Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$57.60
▲ $0.63 (+1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/26 11:07 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$2.95B
Day Range
$56.40 - $57.86
52-Week Range
$47.47 - $69.06
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
Support
$55.01
Resistance
$65.40
COLM is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+13.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/27 factors positiveRisk: Medium
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.13 (3y annualized return -6.3% / max drawdown 46.8%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
56
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
40
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
48
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
63
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Columbia Sportswear has primarily focused on its financial performance and growth prospects, particularly in footwear and overall order growth. Analysts highlight its undervalued position and potential for long-term investment, with attention on its upcoming Spring 2027 collection and whether footwear can drive further expansion. While not directly mentioned in these sources, broader industry trends—such as AI-driven retail gains and consumer discretionary sector challenges—may indirectly influence its market standing. No major controversies or significant events beyond earnings and guidance discussions are noted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Columbia Sportswear Company. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
39
Fundamentals
63
Technical
48
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-11%
Market Narrative
67
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+27
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for COLM suggests a dominant loss aversion bias, as evidenced by the 10.1% drop over three months and muted trading volume. Traders may be hesitant to sell further, anchoring near support (3.5% above) while avoiding additional losses. The narrative gap (16 points) hints at a disconnect between market perception (optimistic sentiment) and technical reality (negative momentum). The key question is whether traders will break above the 3.5% support level or remain trapped in loss-averse caution.
Updated: 09/05/2026, 10:06 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Columbia Sportswear Spring 2027 Book: Can Footwear Lead Growth?"
"Columbia Sportswear (COLM) Order Growth Meets An Undervalued Narrative"
"4 Textile-Apparel Stocks to Watch as Industry Trends Strengthen"
📈 4D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Walter Bagehot — 79/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s divergent verdicts reflect a stark divide between methodologies prioritizing defensive, cyclical, or fundamental strength versus those skeptical of its long-term or speculative merits. The highest-scoring approaches—Bagehot’s liquidity focus, Mackay’s absence of crowd-driven hype, and Nelson’s cyclical oversold assessment—suggest it could weather volatility or benefit from a market downturn, framing it as a safer, opportunistic play. In contrast, the lower-scoring strategies, particularly Livermore’s trend resistance and Fisher’s lack of growth quality, dismiss it as either a contrarian misfit or a speculative overreach, while Graham’s mixed verdict highlights its failure to meet strict valuation thresholds. The middle ground—Marks’ caution about high expectations and Malkiel/Bogle’s skepticism of active picking—implies it’s neither a slam dunk nor a clear mispricing, leaving it in a gray zone where only the most disciplined or contrarian investors might engage.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 79
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 70
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 64
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 60
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 60
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 52
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 46
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 40
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 37
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 35
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 31
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 31
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 21
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 5 bearish · 2 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Gross Margin
50.5%
Operating Margin
6.1%
Net Margin
5.2%
EBITDA Margin
7.8%
ROE
10.4%
ROA
6.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.24
Cash
$442.03M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.59
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 20.8.2026 | $0.300 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.300 |
| 20.5.2026 | $0.300 |
| 9.3.2026 | $0.300 |
| 8.3.2026 | $0.300 |
| 20.11.2025 | $0.300 |
| 19.11.2025 | $0.300 |
| 21.8.2025 | $0.300 |
| 20.8.2025 | $0.300 |
| 22.5.2025 | $0.300 |
| 21.5.2025 | $0.300 |
| 10.3.2025 | $0.300 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$31.23
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$29.82
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 6 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
StockStory · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
Columbia Sportswear Company (COLM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
COLM currently scores 56/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
COLM's technical score is 48/100, which currently reads as neutral — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 2.59; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.13 (3y annualized return -6.3% / max drawdown 46.8%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -15.2%; Net income growth: -20.6%.
Yes — COLM has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kulok Lisa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 8,638 | +580 | — |
| Kulok Lisa | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 8,180 | -458 | $56.81 |
| Kulok Lisa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 4,054 | -580 | — |
| Kulok Lisa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,104 | -368 | — |
| Bragdon Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 9,159 | -1,309 | — |
| Bragdon Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 29,673 | +1,309 | — |
| Bragdon Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 28,364 | +617 | — |
| Bragdon Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 27,747 | +618 | — |
| Bragdon Peter J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 28,846 | -827 | $56.81 |
| Bragdon Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 3,081 | -617 | — |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 18,697 | +716 | — |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 18,219 | -478 | $56.81 |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,124 | -375 | — |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 17,981 | +377 | — |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 17,604 | +375 | — |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,885 | -377 | — |
| Kulok Lisa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,835 | -368 | — |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 5,007 | -716 | — |
| Kulok Lisa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 7,690 | +368 | — |
| Kulok Lisa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 8,058 | +368 | — |
| Bragdon Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 1,854 | -618 | — |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 375 | -375 | — |
| LUTHER RICHELLE T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 716 | +716 | — |
| Kulok Lisa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 368 | +368 | — |
| Kulok Lisa | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 368 | +368 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,361,519 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 4,281,367 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
69.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 66.6% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology