Compare Stocks › HAS vs MS

Hasbro, Inc. (HAS) vs Morgan Stanley (MS): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-11-01, HAS is overvalued at $119, with a DCF intrinsic value of $71 and a margin of safety of -68%. MS is undervalued at $184, with an intrinsic value of $314 and a margin of safety of 41%. Of the two, MS has the wider margin of safety.

HAS
Hasbro, Inc.
$119.09
VS
MS
Morgan Stanley
$184.30

Rewards

HAS
  • ★Gross margin of 65.3% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Free cash flow has grown at a 51.8% CAGR over the past 4 years, demonstrating strong earnings power growth.
MS
  • ★Gross margin of 87.3% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.
  • ★Morgan Stanley scores 80/100 on the Economic Moat Score (Wide Moat), with revenue predictability as the strongest competitive dimension.
  • ★Each dollar of retained earnings has created $3.56 of earning power — management is an exceptional capital allocator.

Risks

HAS
  • ⚠High leverage (2.58x net debt/equity) combined with thin interest coverage (-1.0x) poses financial risk.
  • ⚠Insiders have sold $2.9M worth of stock in the past 3 months — significant insider liquidation.
MS
  • ⚠Altman Z-Score of 0.29 places the company in the distress zone — financial patterns resemble those of companies that experienced bankruptcy.
  • ⚠13 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.

Key Valuation Metrics

Learn more →
HAS
MS
Valuation
$804.50M
Free Cash Flow
N/A
4.83%
FCF Yield
N/A
17.75
Trailing P/E
14.62
17.07
Forward P/E
13.50
Quality & Moat
27.72%
ROIC
3.47%
139.78%
ROE
13.84%
65.34%
Gross Margin
87.31%
1.71
PEG Ratio
1.61
Balance Sheet Safety
2.58
Net Debt / Equity
Net cash
N/A
Interest Coverage
N/A
1.56
Net Debt / EBITDA
N/A
2.35%
Dividend Yield
2.50%
HAS: 2Ties: 1MS: 6
HASMS

Historical Fundamentals

Learn more →
HAS

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

MS

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

$1 Retained Earnings Test

Learn more →
HAS
N/A
Net losses over 3 years — test not applicable
Company had negative cumulative retained earnings
Σ Retained
$-2.60B
Δ Market Cap
+$3.08B
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
MS
$6.65
created per $1 retained over 3 years
Exceptional Value Creator
Σ Retained
$20.84B
Δ Market Cap
+$138.59B
Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
> $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

Learn more →
HAS
68.4% Overvalued
Price is 68.4% above estimated fair value
Current Price: $119.09
Fair Value: $70.73
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued
MS
41.3% Margin of Safety
Price is 41.3% below estimated fair value
Current Price: $184.30
Fair Value: $313.71
Strongly undervalued
Undervalued
Fairly valued
Overvalued
Strongly overvalued

Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

Learn more →
HAS

What growth rate is the market pricing in at $119?

+10.0%
Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

Market below historical growth — potential opportunity.

MS

Requires positive FCF to compute implied growth rate.

Economic Moat Score

Learn more →
HAS
40/100
Narrow Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Narrow moat with reinvestment efficiency as the key competitive advantage. Improving margin stability would strengthen the moat.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 5 years of fundamental data.
MS
80/100
Wide Moat
70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

Wide moat driven primarily by revenue predictability. Margin Stability is the area most vulnerable to competitive pressure.

Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.

Forensic Accounting

Learn more →
HAS

Insufficient data for Beneish M-Score calculation (requires 2+ years).

MS
-2.09
Possible Manipulator
Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

M-Score Trend

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

Ownership Breakdown

Learn more →
HAS
Insiders 0.6%Institutions 101.4%
No. of Institutional Holders1,061
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
MS
Insiders 24.4%Institutions 63.5%Retail & Other 12.1%
No. of Institutional Holders3,458
High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

Insider Buying Activity

Learn more →
HAS
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
No open market insider purchases found.
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
MS
0
Buys (3M)
0
Buys (12M)
PETERSON DOUGLAS L
Director
$5,630
@ $156.39 · 2025-10-17
Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises

Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.

Insider Selling Activity

Learn more →
HAS
4
Sells (3M)
16
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $50.16M
BARBACOVI HOLLY
Officer
$476,369
@ $94.20 · 2026-08-31
HIGHT JOHN
Officer
$1.10M
@ $94.63 · 2026-08-19
HIGHT JOHN
Officer
$1.08M
@ $96.29 · 2026-08-17
HAMREN ELIZABETH
Director
$272,784
@ $92.03 · 2026-08-07
GOETTER GINA M
Chief Financial Officer
$776,602
@ $93.96 · 2026-07-31
HIGHT JOHN
Officer
$298,551
@ $93.71 · 2026-07-30
GOETTER GINA M
Chief Financial Officer
$1.05M
@ $95.44 · 2026-07-28
KILPIN TIMOTHY J
Officer
$1.86M
@ $93.12 · 2026-07-28
COCKS CHRISTIAN P
Chief Executive Officer
$19.71M
@ $100.33 · 2026-02-26
BARBACOVI HOLLY
Officer
$437,929
@ $100.98 · 2026-02-20
KILPIN TIMOTHY J
Officer
$800,619
@ $103.00 · 2026-02-13
SIBLEY TARRANT LIVINGSTON III
Officer
$1.59M
@ $104.98 · 2026-02-12
GOETTER GINA M
Chief Financial Officer
$1.29M
@ $103.46 · 2026-02-12
COCKS CHRISTIAN P
Chief Executive Officer
$18.86M
@ $103.86 · 2026-02-12
BUNGE JASON M
Officer
$252,342
@ $106.03 · 2026-02-12
COCHRAN HOPE F
Director
$308,972
@ $77.24 · 2025-11-10
THOMSON ROBERTA KELLY
Officer
$202,825
@ $81.13 · 2025-08-28
KILPIN TIMOTHY J
Officer
$696,882
@ $81.44 · 2025-08-27
COCKS CHRISTIAN P
Chief Executive Officer
$2.19M
@ $78.92 · 2025-08-21
THOMSON ROBERTA KELLY
Officer
$79,971
@ $79.81 · 2025-08-14
AUSTIN MATTHEW EDWARD
Officer
$111,782
@ $65.07 · 2024-11-29
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
MS
0
Sells (3M)
13
Sells (12M)
Total value (12M): $48.28M
SCHAPIRO MARY L
Director
$212,055
@ $212.06 · 2026-07-28
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$5.21M
@ $215.55 · 2026-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$2.12M
@ $190.75 · 2026-04-20
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$2.78M
@ $189.24 · 2026-04-17
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$3.04M
@ $188.22 · 2026-04-16
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$9.74M
@ $188.59 · 2026-04-16
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$6.02M
@ $182.61 · 2026-01-30
YESHAYA SHARON
Chief Financial Officer
$2.94M
@ $185.77 · 2026-01-20
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$1.55M
@ $182.08 · 2026-01-20
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$3.97M
@ $184.00 · 2026-01-20
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.44M
@ $183.45 · 2026-01-20
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$3.69M
@ $184.55 · 2026-01-20
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$5.57M
@ $183.62 · 2026-01-20
PICK EDWARD N.
Chief Executive Officer
$16.43M
@ $164.34 · 2025-10-31
SMITH CHARLES AUBREY III
Officer
$2.81M
@ $140.30 · 2025-07-17
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.69M
@ $141.12 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$4.09M
@ $141.13 · 2025-07-17
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.53M
@ $140.62 · 2025-07-17
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$3.70M
@ $127.37 · 2025-05-12
HERZ ROBERT H
Director
$95,459
@ $119.32 · 2025-05-02
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.80M
@ $120.00 · 2025-05-02
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.12M
@ $111.65 · 2025-04-15
CRAWLEY MANDELL L.
Officer
$1.15M
@ $138.06 · 2025-01-22
GROSSMAN ERIC F
Officer
$1.78M
@ $136.20 · 2025-01-21
SIMKOWITZ DANIEL A
President
$5.00M
@ $136.61 · 2025-01-21
AKRAM RAJA
Chief Financial Officer
$2.38M
@ $136.01 · 2025-01-21
PIZZI MICHAEL A
Officer
$2.52M
@ $136.92 · 2025-01-21
SAPERSTEIN ANDREW MICHAEL
President
$4.20M
@ $136.43 · 2025-01-21
Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives

Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.

🎭 Mr. Market's Mood

Learn more →
HAS
FearGreed
😏Greed(69/100)

"Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.
MS
FearGreed
😐Neutral(49/100)

"Market is pricing this stock without strong emotion in either direction"

Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

Composite sentiment score based on market signals. Inspired by Buffett’s "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

⚖️ Buffett Signal

Learn more →
HAS
⚪Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Greed (69)
MS
⚪Awaiting DCF Data

The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Neutral (49)
View HAS Full AnalysisView MS Full Analysis

Frequently Asked Questions: HAS vs MS

Is Hasbro, Inc. or Morgan Stanley more undervalued in 2026?▼

Based on our discounted cash flow model, MS trades at a 41.3% margin of safety (intrinsic value $314 vs. price $184), compared to HAS's -68.4% margin of safety (intrinsic $71 vs. $119).

Which stock has a wider economic moat, Hasbro, Inc. or Morgan Stanley?▼

MS scores 80/100 (Wide moat), while HAS scores 40/100 (Narrow moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

Is Morgan Stanley in financial distress?▼

MS's Altman Z-Score of 0.3 places it in the Distress zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. HAS scores 3.4 (Safe zone). The Altman Z-Score is a five-factor model that predicts insolvency within two years; scores below 1.81 indicate significant distress.

Which stock has higher return on invested capital, Hasbro, Inc. or Morgan Stanley?▼

HAS earns 27.7% ROIC versus MS's 3.5%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

Which dividend is safer, Hasbro, Inc.'s or Morgan Stanley's?▼

MS's dividend earns a safety score of 79/100 (Safe), compared to HAS's 68/100 (Safe). MS has raised its dividend for 3 consecutive years.