Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$4.80
▲ $0.06 (+1.3%)
Market data updated: 10/07 10:37 PM
Fundamentals updated: 10/07/2026
News analyzed: 10/07/2026
Market Cap
$233.65M
Day Range
$4.69 - $4.86
52-Week Range
$4.45 - $11.67
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$4.45
Resistance
$5.50
NUS is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
THE BOTTOM LINE · IN ONE SECOND
Mixed
4 of 12 sources for, 3 against
If right
+2.8%
to the target
If wrong
-8.0%
to the stop
Possible loss is 2.9x the possible gain
🏛️ Legendary investors
9 of 16 would buy
🧠 Crowd mood: Herding
🏭 Industry weight
All the data behind it — below ↓
Not enough similar moments in this stock's history for reliable percentages — so no odds are shown.
🎯 Near target
$4.93+2.8%
🛡️ Support
$4.49-6.5%
🛑 Stop
$4.41-8.0%
💎 Fair value (DCF)
$12.37+157.7%
⚖️ The jury
12 independent data sources from the site — each one votes
🏛️ Legendary investors who would buy:Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) · Benjamin Graham · Peter Lynch · Howard Marks · Charles Mackay · Thorstein Veblen
🚫 who would pass:Morgan Housel · Jack Schwager · Jesse Livermore · Philip Fisher · Samuel Armstrong Nelson
For
Against
The percentages are real frequencies: how many similar past moments were up or down a month later. Every jury vote is computed from the site's own data, no AI. Not a promise and not investment advice.
-56.4% (1Y)
Computed automatically from real price data (swing highs/lows, volume flow) as of 2026-10-07. The lines are also drawn on the chart above. Not investment advice.
Strengths: 18/32 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $12.37 vs. price $4.80 (+157.7%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.48 (3y annualized return -37.0% / max drawdown 77.7%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
66
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
54
Quality
63
Value
72
Momentum
52
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
74
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.
Everyone's writing about Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 16 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
🏛️ 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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological contrasts. Benjamin Graham’s models—both Enterprising and Defensive—score near-perfectly, suggesting a strong valuation opportunity under his margin-of-safety framework, while Philip Fisher’s rigid quality/growth criteria dismiss it outright. Meanwhile, growth-focused investors like Peter Lynch and Charles Mackay see potential in its price-to-growth disconnect, though Thorstein Veblen’s consumerist lens casts doubt on whether earnings justify hype. The middle ground—where Howard Marks, Walter Bagehot, and Gerald Loeb find it ‘reasonably priced’ but not exceptional—highlights a stock that may lack the liquidity or cyclical clarity to excite macro-driven traders like Nelson or Livermore, who flag trend resistance and volatility. Efficient-market skeptics like Bogle and Schwager see no clear edge, while Livermore and Housel’s low scores underscore its potential to unsettle patient investors.
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 96
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 81
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 71
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 69
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)
🟡 63
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)
🟡 61
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 53
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 33
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 28
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 27
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 17
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 295 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 5 bearish · 2 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.
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
69.5%
Operating Margin
16.3%
Net Margin
10.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
19.9%
ROA
11.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.25
Cash
$238.63M
Total Debt
$224.19M
Current Ratio
2.08
Debt/Equity
0.29
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 28.8.2026 | $0.060 |
| 29.5.2026 | $0.060 |
| 27.2.2026 | $0.060 |
| 28.11.2025 | $0.060 |
| 29.8.2025 | $0.060 |
| 30.5.2025 | $0.060 |
| 24.2.2025 | $0.060 |
| 29.11.2024 | $0.060 |
| 30.8.2024 | $0.060 |
| 31.5.2024 | $0.060 |
| 23.2.2024 | $0.060 |
| 22.11.2023 | $0.390 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$4.80
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$12.37
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+157.7%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $43.71M | $40.10M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $42.34M | $35.64M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $41.81M | $32.29M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $42.07M | $29.81M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $43.13M | $28.03M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$46.01M
Terminal Value
$680.07M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$442.00M
Enterprise Value
$607.86M
Net Debt
$-14.44M
Equity Value
$622.31M
*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
$16.71
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.82
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 16 positive, 2 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Business Wire · 3.9.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
TMX Newsfile · 11.8.2026
Zacks · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.8.2026
MarketBeat · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.8.2026
MT Newswires · 10.8.2026
Zacks · 10.8.2026
Associated Press · 10.8.2026
Business Wire · 10.8.2026
Business Wire · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Moby · 10.8.2026
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. (NUS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 66/100, 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.
NUS currently scores 66/100 (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, NUS's estimated fair value is $12.37, which is 157.7% above the current price of $4.80. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
NUS's technical score is 52/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $12.37 vs. price $4.80 (+157.7%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 207.8%; Net income growth: 209.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.48 (3y annualized return -37.0% / max drawdown 77.7%); Revenue growth (last year): -14.3%; Free cash flow growth: -34.4%.
Yes — NUS has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
As of 2026-10-07, at a price of $4.84, the nearest support is $4.49, the nearest resistance is $4.93, a stop below support sits at $4.41. The levels come from the stock's real swing highs and lows over the last two years and are recomputed daily. Not investment advice.
Based on real trading volume (Chaikin Money Flow and weekly On-Balance Volume): mixed money flow; over the longer term money has been flowing out for 11 months.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 62,474 | +22 | $4.85 |
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 22 | +22 | $4.85 |
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 19 | +19 | $5.43 |
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 62,452 | +19 | $5.43 |
| Winett James M | Open Market Sale | 2.6.2026 | 7,203 | -7,203 | $5.62 |
| Winett James M | Open Market Sale | 2.6.2026 | 37,448 | -7,203 | $5.62 |
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 7,203 | -7,203 | $5.70 |
| Thomas Pisano R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 26,643 | +26,643 | — |
| Winett James M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 26,643 | +26,643 | — |
| Battle Emma S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 26,643 | +26,643 | — |
| Nathanson Laura | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 26,643 | +26,643 | — |
| CAMPBELL DANIEL W | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 26,643 | +26,643 | — |
| Zorko Mark A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 26,643 | +26,643 | — |
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 26,643 | +26,643 | — |
| CAMPBELL DANIEL W | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 65,859 | +26,643 | — |
| Thomas Pisano R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 116,827 | +26,643 | — |
| Battle Emma S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 57,648 | +26,643 | — |
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 69,636 | +26,643 | — |
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Open Market Sale | 1.6.2026 | 62,433 | -7,203 | $5.70 |
| Zorko Mark A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 60,586 | +26,643 | — |
| Nathanson Laura | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 57,116 | +26,643 | — |
| Winett James M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 44,651 | +26,643 | — |
| Nathanson Laura | Open Market Sale | 11.5.2026 | 2,676 | -2,676 | $6.73 |
| Nathanson Laura | Open Market Sale | 11.5.2026 | 30,473 | -2,676 | $6.73 |
| WOODBURY EDWINA D | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.3.2026 | 14 | +14 | $7.31 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,767,898 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 4,521,887 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.2% 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
Recent coverage of Nu Skin Enterprises highlights a stark contrast between its market performance and product accolades. Analysts note a 25‑year low in share price, slipping revenue and lowered 2026 guidance after a Q2 earnings beat but overall decline, prompting some analysts to raise price targets and update coverage. At the same time, Euromonitor International has ranked Nu Skin the world’s #1 beauty and wellness device company for the third consecutive year.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
53
Fundamentals
74
Technical
52
Valuation
72
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.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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)
-6%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant psychological state here is Loss Aversion, as the 3-month decline (-9.9%) and modest volume increase (1.02x) signal hesitation to exit positions. Confirmation Bias (20) and FOMO/Euphoria (15 each) coexist, but the narrative-reality gap (+15) suggests investors selectively favor optimistic narratives despite weak fundamentals. The key question is whether the undervaluation (-61% vs. DCF) will attract buyers or if loss-averse sellers remain anchored to recent lows. The absence of panic or herding suggests a cautious, fragmented market.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 05:19 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Nu Skin Enterprises Q2 Earnings Meet Estimates (article 4)"
"Revenues Down Y/Y (article 4) / Revenue Fall (article 8)"
"Lowers 2026 Guidance (article 8)"
"Announces Quarterly Dividend (article 12)"
📈 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.