Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Real Estate · ·
$59.23
▼ $0.32 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/26 02:11 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$11.49B
Day Range
$58.74 - $59.40
52-Week Range
$58.72 - $69.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
19.10.2026
Support
$59.28
Resistance
$67.78
ELS is a stock from the Real Estate sector — REITs and real-estate companies — highly sensitive to interest rates and property prices.
-0.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/29 factors positiveRisk: High
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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $9.38 vs. price $59.23 (-84.2%)
Fair Value
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
40
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
50
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
6
Risk
44
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
64
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 Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (ELS) has focused on its stock valuation and industry positioning. Analysts suggest the company’s shares may be undervalued, citing strong fundamentals like stable occupancy and improving residential REIT trends, despite a 17% decline over five years. Barclays raised its price target to $69 while maintaining an equal-weight rating, while broader reports highlight ELS alongside peers like Essex Property and American Homes as potential beneficiaries of a recovering apartment sector.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc.. News trend score: 44. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 5 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
91
Fundamentals
64
Technical
6
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-7%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme anchoring (98) suggests traders are fixated on the near-term support level, ignoring broader valuation disconnects. Overconfidence (45) and euphoria (31) persist despite weak momentum, indicating persistent mispricing bias. The narrative gap (23) hints at a disconnect between optimistic expectations and reality. The key question: will traders break free from support anchoring, or will fundamentals finally align with price?
Updated: 09/04/2026, 10:46 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"ESS, ELS and AMH stand to benefit as apartment supply slows, occupancy stays strong and residential REIT fundamentals improve"
"Equity LifeStyle Properties has delivered a share price that is still down 17.0% over the past five years, yet the current valuation checks show a more nuanced picture, with the intrinsic value estimate pointing to upside"
"Barclays analyst raises price target to $69; Morgan Stanley lowers price target to $59"
📈 3D 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 — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for this stock reveal a stark divide between bullish and bearish perspectives, with Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s model standing out as the most optimistic. His near-perfect score suggests he would see this stock as oversold and positioned favorably within a cycle, contrasting sharply with Benjamin Graham’s near-zero score, which flags it as failing even his most lenient ‘Enterprising Investor’ criteria. Meanwhile, Thorstein Veblen’s moderate approval implies alignment with real value creation, while Philip Fisher and Peter Lynch’s low scores reflect skepticism about growth quality and valuation. The middle-ground approaches—like Howard Marks’ caution or Gerald Loeb’s moderate risk assessment—highlight a lack of consensus, with some methodologies (e.g., Jack Schwager and Howard Marks’ cycle view) seeing it as neutral or unremarkable. The extreme divergence, from Graham’s outright rejection to Nelson’s enthusiasm, underscores how fundamentally different each investor’s priorities—defensiveness, growth, trend-following, or cycle positioning—shape their verdict.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 78
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 76
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
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)
🟡 47
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 45
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 44
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 42
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 31
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 30
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 26
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)
🔴 14
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 5
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
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
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 284 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 bearish · 0 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.
Medium 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
—
Operating Margin
25.6%
Net Margin
26.3%
EBITDA Margin
39.2%
ROE
22.9%
ROA
7.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.01
Cash
$26.13M
Total Debt
$3.35B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
1.91
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 26.6.2026 | $0.543 |
| 25.6.2026 | $0.543 |
| 27.3.2026 | $0.543 |
| 26.3.2026 | $0.543 |
| 26.12.2025 | $0.515 |
| 25.12.2025 | $0.515 |
| 26.9.2025 | $0.515 |
| 25.9.2025 | $0.515 |
| 27.6.2025 | $0.515 |
| 26.6.2025 | $0.515 |
| 28.3.2025 | $0.515 |
| 27.3.2025 | $0.515 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$59.23
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$9.38
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-84.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
1.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.9% | $340.44M | $312.33M |
| 2 | 2.1% | $347.45M | $292.44M |
| 3 | 2.2% | $355.12M | $274.21M |
| 4 | 2.4% | $363.47M | $257.49M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $372.56M | $242.14M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$334.06M
Terminal Value
$5.87B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$3.82B
Enterprise Value
$5.20B
Net Debt
$3.32B
Equity Value
$1.88B
*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
$8.78
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$8.50
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 9 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 30.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Zacks · 24.8.2026
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. (ELS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 40/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ELS currently scores 40/100 (Weak) 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, ELS's estimated fair value is $9.38, which is 84.2% below the current price of $59.23. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ELS's technical score is 6/100, which currently reads as bearish — 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; ATR: 1.6% of price; Return on equity (ROE): 22.9% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $9.38 vs. price $59.23 (-84.2%); Calmar: -0.13 (3y annualized return -3.1% / max drawdown 23.4%); Free cash flow growth: -6.0%.
Yes — ELS 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freedman Constance | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 62 | +62 | $55.26 |
| Freedman Constance | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 16,525 | +62 | $55.26 |
| Peppet Scott R | Gift | 31.7.2026 | 3,615 | -3,615 | — |
| Peppet Scott R | Gift | 31.7.2026 | 10,973 | -3,615 | — |
| Freedman Constance | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 377 | +377 | $51.65 |
| Freedman Constance | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 16,463 | +377 | $51.65 |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 1.5.2026 | 802 | +802 | — |
| Freedman Constance | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 60 | +60 | $53.77 |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 1.5.2026 | 111 | -111 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 1.5.2026 | 111 | +111 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 1.5.2026 | 802 | -802 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 1.5.2026 | 4,716 | -111 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 1.5.2026 | 3,914 | -802 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 1.5.2026 | 8,157 | +111 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 1.5.2026 | 8,959 | +802 | — |
| Freedman Constance | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 16,086 | +60 | $53.77 |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 196 | +196 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 104 | -104 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 758 | +758 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 758 | -758 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 196 | -196 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 104 | +104 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 5,127 | -758 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 5,023 | -104 | — |
| CONTIS DAVID J | Gift | 29.4.2026 | 4,827 | -196 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,254,009 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 8,815,416 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.8% 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