Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$3.66
▲ $0.04 (+1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 03:36 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/15/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$3.62 - $3.72
52-Week Range
$3.55 - $8.02
Beta
—
Next Earnings
23.11.2026
Support
$3.55
Resistance
$5.21
NIO is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-50.3% (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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 29.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$31.38 vs. price $3.66 (-957.5%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
41
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
15d ago · $3.86
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 15 to 48 day-over-day
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
82
Quality
50
Value
38
Momentum
17
Risk
28
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
14
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 NIO Inc. has centered on its sharp stock decline, with headlines highlighting a **90% drop over five years** and a **52-week low** amid investor pessimism. Despite strong August electric vehicle deliveries, concerns over **revenue misses, weak guidance, and prolonged shareholder losses**—including a **37% one-year return decline**—have driven down sentiment. Analysts debate whether the stock now trades **undervalued (11% bargain potential) or far below fair value**, contrasting with past valuations. Broader skepticism toward Chinese EV stocks also weighs on NIO’s market position.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about NIO Inc. American depositary shares each representing one Class A ordinary share. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
84
Fundamentals
14
Technical
17
Valuation
38
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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)
-27%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
NIO’s market behavior suggests a dominant panic selling phase, driven by extreme volume, oversold conditions, and negative sentiment. The 2.4% proximity to support hints at anchoring, while loss aversion may prolong selling pressure. The narrative gap (-27) implies traders underestimate current reality. Key question: Will traders exit near support or extend losses further?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 10:01 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Around 90% share price decline over the past 5 years"
"NIO stock may now sit below a reasonable intrinsic value estimate"
"NIO stock has slumped to its 52-week lows"
"EV deliveries remained strong in August, but investors are focusing elsewhere"
📈 13D 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 — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for NIO reflects a tension between cyclical optimism and fundamental uncertainty. Methodologies like Mackay, Nelson, and Marks (cycle-focused) all score NIO at 100, seeing it as early-to-mid cycle with favorable positioning—suggesting a bullish, macro-driven view where crowd behavior or market timing isn’t yet a red flag. In contrast, Fisher, Graham, and Lynch—rooted in deep fundamental analysis—score it at 50, citing insufficient data to validate growth, valuation, or profitability, highlighting a classic clash between speculative momentum and traditional value/growth scrutiny. Meanwhile, Housel’s near-zero score and Loeb’s caution underscore a risk-averse perspective, warning of volatility or capital-threatening downside, while Livermore’s low score aligns with a contrarian trend-following stance. The split underscores whether NIO’s appeal lies in its market cycle dynamics or its unresolved fundamental risks.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 80
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 73
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 63
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
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)
🔴 35
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 30
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 23
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 17
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 16
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
🔴 8
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 7
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 10 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
13.6%
Operating Margin
-16.1%
Net Margin
-17.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-374.3%
ROA
-12.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$6.64
Cash
$26.04B
Total Debt
$26.25B
Current Ratio
0.98
Debt/Equity
4.57
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$3.66
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$31.38
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-957.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
20.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20.2% | $-3.69B | $-3.39B |
| 2 | 15.8% | $-4.27B | $-3.60B |
| 3 | 11.3% | $-4.76B | $-3.68B |
| 4 | 6.9% | $-5.09B | $-3.61B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-5.22B | $-3.39B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-3.07B
Terminal Value
$-82.25B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-53.46B
Enterprise Value
$-71.12B
Net Debt
$210.03M
Equity Value
$-71.33B
*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
$1.68
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.59
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 3 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Fintel · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
NIO Inc. American depositary shares each representing one Class A ordinary share (NIO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 41/100, 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.
NIO currently scores 41/100 (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, NIO's estimated fair value is -$31.38, which is 957.5% below the current price of $3.66. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
NIO's technical score is 17/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 29.5%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 39.8%; Free cash flow growth: 81.9%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$31.38 vs. price $3.66 (-957.5%); Operating margin: -16.1% (negative); Net margin: -17.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for NIO.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qu Yu | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 22,500 | -22,500 | $4.23 |
| Qu Yu | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 45,000 | -45,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 200,000 | -200,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 45,000 | +45,000 | — |
| Qin Lihong | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 150,000 | -150,000 | $4.23 |
| Zhou Xin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 100,000 | -100,000 | $4.23 |
| Zhou Xin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 200,000 | -200,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | — |
| Qin Lihong | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 300,000 | -300,000 | — |
| Qin Lihong | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 300,000 | +300,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 200,000 | -200,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 100,000 | -100,000 | $5.60 |
| Zhou Xin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 100,000 | -100,000 | $5.60 |
| Qin Lihong | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 300,000 | +300,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | — |
| Zhou Xin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 200,000 | -200,000 | — |
| Zhou Xin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | — |
| Qin Lihong | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 150,000 | -150,000 | $5.60 |
| Qin Lihong | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 300,000 | -300,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 415,088 | +200,000 | — |
| Qu Yu | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 315,088 | -100,000 | $5.60 |
| Qu Yu | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 0 | -200,000 | — |
| Zhou Xin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 416,167 | +200,000 | — |
| Zhou Xin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 316,167 | -100,000 | $5.60 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
129,986,921 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 122,869,745 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.0% 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