Campbell’s (CPB) Stock Hits 52‑Week Lows After Q1 2026 Earnings and Fitch Downgrade

Published: December 10, 2025 – Ticker: NASDAQ: CPB

Snapshot: What’s Happening to Campbell’s Stock Today?

The Campbell’s Company (formerly Campbell Soup Company) is under real pressure in the market.

Share price: around $28–$28.50 intraday on December 10, 2025. ^[1]
New 52‑week low: stock traded as low as $28.13 today, setting a fresh 52‑week trough, after closing at $30.04 yesterday. ^[2]
52‑week range: roughly $27.85–$43.85. ^[3]
Dividend yield: about 5.5%, based on a $1.56 annual dividend ($0.39 quarterly). ^[4]

Shares fell more than 5% on December 9 after earnings and continued lower today; some data providers note the stock is headed for its lowest levels since the late 2000s. ^[5]

At the same time, Fitch Ratings has downgraded Campbell’s credit rating to BBB‑ / F3 with a Stable outlook, citing elevated leverage and weak operating trends. ^[6]

Together, that’s put CPB squarely in “high‑yield turnaround” territory: cheap valuation, big dividend – and a growing list of questions.

Q1 Fiscal 2026: Earnings Beat, Fundamentals Weaken

Campbell’s reported first‑quarter fiscal 2026 results (quarter ended November 2, 2025) on December 9.

Headline numbers

From the company’s own release:

Net sales:$2.68–$2.68 billion, down 3% year over year; organic sales down 1%. ^[7]
GAAP EBIT:$336 million, down 8%. ^[8]
Adjusted EBIT:$383 million, down 11%. ^[9]
GAAP EPS:$0.65 vs. $0.72 a year ago. ^[10]
Adjusted EPS:$0.77, down 13% from $0.89. ^[11]
Cash flow from operations:$224 million, with $144 million returned to shareholders (about $120 million in dividends). ^[12]

Even though revenue and earnings declined, Campbell’s beat consensus expectations: adjusted EPS of $0.77 came in a few cents above the roughly $0.73–$0.74 Street estimate, and sales modestly topped forecasts. ^[13]

That “beat but down” pattern is exactly what’s bothering the market: the direction of the fundamentals is negative even when the company clears a lowered bar.

Margin squeeze: tariffs and inflation bite

The quality of the quarter is where the story gets tricky:

Adjusted gross margin fell about 150 basis points, to just under 30%. ^[14]
Management and multiple analyses attribute over 500 basis points of cost headwinds, including roughly 200 bps from tariffs and another ~200 bps from broader inflation. ^[15]
Tariffs are expected to represent around 4% of cost of goods sold in fiscal 2026; Campbell’s aims to mitigate roughly 60% of that impact through sourcing changes, productivity, and “surgical pricing.” ^[16]

Campbell’s reaffirmed full‑year fiscal 2026 guidance, but that guidance itself is subdued: low single‑digit organic sales in a band around flat and a high single‑ to low‑teens decline in adjusted EBIT versus fiscal 2025 once the extra week is excluded. ^[17]

The message: management is hitting its own (cautious) targets, but there is no clear profit growth story for 2026.

Tariffs, Soup Pricing and the Snacks Slowdown

Soup: pricing power meets demand elasticity

Axios reports that ready‑to‑serve soups like Chunky and Homestyle have seen the sharpest pullback, as price increases taken to offset tariff‑driven inflation are now showing up in weaker consumption and market share. Soup is proving highly price‑sensitive. ^[18]

Key details:

Meals & Beverages volume declined 3% in Q1, with management explicitly linking the drop to the “elasticity impact” of those price moves. ^[19]
Shoppers are increasingly trading down to private‑label and value brands in soup, according to RBC’s consumer research head Nik Modi. ^[20]

It isn’t all bad news:

Condensed cooking soups and broth continue to grow, with Campbell’s adding over 2 million new buyers, including a notable influx of Millennial and Gen X households. ^[21]

So the core “cook‑at‑home” franchise is holding up; the more discretionary, ready‑to‑serve side of soup is taking the tariff‑price hit.

Snacks: structural headwinds, not just a bad quarter

Snacks, roughly 41–43% of revenue, are still soft. ^[22]

Across several reports:

Organic sales in Snacks declined about 1% in Q1, as shoppers stayed cautious on discretionary snacking. ^[23]
Management emphasized that Goldfish showed encouraging growth during back‑to‑school thanks to promotions, but overall snack consumption still declined. ^[24]
Bears point to GLP‑1 weight‑loss drugs and a consumer shift toward “better‑for‑you” options as longer‑term headwinds for salty snacks. ^[25]

Seeking Alpha’s latest Q1 reactions span the spectrum: one author sees “trading near historical lows with turnaround potential”, while others maintain Sell or Strong Sell ratings, arguing that persistent volume declines and elevated leverage overshadow the brand strength story. ^[26]

Fitch Downgrade: BBB‑ and a Clear Warning on Leverage

The biggest new development today is Fitch’s downgrade:

Long‑term IDR and senior unsecured debt: cut from BBB to BBB‑.
Short‑term IDR and commercial paper: cut from F2 to F3.
Outlook:Stable, not Negative. ^[27]

Fitch’s reasoning is blunt:

Leverage: After the Sovos acquisition and other moves, Fitch estimates debt/EBITDA around 3.7x in fiscal 2025, rising to about 4.2x in fiscal 2026 as EBITDA declines. They only see leverage drifting back into the “high 3x” range in fiscal 2027, assuming free cash flow is used to pay down debt. ^[28]
EBIT margin compression: down from ~15.7% in FY 2024 to 14.6% in FY 2025, with a projected drop to around 12.7% in FY 2026 as tariffs, inflation, and reinvestment into brands weigh on profitability. ^[29]
Organic sales: down 1% in fiscal 2025; Fitch expects another ~1% organic decline in 2026, with net revenue down about 4% once the extra week and divestitures are factored in. ^[30]
Debt load: about $6.9 billion of total debt as of November 2, 2025, against EBITDA projected near $1.6 billion for fiscal 2026. ^[31]

On the positive side, Fitch stresses:

Campbell’s commanding market shares in soup, sauces, and several snack categories.
A $375 million cost‑savings program through fiscal 2028, with $145–160 million realized so far. ^[32]

But the net of it is clear: credit quality has slipped a notch, and the downgrade formally acknowledges that leverage is likely to stay high for several years.

Analyst Moves on December 10, 2025: Targets Drop, Ratings Mostly Neutral

Wall Street has spent the last week walking expectations down.

Today’s and recent changes

RBC Capital
- Rating: Sector Perform (equivalent to Hold).
- Price target cut from $35 to $30.
- RBC flags persistent softness in Snacks and calls PepsiCo’s new pricing push at Frito‑Lay an “incremental negative” for Campbell’s salty snacks, suggesting CPB may have to cut prices or accept deeper volume declines. ^[33]
Bernstein SocGen
- Rating: Outperform (bullish).
- Target reduced from $39 to $33.
- Notes that broths and condensed soups are doing well and premium brands like Pacific and Rao’s are performing strongly, but ready‑to‑serve soup remains pressured; sees gross margin around 30.3% and 12‑month revenue growth of about 2.7%. ^[34]
Morgan Stanley
- Rating: Equal‑Weight (neutral).
- Target cut from $33 to $30 on December 5, also highlighting elevated leverage and modest growth expectations. ^[35]
UBS
- Rating: Sell.
- Target trimmed from $30 to $28, matching roughly where the stock trades today. ^[36]
Stephens
- Rating: Overweight, but target lowered from $40 to $38 earlier this week. ^[37]
TD Cowen
- Rating: Hold.
- Target raised modestly from $29 to $31 back in September, now sitting above the market but well below prior Street highs. ^[38]

Consensus picture

Across aggregators:

Around 16–23 analysts cover the stock, with an average rating of roughly Hold / “Reduce”. ^[39]
Consensus 12‑month price target clusters around $32–34, implying about 15–17% upside from current levels. ^[40]
MarketBeat notes 3 Buys, 15 Holds, and 5 Sells, underscoring how divided the Street is. ^[41]

In other words, analysts see some upside from here, but they are cutting targets and mostly sitting on the fence rather than pounding the table.

Dividend and Balance Sheet: High Yield, Tight Headroom

Campbell’s is now firmly in high‑yield territory:

Annual dividend: $1.56 per share.
Yield: about 5.5% at current prices. ^[42]
Payout ratio: roughly 75–80% of trailing EPS, depending on the source, and close to 100% when viewed against some free‑cash‑flow metrics, according to AInvest. ^[43]

AInvest’s December 10 analysis frames the question starkly: is Campbell’s “high yield a trap or a value opportunity?” It highlights:

Q1 2026 revenue down 3% and adjusted EPS down 13%.
Heavy debt load with debt/EBITDA in the high‑4x range and sizeable annual interest costs.
$144 million returned to shareholders in Q1 versus $224 million of operating cash flow – leaving limited room for error after capex and debt service. ^[44]

Fitch expects post‑dividend free cash flow of only about $200 million in fiscal 2026 and $300 million in 2027, with much of that earmarked for debt reduction. ^[45]

The implication:

The dividend looks safe in the near term, but there is not much cushion if margins disappoint further or tariffs hit harder than expected.
Any large new acquisition or serious mis‑execution could force management to choose between the credit rating and the payout.

Strategy and M&A: Rao’s, La Regina and Cost‑Savings

Campbell’s is trying to engineer a slow‑burn turnaround rather than a radical overhaul.

Key strategic moves:

La Regina stake: Campbell’s has agreed to acquire a 49% interest in La Regina, the Italian producer of Rao’s tomato‑based pasta sauces, for about $286 million in two installments, with an option to buy the remaining 51% later. Management expects the deal to be EPS‑neutral in FY26 but helpful for Rao’s margins and supply security over time. ^[46]
Rao’s growth: Rao’s continues to post low single‑digit consumption growth and remains the No. 1 brand in its category, supporting the company’s premium, “real ingredients” narrative. ^[47]
Cost savings: A company‑wide program targeting $375 million in savings by fiscal 2028 is underway, with roughly $145–160 million realized so far and about $34 million of Q1 2026 profit impact from cost‑savings and optimization initiatives. ^[48]
Snacks route‑to‑market optimization: Campbell’s continues to invest in its direct‑store‑delivery network for Snacks, booking restructuring and implementation costs today to improve efficiency later. ^[49]

These moves support the bull case that today’s margin and leverage pain is transitional, but they also contribute to the complexity of the story – and add execution risk.

Valuation: Cheap for a Reason, or Mispriced Defensive?

On most traditional metrics, CPB screens as cheap for a branded food company:

Trailing P/E: about 14–15x.
Forward P/E: roughly 11–12x based on current estimates. ^[50]
Dividend yield: ~5.5%.
Free cash flow yield: above 7%, according to recent Seeking Alpha analysis. ^[51]

Simply Wall St’s December 10 note argues that:

The current price around $28–$29 trades well below a DCF‑based fair value estimate above $60.
Trailing net margin has nudged up to about 5.7% on roughly $10.2 billion of revenue and $578 million of net income, but the quality of earnings is clouded by one‑off losses and debt not well covered by operating cash flow. ^[52]

Other models (including AlphaSpread and various broker targets) cluster intrinsic value in the low‑to‑mid $40s, still well above today’s price but heavily dependent on margin recovery and modest growth actually materializing. ^[53]

The bear counterpoint is simple:

Earnings have declined over the last five years, even as the balance sheet has become more leveraged.
Organic revenue growth is hovering around zero, with tariffs, GLP‑1‑related snack headwinds, and private‑label competition all in the mix. ^[54]

So far, the market clearly leans toward “cheap for a reason”, not “hidden bargain” – but that can change quickly if management can show convincing progress on margins and volume by the back half of fiscal 2026.

Reputational and Governance Overhang

Beyond the numbers, Campbell’s has been dealing with headline risk:

A lawsuit by a former employee in Michigan alleges that a senior IT executive made offensive, racist remarks and disparaged Campbell’s products as being for “poor people” and containing “bioengineered meat.” ^[55]
The company has placed the executive on leave and publicly rejected the claims about its ingredients, stating it uses USDA‑approved real chicken and defending its food quality. ^[56]
Rosen Law Firm, a prominent investor‑rights firm, has opened an investigation into potential breaches of fiduciary duty by directors and officers in connection with the lawsuit. ^[57]

None of this directly changes Campbell’s cash flows today, but it adds to the risk narrative at a time when the fundamentals are already under scrutiny.

Key Takeaways for CPB Investors

Putting it all together as of December 10, 2025:

Stock price: CPB is trading at fresh 52‑week lows around $28, down roughly a third over 12 months and more than 40% year‑to‑date by some measures. ^[58]
Earnings: Q1 FY 2026 beat expectations but declined on every major metric – sales, EBIT, EPS and margins – and management’s full‑year guidance points to another tough year. ^[59]
Credit: Fitch’s downgrade to BBB‑ crystallizes concerns about leverage, with debt/EBITDA expected to sit around 4x for several years. ^[60]
Dividend: The 5.5% yield is attractive, but payout ratios and free‑cash‑flow coverage leave little room for error, especially if tariffs and weak volumes persist. ^[61]
Analysts: Street opinion is split but cautious – mostly Holds, a handful of Buys and Sells – with targets slowly drifting down even as they still sit above the current share price. ^[62]
Storyline: Campbell’s is now clearly an “income plus turnaround” play: strong brands, a big yield, and credible cost‑savings and premium‑brand growth initiatives, but weighed down by tariffs, slow growth, leverage, and a challenging consumer landscape.

For investors, the decision around CPB boils down to risk tolerance and time horizon:

Income‑oriented holders may see today’s sell‑off and downgrade as the kind of capitulation that historically precedes better returns – if management can stabilize margins and keep the dividend intact.
More conservative investors may decide that a BBB‑ balance sheet, structurally pressured snacks portfolio, and flat volumes are too big a gamble, even at an 11–12x forward earnings multiple.