CRAI · CRA International, Inc.

Current Thesis

CRA International’s merger-review and litigation growth thesis has failed its published price test: the September 11, 2026 close of $161.88 breached the $165 weekly invalidation level. The August 30 dossier framed the August 6 revenue-guidance increase as an incompletely reflected improvement in demand. The latest completed week ended below that dossier’s threshold; the price condition has been met without requiring a subsequent earnings disappointment.

The underlying business evidence remains stronger than the price structure. CRA reported record quarterly revenue of $210.815 million, up 12.8% year over year, on August 6, 2026, and raised fiscal 2026 constant-currency revenue guidance to $805–820 million. Those results support the economic-consulting demand story, but they do not reverse the September 11 breach. August 6 earnings release.

As an interpretation of that market evidence, the narrative is dead in its published post-earnings form — the September 11 weekly close broke the condition that previously separated consolidation from failure. This describes the specific repricing thesis, not a finding that consulting demand has collapsed.

Bullish and bearish views on CRA International, Inc.

The model's bull view on CRA International, Inc. (CRAI), in brief: Revenue guidance still supports demand. On August 6, 2026, management increased fiscal 2026 constant-currency revenue guidance to $805–820 million from $785–805 million. The fundamental case would weaken if the next results reduce that range. Company release. Consultant capacity… The bear view: The published structure has broken. The September 11, 2026 adjusted close of $161.88 was below the $165 weekly threshold specified on August 30. The earlier price thesis is therefore invalidated on its own terms. Collections lagged the revenue advance. The August 6, 2026… Both cases follow in full.

Bull Case

• Revenue guidance still supports demand. On August 6, 2026, management increased fiscal 2026 constant-currency revenue guidance to $805–820 million from $785–805 million. The fundamental case would weaken if the next results reduce that range. Company release.
• Consultant capacity met higher utilization. The August 6, 2026 earnings call reported quarter-end consultant headcount of 968, up 3.3% year over year, and utilization of 77% versus 76% a year earlier. These are measured operating inputs; the observation does not establish their continuation into the next quarter.
• Quarterly margin conversion did improve. The August 6, 2026 release reported second-quarter adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) margin of 12.7%, versus 12.4% a year earlier. This qualifies the prior concern about margin conversion: the unresolved issue is further improvement, rather than its complete absence. Company release.

Bear Case

• The published structure has broken. The September 11, 2026 adjusted close of $161.88 was below the $165 weekly threshold specified on August 30. The earlier price thesis is therefore invalidated on its own terms.
• Collections lagged the revenue advance. The August 6, 2026 earnings call reported days sales outstanding, a measure of collection time, of 113 days versus 100 days in the preceding quarter. A further increase at the next results would confirm worsening collection timing.
• Full-year margin guidance stayed unchanged. On August 6, 2026, management reaffirmed the fiscal 2026 adjusted EBITDA margin range of 12.0–13.0% while raising revenue guidance. The release therefore contained no increase in the full-year margin forecast. Company release.

Setup & Price Structure

The September 11, 2026 split- and dividend-adjusted reference close is $161.88. The supplied market series places it 26.8% below its $221.02 trailing-year high, with a three-month price increase of 7.9% and a 14-period relative strength index (RSI) of 22.5. These measurements describe weak recent momentum despite a positive three-month change; they do not establish a reversal.

The $165 level remains the historical thesis-break threshold published on August 30, 2026. Substituting a lower threshold after the September 11 breach would change the proposition being assessed.

Positioning evidence is limited. Stock Analysis reports an average analyst target of $250.50 across two analysts, with targets last updated August 10, 2026. That small sample supports no claim about broad investor conviction, and the dated targets do not demonstrate renewed participation during September’s decline. No dated retail-flow or short-interest series supports a crowding conclusion here. Analyst forecast table.

Catalyst Calendar (next 30 days)

• ~2026-10-29, est. Third-quarter results. This falls outside the next 30 days and remains an estimated date, listed by Stock Analysis rather than established here by a company announcement. The results would test the August 6 guidance and whether collection time improves from the second quarter’s 113 days. Earnings calendar.

Elapsed catalysts

• 2026-09-14 — Scheduled dividend payment. The August 6 declaration specifies $0.57 per common share, payable September 14 to holders of record on August 25. This is a distribution event; it contains no update to revenue, margins or collections. Dividend declaration. (passed 6d ago)

What Would Change Our Mind

The loss of the published post-earnings threshold has already settled the original price test: a weekly close below $165 occurred with the September 11, 2026 close of $161.88. A subsequent recovery cannot erase that dated outcome.

A weekly close back above $165, combined with the next results retaining the August 6 revenue-guidance range and reducing days sales outstanding below the second quarter’s 113 days, would supply evidence for a separate recovery thesis. Conversely, a guidance reduction or another increase in collection time would extend the failure from price structure into operating evidence.

Correlation Notes

This remains a single-name setup. Management’s August 6, 2026 call cited $1.6 trillion of global announced mergers and acquisitions in the second quarter and a sixth consecutive record quarter for Antitrust & Competition Economics. Those observations explain the proposed demand connection; they do not measure CRAI’s share-price correlation with transaction volumes.

No dated peer-return or index-correlation series accompanies the September 11 market snapshot. The evidence is insufficient to attribute the decline to a consulting-sector move, a healthcare theme or broader market exposure.