Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Staples · ·
$93.43
▼ $0.43 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:15 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$93.03 - $94.65
52-Week Range
$66.22 - $121.64
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$78.66
Resistance
$108.38
EL is a stock from the Consumer Defensive sector — Food, beverages, and household products — steady demand even in a recession, since these are essential consumer goods.
+6.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/31 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 115.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $59.80 vs. price $93.43 (-36.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (76/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+4.9%
Median 40D Outcome
54/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+4.8% … +13.8%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.1% … +0.0%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-6.2% … -4.1%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.1%.
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.7% | -1.1% … +4.8% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.7% | -3.9% … +3.9% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.1% | -4.1% … +7.8% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +4.9% | -7.3% … +15.5% | +2.5% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.5% | -18.7% … +18.1% | +3.5% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-12-18 | 80/100 | Downtrend | -4.2% | +24.6% |
| 2020-06-26 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.7% | +14.0% |
| 2023-02-09 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -6.5% | -18.4% |
| 2022-08-30 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -11.3% | -13.4% |
| 2022-02-24 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -5.6% | -19.1% |
| 2025-09-12 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +4.8% | +22.9% |
| 2020-05-15 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +13.0% | +22.3% |
| 2025-11-10 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +14.5% | +11.0% |
| 2019-01-22 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +24.6% | +34.8% |
| 2023-03-13 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +2.9% | -22.9% |
| 2023-02-27 | 73/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.1% | -20.8% |
| 2022-07-14 | 72/100 | Consolidation | +10.8% | -9.9% |
| 2025-08-21 | 71/100 | Uptrend | +0.1% | +0.5% |
| 2026-06-24 | 71/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -4.0% | +12.2% |
| 2024-04-17 | 71/100 | Downtrend | -1.5% | -26.8% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLP (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
55
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
17d ago · $101.15
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 55)
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
76
Quality
63
Value
33
Momentum
49
Risk
48
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
50
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING EL...
Recent media coverage of **The Estée Lauder Companies** highlights its strategic shifts and leadership changes amid industry challenges. Key themes include the company’s participation in the **Barclays Global Consumer Conference** (Sept. 9) to discuss financial performance and market trends, as well as new **brand leadership appointments** following Sandra Main’s retirement, notably naming **Justin Boxford** as Global President of Luxury Beauty Brands. Reports also note Estée Lauder’s resilience alongside peers like **e.l.f. Beauty and Coty**, emphasizing innovation, digital growth, and cost management to counter industry headwinds.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Estée Lauder Companies (The). News trend score: 74. Reason: 6 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
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
43
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
50
Technical
49
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
43
Narrative Gap
+16
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests traders are prioritizing momentum and valuation over fundamentals, with overconfidence dominating (52) as price significantly exceeds fair value (+69%) and outpaces earnings growth. Euphoria (42) further indicates detached optimism, while herding (21) remains muted, implying selective participation rather than herd mentality. The narrative gap (21) widens reality vs. expectations, reinforcing potential detachment from fundamentals. The key open question is whether traders will sustain this premium or reassess as momentum decelerates or valuation pressures mount.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 05:20 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Sandra Main, global brand president of La Mer and skin care brands, will retire at yearend."
"EL, ELF, COTY and HELE navigate cost pressures and selective demand through innovation, digital growth and stronger brand strategies."
📈 9D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 90/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented and value-focused methodologies. The top scorers—Edgar Lawrence Smith, Jesse Livermore, and Morgan Housel—all see it as a high-potential, long-term hold, praising its trend strength and compounding potential, while Philip Fisher and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) acknowledge solid fundamentals but fall short of calling it exceptional. Meanwhile, the value camp, led by Benjamin Graham and Samuel Armstrong Nelson, slams the stock for failing defensive metrics and appearing overbought, with even Gerald M. Loeb flagging moderate risk. The middle ground, represented by Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen, suggests growth exists but is already priced in, creating a tug-of-war between momentum-driven optimism and cautious skepticism about valuation.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 90
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 75
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 71
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 58
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 53
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 50
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 44
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 30
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 17
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 13
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 6 bearish · 1 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 uptrend 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
75.5%
Operating Margin
5.2%
Net Margin
1.2%
EBITDA Margin
10.5%
ROE
4.8%
ROA
0.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.50
Cash
$3.50B
Total Debt
$503.00M
Current Ratio
1.22
Debt/Equity
0.13
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 31.8.2026 | $0.350 |
| 29.5.2026 | $0.350 |
| 28.5.2026 | $0.350 |
| 27.2.2026 | $0.350 |
| 26.2.2026 | $0.350 |
| 28.11.2025 | $0.350 |
| 27.11.2025 | $0.350 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.350 |
| 1.9.2025 | $0.350 |
| 30.5.2025 | $0.350 |
| 29.5.2025 | $0.350 |
| 28.2.2025 | $0.350 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$93.43
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$59.80
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-36.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-1.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1.7% | $1.29B | $1.19B |
| 2 | -0.6% | $1.29B | $1.08B |
| 3 | 0.4% | $1.29B | $996.66M |
| 4 | 1.5% | $1.31B | $927.65M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.34B | $872.33M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.32B
Terminal Value
$21.17B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$13.76B
Enterprise Value
$18.82B
Net Debt
$-3.00B
Equity Value
$21.82B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$10.43
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$5.15
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 12 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
Business Wire · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Stocktwits · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Barchart · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Estée Lauder Companies (The) (EL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 55/100, 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.
EL currently scores 55/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, EL's estimated fair value is $59.80, which is 36.0% below the current price of $93.43. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
EL's technical score is 49/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 115.9%; Free cash flow growth: 96.4%; Net income growth: 116.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $59.80 vs. price $93.43 (-36.0%); Calmar: -0.22 (3y annualized return -15.0% / max drawdown 68.3%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — EL 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 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| La Lande Rashida | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 0 | -7,766 | $103.32 |
| La Lande Rashida | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 7,766 | -7,766 | $103.32 |
| Webster Meridith | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 5,273 | +5,273 | — |
| Shrivastava Akhil | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 37,053 | +37,053 | — |
| Canevari Roberto | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 8,869 | +8,869 | — |
| La Lande Rashida | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 14,357 | +14,357 | — |
| La Lande Rashida | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 37,053 | +37,053 | — |
| La Lande Rashida | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.8.2026 | 7,766 | -6,591 | $106.06 |
| Canevari Roberto | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 32,320 | +32,320 | — |
| Hertzmark Hudis Jane | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 61,153 | +61,153 | — |
| Bowes Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 17,841 | +17,841 | — |
| Webster Meridith | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 19,213 | +19,213 | — |
| Hertzmark Hudis Jane | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 16,782 | +16,782 | — |
| Lammers Hendrik Rene | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 9,416 | +9,416 | — |
| La Lande Rashida | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 10,169 | +10,169 | — |
| Bowes Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 4,896 | +4,896 | — |
| Lammers Hendrik Rene | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 28,820 | +28,820 | — |
| Lammers Hendrik Rene | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 7,909 | +7,909 | — |
| Shrivastava Akhil | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 10,169 | +10,169 | — |
| de la Faverie Stephane | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 37,661 | +37,661 | — |
| de la Faverie Stephane | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 137,238 | +137,238 | — |
| La Lande Rashida | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 37,053 | +37,053 | — |
| Hertzmark Hudis Jane | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 16,782 | +16,782 | — |
| La Lande Rashida | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.8.2026 | 6,591 | -6,591 | $106.06 |
| La Lande Rashida | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.8.2026 | 14,357 | +14,357 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,950,845 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,967,625 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.3% 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