Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$108.73
▼ $1.50 (-1.4%)
Market data updated: 10/01 08:31 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$1.44B
Day Range
$108.62 - $109.76
52-Week Range
$95.51 - $128.60
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$96.00
Resistance
$115.29
NRP is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+3.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/20 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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: -33.3%
Growth
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
73/100
Similarity
7
Historical Matches
70/100
Analog Quality
-6.8%
Median 40D Outcome
87/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
0%
— … —
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
100%
-5.2% … -2.2%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 7 similar historical cases for this stock, 0% (95% CI 0%–35%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -4.3%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
2 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 14% (3%–51%) | -2.6% | -3.7% … -0.5% | -0.5% |
| 10D | 14% (3%–51%) | -1.5% | -3.9% … -0.7% | -0.9% |
| 20D | 0% (0%–35%) | -4.3% | -5.2% … -2.2% | -2.7% |
| 40D | 14% (3%–51%) | -6.8% | -10.4% … -3.5% | -6.7% |
| 60D | 43% (16%–75%) | -1.9% | -13.9% … +4.6% | -10.2% |
Sample size: 7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-29 | 73/100 | Consolidation | -9.8% | -16.0% |
| 2026-04-09 | 67/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -5.2% | -18.2% |
| 2026-03-18 | 66/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -1.3% | -11.8% |
| 2026-06-11 | 61/100 | Downtrend | -5.3% | +7.5% |
| 2026-06-26 | 58/100 | Downtrend | -2.7% | +8.7% |
| 2026-05-28 | 50/100 | Downtrend | -4.3% | +1.6% |
| 2026-05-13 | 35/100 | Downtrend | -1.7% | -1.9% |
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 XLE (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
52
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
38
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
56
Risk
56
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
58
Institutional
50
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.
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
2
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
52
Psychology
56
Fundamentals
58
Technical
56
Valuation
50
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
43
Fundamental Reality
52
Narrative Gap
-9
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Charles Mackay — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with the most bullish approaches—like Edgar Lawrence Smith’s long-term buy-and-hold philosophy (88) and Charles Mackay’s crowd-mania assessment (94)—favoring it as a stable, potentially undervalued hold, while the most bearish, such as Jack Schwager’s trend-following discipline (21) and Jesse Livermore’s trend-trading rules (34), outright reject it. The middle ground splits between cyclical investors (Howard Marks at 74, Nelson at 69) who see it as reasonably priced or oversold, and value-focused strategists (Benjamin Graham at 56, Walter Bagehot at 64) who lack sufficient data or liquidity to commit confidently. Meanwhile, growth-oriented thinkers like Philip Fisher (40) and efficient-market skeptics (42) dismiss it for lacking clear momentum or outperformance justification, illustrating how the stock’s ambiguity—whether it’s a slow-growth value or a volatile speculative play—leads to such a wide spectrum of verdicts.
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 94
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 88
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 75
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 74
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 69
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 64
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 62
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 60
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 56
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 40
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 34
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 33
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 21
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
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 (5 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.
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
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
—
ROA
18.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$30.14M
Total Debt
$33.08M
Current Ratio
1.85
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.8.2026 | $0.750 |
| 19.5.2026 | $0.750 |
| 18.5.2026 | $0.750 |
| 10.3.2026 | $0.120 |
| 9.3.2026 | $0.120 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.750 |
| 16.2.2026 | $0.750 |
| 18.11.2025 | $0.750 |
| 17.11.2025 | $0.750 |
| 19.8.2025 | $0.750 |
| 18.8.2025 | $0.750 |
| 20.5.2025 | $0.750 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
Natural Resource Partners LP Limited Partnership (NRP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 52/100, 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.
NRP currently scores 52/100 (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.
NRP's technical score is 56/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 1.85.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Free cash flow growth: -33.3%; Net income growth: -25.7%; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — NRP 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 — 1 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WOOTEN GREGORY F | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 32,634 | -2,200 | $110.89 |
| Craig Kevin J | Open Market Purchase | 26.5.2026 | 47,019 | +336 | $102.18 |
| SMITH STEPHEN P | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 1,076 | +1,076 | — |
| VECELLIO LEO A JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 24,608 | +1,076 | — |
| NAVARRE RICHARD A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 19,254 | +1,076 | — |
| MURPHY PAUL B JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 20,061 | +1,076 | — |
| SMITH STEPHEN P | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +1,076 | — |
| NAVARRE RICHARD A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +1,076 | — |
| MURPHY PAUL B JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +1,076 | — |
| ROBERTSON CORBIN J III | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +1,076 | — |
| VECELLIO LEO A JR | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +1,076 | — |
| Claro Galdino J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 22,368 | +1,076 | — |
| Craig Kevin J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +6,055 | — |
| Craig Kevin J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 51,606 | +11,101 | — |
| ROBERTSON CORBIN J III | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 217,425 | +1,076 | — |
| Craig Kevin J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 415 | +415 | — |
| Claro Galdino J. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +1,076 | — |
| Craig Kevin J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.2.2026 | 46,683 | -4,923 | $123.04 |
| Craig Kevin J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 754 | +377 | — |
| WOOTEN GREGORY F | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +6,055 | — |
| Nunez Craig W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 148,066 | +39,592 | — |
| WARMAN PHILIP T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 0 | +5,880 | — |
| WOOTEN GREGORY F | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 415 | +415 | — |
| WARMAN PHILIP T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 19,210 | +10,799 | — |
| WARMAN PHILIP T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.2.2026 | 403 | +403 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
285,023 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 293,010 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
34.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 29.0% 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