Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$79.69
▲ $0.23 (+0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/21 02:24 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$326.07M
Day Range
$77.56 - $80.98
52-Week Range
$34.00 - $88.49
Beta
—
Next Earnings
19.10.2026
Support
$69.98
Resistance
$88.49
FLXS is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+54.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $146.45 vs. price $79.69 (+83.8%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.5% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
70/100
Similarity
8
Historical Matches
72/100
Analog Quality
+31.1%
Median 40D Outcome
63/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
88%
+10.6% … +17.8%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
13%
-1.0% … -1.0%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 8 similar historical cases for this stock, 88% (95% CI 53%–98%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +13.7%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
2 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
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 | 88% (53%–98%) | +7.5% | +4.7% … +12.0% | +1.9% |
| 10D | 63% (31%–86%) | +6.1% | -1.0% … +10.6% | +3.5% |
| 20D | 88% (53%–98%) | +13.7% | +8.2% … +17.4% | +10.4% |
| 40D | 100% (68%–100%) | +31.1% | +21.2% … +36.8% | +23.6% |
| 60D | 100% (68%–100%) | +41.1% | +33.4% … +47.5% | +39.4% |
Sample size: 8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-08 | 70/100 | Uptrend | +23.9% | +43.9% |
| 2026-05-19 | 69/100 | High Volatility | +18.6% | +38.3% |
| 2026-04-06 | 69/100 | Consolidation | +17.0% | +63.8% |
| 2026-04-20 | 62/100 | Consolidation | +15.0% | +58.2% |
| 2026-03-06 | 53/100 | High Volatility | -1.0% | +25.9% |
| 2026-05-04 | 50/100 | High Volatility | +8.7% | +35.9% |
| 2026-03-20 | 47/100 | Consolidation | +6.6% | +43.9% |
| 2026-06-23 | 39/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +12.5% | +19.2% |
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 XLY (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
as of 09/11/202669
This Week
73
7D Ago
↓ -4
Weakening
Technical
63
7D Ago: 83
↓ -20
Fundamental
68
7D Ago: 68
→ 0
Growth
76
7D Ago: 76
→ 0
Valuation
67
7D Ago: 67
→ 0
News
98
7D Ago: 86
↑ +12
Quality
58
7D Ago: 58
→ 0
Risk
48
7D Ago: 48
→ 0
Biggest Improvements
Biggest Declines
📊 Score History
69
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
69 / 100
🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 10, 2026
Then
73
$83.13
Now
69
$79.69
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
76
Quality
58
Value
67
Momentum
63
Risk
48
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
68
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Flexsteel Industries (NASDAQ: FLXS) has centered on its strategic pivot toward digital transformation and innovation within the furniture sector. The company is highlighted for its focus on omnichannel growth, product innovation, and adapting to shifting consumer demand, aiming for a $750 million revenue target. Additionally, a board member sold $253,000 in stock, drawing attention to insider activity amid industry-wide shifts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Flexsteel Industries, Inc.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 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
34
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
40
Fundamentals
68
Technical
63
Valuation
67
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+23%
Market Narrative
52
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
FLXS exhibits **herding** as traders align with peers’ relative outperformance today, despite moderate FOMO and euphoric momentum. The narrative-reality gap (2) suggests mild mispricing, but overconfidence and euphoria—driven by momentum vs. fundamentals—may amplify speculative positioning. Key uncertainty lies in whether peer strength persists or if sentiment cools. The low panic/selling score implies no immediate distress, but overvaluation (-42% vs. DCF) could test discipline if momentum stalls.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:52 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"furniture industry players like FLXS are evolving with digital innovation, e-commerce growth and rising demand for multifunctional furniture"
"management said the company has continued to gain share in a challenging furniture market"
📈 7D 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
Peter Lynch — 82/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 34/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides methodologies sharply, with some legendary investors seeing strong growth potential while others flag significant risks or market inefficiencies. Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen both rate it highly—Lynch calls it a ‘growth candidate’ where the price hasn’t yet reflected its upside, while Veblen aligns its growth with real value creation. Meanwhile, Graham’s two approaches (defensive and enterprising) and the efficient-market hypothesis both dismiss it as either a mixed case or lacking strong evidence for outperformance. The divide widens further when comparing the bullishness of Smith (a ‘buy-and-hold’ pick) to the bearishness of Nelson (calling the cycle ‘overbought’) and Schwager (declining to engage due to lack of setup). Even Marks’ two frameworks clash—his ‘permanent capital’ view sees a good business with high expectations, while his ‘market cycle’ lens warns of late-cycle risks, illustrating how context shapes radically different verdicts.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 82
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 82
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 67
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)
🟢 65
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 57
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 55
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
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)
🟡 49
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 48
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 48
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 46
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
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)
🟡 41
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 37
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 34
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (5 bullish · 3 bearish · 3 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.
High 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
24.7%
Operating Margin
9.3%
Net Margin
7.2%
EBITDA Margin
9.3%
ROE
24.8%
ROA
13.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.46
Cash
$16.68M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.09
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.6.2026 | $0.250 |
| 23.6.2026 | $0.250 |
| 30.3.2026 | $0.200 |
| 29.3.2026 | $0.200 |
| 29.12.2025 | $0.200 |
| 28.12.2025 | $0.200 |
| 24.9.2025 | $0.200 |
| 23.9.2025 | $0.200 |
| 25.6.2025 | $0.200 |
| 24.6.2025 | $0.200 |
| 26.3.2025 | $0.170 |
| 25.3.2025 | $0.170 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$79.69
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$146.45
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+83.8%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.3% | $50.08M | $45.95M |
| 2 | 4.6% | $52.38M | $44.08M |
| 3 | 3.9% | $54.41M | $42.01M |
| 4 | 3.2% | $56.15M | $39.78M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $57.55M | $37.40M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$47.58M
Terminal Value
$907.52M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$589.83M
Enterprise Value
$799.05M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$799.05M
*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
$24.47
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$24.47
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 1.9.2026
MarketBeat · 30.8.2026
Yahoo · 30.8.2026
Business Wire · 24.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 23.8.2026
Zacks · 20.8.2026
Zacks · 19.8.2026
Flexsteel Industries, Inc. (FLXS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 69/100, 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.
FLXS currently scores 69/100 (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, FLXS's estimated fair value is $146.45, which is 83.8% above the current price of $79.69. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
FLXS's technical score is 63/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: Estimated fair value: $146.45 vs. price $79.69 (+83.8%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 71.0%; Free cash flow growth: 41.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.5% of price; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Operating margin: 9.3% — weak.
Yes — FLXS 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 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 750 | -750 | $82.11 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 750 | -750 | $83.10 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $81.48 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 750 | -750 | $83.56 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 2,617 | -2,617 | — |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 2,286 | -2,286 | — |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 1,548 | -1,548 | — |
| Creekmuir William S. | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 3,100 | -3,100 | $81.58 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 1,548 | +1,548 | $45.21 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 1,632 | -1,632 | $80.37 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 933 | -933 | $80.37 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 871 | -871 | $80.37 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 2,286 | +2,286 | $32.80 |
| Kammes Stacy Marie | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 2,617 | +2,617 | $24.98 |
| Culbreth Michael Scott | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 2,658 | -2,658 | $80.69 |
| Culbreth Michael Scott | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 1,342 | -1,342 | $81.16 |
| McClaflin Michael Joseph | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $81.25 |
| Creekmuir William S. | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,800 | -1,800 | $81.24 |
| Creekmuir William S. | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 1,208 | -1,208 | $82.00 |
| McClaflin Michael Joseph | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $81.25 |
| McClaflin Michael Joseph | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $81.00 |
| McClaflin Michael Joseph | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $81.75 |
| McClaflin Michael Joseph | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $82.00 |
| McClaflin Michael Joseph | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $79.50 |
| McClaflin Michael Joseph | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $79.60 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
258,332 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 202,984 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 66.5% 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