188 million on $13.8 billion of revenue, free cash flow of $2.25 billion is 93% of earnings. For an asset-light wealth management and capital markets platform, that is textbook healthy, not "poor."
What the raw data actually tells me is a story of quiet, compounding excellence. Revenue has grown from $9.63 billion in fiscal 2021 to $13.84 billion in fiscal 2025, a 9.9% CAGR, with net income climbing from $1.40 billion to $2.14 billion over the same span. The most recent two quarters of 2026 show revenue of $4.26 billion and $4.36 billion with net income of $544 million and $595 million, so the growth engine is still turning even as the rate of acceleration has moderated — recent earnings YoY is 3.2% versus the five-year CAGR of 10.8%, which is the one genuine yellow flag in the dataset. The balance sheet is a fortress: $11.39 billion in cash, $12.50 billion in equity, and effectively no debt. The FCF yield at the current market cap is 6.6%, which is a meaningful spread over the 10-year Treasury and well above what you'd expect from a "mature earner" archetype. The 1.2% dividend yield is thin, but the company is clearly prioritizing balance sheet strength and organic growth over payout, which is the right call for a firm with this capital structure.
The strongest case against my read is the margin compression visible in the quarterly data. Net margin has drifted from 15.0% in Q3 2024 and 14.9% in Q4 2024 down to 12.8% in Q1 2026 and 13.6% in Q2 2026, even as revenue grew. That's roughly 150-200 basis points of margin erosion over two years, and it points to either rising compensation costs in the advisor base, increased technology spend, or a shift in revenue mix toward lower-margin capital markets activity. A smart bear would also point to the 3.2% recent earnings growth rate and argue that the 10.8% CAGR is a backward-looking artifact of the 2021-2025 equity bull run, and that the true steady-state growth rate for a wealth management firm in a fee-compression environment is closer to 4-5%. They'd note that the 17x P/E, while below the S&P 500's ~21x, is not cheap for a company whose growth is decelerating, and that the 2.93x P/B is rich for a financial whose ROA is only 2.4%. I weigh this differently because the zero-debt structure and $11.4 billion cash cushion mean the downside is structurally limited — even in a severe equity drawdown, RJF is not leveraged into a solvency event the way a bank or a leveraged broker-dealer would be. The margin compression is real but modest in absolute terms, and the company is still growing revenue at 9.5% YoY.
The insider data is a non-event. The 29,551-share sale in March 2026 is roughly $5.2 million at the current price, which is routine for a $34 billion company and likely a 10b5-1 plan execution. The cluster of 1,303-share awards in February is standard equity compensation. There is no pattern of concentrated insider selling that would signal management losing confidence. The "competitively disadvantaged wealth manager losing dramatic market share" language in the Market Forces layer is not supported by any number in this dataset; a firm growing revenue at 9.9% CAGR and earnings at 10.8% CAGR is not losing share in any meaningful sense.
What would change my mind: a quarterly report showing net margin below 12% for two consecutive quarters, which would confirm the margin compression is structural rather than cyclical; a material increase in advisor departures or a visible shift in the AUM mix toward lower-fee products; or a P/E expansion above 22x, which would mean the market is finally pricing in the "platform monopoly" narrative the Market Narrative layer describes and the stock would become genuinely expensive relative to its growth trajectory. Conversely, if the next two quarters show margin stabilization above 14% and earnings growth re-accelerating toward 8-10%, the 17x multiple looks like a discount to a 17% ROE compounder with a fortress balance sheet, and I'd move firmly to undervalued.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Raymond James shows a clean mature-earner profile: revenue up from 9.63B in 2021 to 13.84B in 2025 (about 9.5% CAGR), net income up from 1.40B to 2.14B, and FCF back to 2.25B in 2025 after the 2022-2023 working-capital swings that are typical of a broker-dealer balance sheet (client cash, segregated assets, loan book at RJ Bank). Liquid cash of 11.39B against zero net debt and 33.6% of market cap gives real survival cushion, and OCF/NI of 0.99x with accruals at -0.1% of assets says reported earnings are backed by cash. Capital discipline is a genuine positive: diluted shares fell from 216.2M in 2022 to 207.3M in 2025 (about -0.5% CAGR), so per-share value is being concentrated. The catch is that buybacks recover only 12% of SBC in dollar terms, and SBC at 1.8% of revenue is modest but not trivial for a firm this size - most repurchase spend is offsetting comp dilution rather than returning capital. Insider tape is directionally neutral-to-negative: seven sells (~29M) and zero open-market buys, though sizes are consistent with routine executive diversification, not a red flag. The Altman Z of 0.64 flagged as 'distress' is a model artifact - Z-score is calibrated for industrial manufacturers and systematically misfires on banks/broker-dealers where large client-related liabilities inflate the denominator. Ignoring that noise, this is a solidly healthy diversified financial with no visible integrity issues.
Verify before trusting this (6)
- Segment mix between Private Client Group, Capital Markets, Asset Management, and RJ Bank - concentration risk in any one
- Interest-rate sensitivity of net interest income at RJ Bank and any unrealized AFS/HTM securities losses
- Composition of the 11.39B cash - firm liquidity vs. segregated client funds not truly available to shareholders
- Loan book credit quality at RJ Bank (NPLs, ACL coverage, CRE exposure)
- Actual gross buyback dollars vs. SBC issuance to confirm the 12% recovery ratio
- Any legal/regulatory reserves or FINRA/SEC actions in the latest 10-K
Price is $174.71 vs a composite fair value of $61.27 and a signal-adjusted $58.35, implying roughly -67% downside. The DCF at $16.90 is almost certainly a runaway/misapplied model on a broker-dealer-plus-bank (FCF is structurally noisy here) and I discount it heavily. The anchored-PE at $150 is the more credible reference, and even that sits about 14% below spot - not a crash call, but not cheap either. Quality is Strong, which lifts deserved value, but the business is diversified financials facing fee compression and cyclical capital-markets earnings; it does not deserve a premium multiple to the group. Peer commentary flags RJF trading at a rich multiple versus peers on earnings that include cyclically elevated NII and capital-markets contribution. What is priced in: continued advisor-network growth, sustained NII, and no mean-reversion in capital markets. That is a full-menu outcome, not a bargain. Margin of safety is negative to nil - I would want to see the mid-$140s or below before this becomes interesting on valuation alone.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Normalized NII sensitivity to rate cuts in the next 10-Q
- Advisor headcount and net recruiting trend
- Capital markets revenue mix vs 3-year average to gauge cyclical component
- Buyback pace net of stock-based comp
- Segment operating margins to test peer-multiple premium
The tape is nascent risk-on (VIX 15.5, S&P just 1.6% off highs) and RJF's 0.92 beta means macro moves land softly here anyway. As an asset manager / wealth platform, RJF is a secondary beneficiary of buoyant equity markets via AUM-linked fees, so a calm-to-constructive tape is a quiet, persistent tailwind rather than a decisive one. Higher-for-longer rates (10y 4.7%) and a stretched market PE 25.7 are a background headwind for the multiple, but rates also support net interest income at the bank/cash-sweep business, muting the hit.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Whether capital-markets revenue prints (M&A, underwriting) confirm or crack the platform story next quarter
- Any sell-side target revisions on RJF itself (not RJF's calls on others) that would signal tone shift
- VIX break above 20 or S&P drawdown >5% - would disproportionately pressure the premium multiple
- Fee-compression headlines from Schwab/LPL/peers that reprice the whole advisor-platform cohort
Wealth management demand is structurally supported: household financial assets keep compounding, advisors continue to migrate toward platforms with better technology and multiple affiliation models, and RJF is a net recipient of that migration. Against that, the rate path is the swing factor — the profit mix leans on spread income from client cash, and cuts compress that faster than fee revenue replaces it. Capital markets activity is the upside wildcard from a subdued base. Net: a durable high-single-digit compounder in a growing market, structurally intact but no longer setting the pace, and with earnings quality slipping relative to revenue.
When we made this prediction on Aug 26, 2026, RJF was $175.96. We expect it to be $160.00 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $145.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 26, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.