Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$176.64
▼ $2.10 (-1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/17 06:39 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$32.32B
Day Range
$174.82 - $179.51
52-Week Range
$121.12 - $195.78
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
NTRS is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
+36.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/23 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $492.58 vs. price $176.64 (+178.9%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): -2.5%
Growth
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
86/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+9.6%
Median 40D Outcome
60/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
73%
+6.6% … +16.0%
🟡 Base
7%
+1.0% … +1.0%
🔴 Bearish
20%
-5.5% … -3.0%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 73% (95% CI 48%–89%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +9.4%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
3 occurrence(s) · 33% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
1 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 | 73% (48%–89%) | +4.5% | +2.3% … +6.3% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 73% (48%–89%) | +6.3% | +1.4% … +9.8% | +1.2% |
| 20D | 73% (48%–89%) | +9.4% | +1.8% … +14.2% | +2.2% |
| 40D | 80% (55%–93%) | +9.6% | +2.6% … +18.3% | +5.3% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +11.5% | +2.9% … +19.3% | +8.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996-04-09 | 86/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.0% | +11.5% |
| 1996-12-12 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +15.8% | +31.2% |
| 1999-05-10 | 83/100 | Consolidation | +2.6% | -7.5% |
| 1997-03-21 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.8% | +24.9% |
| 1999-04-06 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +3.9% | +10.8% |
| 1999-01-27 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +9.4% | +16.9% |
| 1998-03-30 | 82/100 | Consolidation | -1.6% | -1.0% |
| 2026-03-18 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +16.2% | +29.3% |
| 1997-08-26 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +17.1% | +19.4% |
| 1998-04-21 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -4.4% | +10.1% |
| 1998-12-16 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +10.0% | +18.9% |
| 1998-06-15 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +20.3% | +0.8% |
| 1999-07-15 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -6.6% | +4.3% |
| 1999-05-25 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +9.7% | +1.5% |
| 2025-11-17 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +12.7% | +19.3% |
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 XLF (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
40
Quality
No data available
Value
62
Momentum
33
Risk
50
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
56
Institutional
50
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING NTRS...
Recent media coverage of Northern Trust highlights its expansion into digital assets, with multiple reports (Insider Monkey, Simply Wall St.) emphasizing new institutional partnerships to strengthen its blockchain and crypto services. Financial performance is also in focus, as Zacks notes an 11% rise in net interest income (NII) in Q2 2026, while comparisons to competitors like USB persist. Additionally, the company secured a high-profile asset servicing contract with Warwickshire Pension Fund and saw a $10 million private placement for Global Water Resources, underscoring its role in corporate finance. Leadership changes, including Amy Johnston’s appointment, further signal strategic shifts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Northern Trust. News trend score: 92. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
79
Fundamentals
56
Technical
33
Valuation
62
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
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)
+3%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior reflects relative outperformance amid peer declines, consistent with investors aligning with broader sector trends. Euphoria and overconfidence scores suggest detached optimism, possibly due to momentum chasing despite valuation gaps. The narrow narrative-reality gap (1 point) indicates limited misalignment between perception and fundamentals. Key question: Will herding sustain if peers stabilize or reverse, or will valuation discrepancies curb further participation?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:18 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Northern Trust (NTRS) Deepens Its Bet On Digital Assets (Insider Monkey)"
"Northern Trust Asset Management Appoints Amy Johnston as Head of Global Institutional Client Group (Business Wire)"
"Northern Trust's NII Rises 11% in Q2: Can Momentum Persist in 2026? (Zacks)"
"Northern Trust, CSC Sign MoU on Digital Investment Infrastructure (MT Newswires)"
📈 8D 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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides methodologies sharply, with some seeing it as a cautious buy and others dismissing it outright. Charles Mackay and Morgan Housel both rate it highly—Mackay finds no crowd-driven mania, while Housel praises it as a quiet, patient-friendly compounder. Meanwhile, value-oriented thinkers like Benjamin Graham and his Enterprising Investor variant reject it entirely, arguing it fails to meet their statistical or margin-of-safety thresholds. In contrast, growth-focused investors like Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen are outright negative: Lynch sees no growth-at-a-reasonable-price justification, while Veblen flags it as speculative growth for its own sake. The middle ground is occupied by risk managers like Howard Marks (who sees reasonable risk pricing) and Gerald Loeb (who acknowledges moderate risk), while trend-followers like Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager’s algorithmic wizards would avoid it entirely—Livermore due to its negative trend, Schwager’s system for lacking a clear setup.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 75
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 59
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 58
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 55
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 53
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 38
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 0
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
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 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 8 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$174.82
Range Bottom
$195.78
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
21.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
13.4%
ROA
1.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$8.78
Cash
$5.87B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.9.2026 | $0.880 |
| 5.6.2026 | $0.800 |
| 4.6.2026 | $0.800 |
| 6.3.2026 | $0.800 |
| 5.3.2026 | $0.800 |
| 5.12.2025 | $0.800 |
| 4.12.2025 | $0.800 |
| 5.9.2025 | $0.800 |
| 4.9.2025 | $0.800 |
| 6.6.2025 | $0.750 |
| 5.6.2025 | $0.750 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.750 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$176.64
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$492.58
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+178.9%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
6.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6.7% | $5.83B | $5.34B |
| 2 | 5.7% | $6.15B | $5.18B |
| 3 | 4.6% | $6.44B | $4.97B |
| 4 | 3.6% | $6.67B | $4.72B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $6.83B | $4.44B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$5.46B
Terminal Value
$107.76B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$70.04B
Enterprise Value
$94.70B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$94.70B
*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
$67.40
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$63.69
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 11 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Business Wire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Business Wire · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Business Wire · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Northern Trust (NTRS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 52/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
NTRS currently scores 52/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). 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, NTRS's estimated fair value is $492.58, which is 178.9% above the current price of $176.64. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
NTRS's technical score is 33/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $492.58 vs. price $176.64 (+178.9%); Free cash flow growth: 1029.3%; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Revenue growth (last year): -2.5%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -10.5%; Net income growth: -14.5%.
Yes — NTRS 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 — 2 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hunstad Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 622 | -622 | $183.86 |
| South Thomas A | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 1,800 | -1,800 | $184.90 |
| South Thomas A | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 92,917 | -1,800 | $184.90 |
| SMITH DAVID BYRON JR | Gift | 31.7.2026 | 1,120 | +1,120 | — |
| SMITH DAVID BYRON JR | Gift | 31.7.2026 | 87,157 | +1,120 | — |
| Moritz Robert Edward Jr. | Open Market Purchase | 29.7.2026 | 255 | +255 | $179.57 |
| Moritz Robert Edward Jr. | Open Market Purchase | 29.7.2026 | 8,400 | +255 | $179.57 |
| Tribbett Charles A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 69.9 | +69.9 | $175.60 |
| CROWN SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 75.75 | +75.75 | $175.60 |
| Petrino Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 5.39 | +5.39 | $175.60 |
| Mehta Siddharth N | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 26.88 | +26.88 | $175.60 |
| Thompson Donald | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 125.75 | +125.75 | $175.60 |
| SLARK MARTIN P | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 61.6 | +61.6 | $175.60 |
| Klevorn Marcy S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 57.01 | +57.01 | $175.60 |
| Harrison Dean M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 130.96 | +130.96 | $175.60 |
| Dhandapani Chandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 25.94 | +25.94 | $175.60 |
| SLARK MARTIN P | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 22,397 | +62 | $175.60 |
| CROWN SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 38,760 | +76 | $175.60 |
| Mehta Siddharth N | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 12,488 | +27 | $175.60 |
| Tribbett Charles A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 35,868 | +70 | $175.60 |
| Thompson Donald | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 31,678 | +126 | $175.60 |
| Harrison Dean M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 34,905 | +131 | $175.60 |
| Klevorn Marcy S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 13,560 | +57 | $175.60 |
| Petrino Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 4,344 | +5 | $175.60 |
| Dhandapani Chandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 6,909 | +26 | $175.60 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,737,450 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,389,629 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
66.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.7% 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