Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$28.45
▲ $0.08 (+0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/30 12:24 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/29/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$71.09M
Day Range
$28.45 - $28.66
52-Week Range
$19.31 - $31.50
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
Support
$26.00
Resistance
$29.97
RGS is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-0.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/31 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $24.70 vs. price $28.45 (-13.2%)
Fair Value
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
46
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
28d ago · $28.90
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 5 to 49 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
34
Quality
58
Value
43
Momentum
61
Risk
34
Sentiment
38
Fundamental
41
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 Regis Corporation has centered on its strategic shifts and financial performance in late 2026. The company announced the closure of hundreds of salons, reflecting a broader restructuring amid industry challenges. Despite a slight year-over-year revenue decline, its Q4 2026 earnings call highlighted strong adjusted earnings growth—beating analyst estimates—driven by cost-cutting and the continued success of its Supercuts brand. Investors noted mixed signals, balancing cost concerns with operational resilience.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Regis Corporation. News trend score: 38. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 4 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
14
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
20
Fundamentals
41
Technical
61
Valuation
43
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+4%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+5
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests FOMO dominates as momentum (+5.6% ROC), volume (2.09x avg), and positive sentiment (68/100) align. The narrative gap (19) hints at optimism exceeding fundamentals, while overconfidence (23) reflects price-leading fundamentals. Herding is muted—today’s underperformance vs. peers may signal selective buying. The key question: *Is this momentum self-sustaining, or will volume/RSI (59) stall further gains?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 04:53 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"quarterly earnings of $1.04 per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $0.17 by 511.76 percent"
"Supercuts Partners With Jackson Olson to Debut 'The Jax' at Salons Nationwide"
📈 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.
🏛️ 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 — 78/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into two starkly different camps: a handful of traders and investors see clear opportunities, while the majority flag significant risks or fail to meet core criteria. Jesse Livermore and Charles Mackay both score highly (70), with Livermore spotting a favorable price trend and Mackay detecting no crowd-driven mania—suggesting a disciplined, momentum-driven or contrarian appeal. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s two approaches (56–60) and Howard Marks’ mixed verdict (55) hint at a stock that’s reasonably priced but lacks the deep undervaluation or margin-of-safety edge he typically demands. The divide widens further: Peter Lynch (35), Philip Fisher (29), and Morgan Housel (27) dismiss it outright for lacking growth, quality, or patience-friendly stability, while the lowest scorers—Bagehot (24), Veblen (21), and Loeb (34)—warn of structural risks like liquidity gaps or speculative excess. The middle-ground methodologies (Malkiel/Bogle, Schwager, Nelson) offer no decisive edge, reflecting a stock that’s neither a slam dunk nor a clear mispricing—just a cautionary case study in how subjective frameworks clash over the same data.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 78
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 60
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 60
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 56
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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)
🟡 52
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 52
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 35
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 34
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 29
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 28
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 24
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 23
Cycle looks stretched toward 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)
🔴 21
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 16
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 287 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (6 bullish · 4 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.
A trading range after an advance, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of a distribution phase.
Low confidence
$26.00
Range Bottom
$29.97
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
10.9%
Net Margin
3.1%
EBITDA Margin
12.6%
ROE
3.6%
ROA
1.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.76
Cash
$26.02M
Total Debt
$117.14M
Current Ratio
0.62
Debt/Equity
0.60
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$28.45
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$24.70
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-13.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-0.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -0.9% | $11.03M | $10.12M |
| 2 | -0.0% | $11.03M | $9.28M |
| 3 | 0.8% | $11.12M | $8.58M |
| 4 | 1.7% | $11.30M | $8.01M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $11.58M | $7.53M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$11.13M
Terminal Value
$182.65M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$118.71M
Enterprise Value
$162.23M
Net Debt
$91.11M
Equity Value
$71.12M
*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
$67.32
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.21
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 10 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
TheStreet · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Motley Fool · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Moby · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
MarketBeat · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Business Wire · 1.9.2026
Associated Press · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
Business Wire · 18.8.2026
PR Newswire · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.8.2026
Regis Corporation (RGS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, 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.
RGS currently scores 46/100 (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, RGS's estimated fair value is $24.70, which is 13.2% below the current price of $28.45. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
RGS's technical score is 61/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $24.70 vs. price $28.45 (-13.2%); Current ratio: 0.62; Calmar: 0.38 (3y annualized return 26.7% / max drawdown 70.7%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RGS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suarez James Raymon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 12,728 | -708 | $27.76 |
| LAIN JIM BRIAN | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 12,988 | -798 | $27.76 |
| Zupfer Kersten Delores | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 14,582 | -886 | $27.76 |
| LAIN JIM BRIAN | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 798 | -798 | $27.76 |
| Zupfer Kersten Delores | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 886 | -886 | $27.76 |
| Suarez James Raymon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.9.2026 | 708 | -708 | $27.76 |
| Charters William | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 1,631 | +1,631 | — |
| Charters William | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.5.2026 | 55,631 | +1,631 | — |
| Lintonsmith Susan | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.3.2026 | 12,125 | +12,125 | — |
| Benacci Nancy Cunningham | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.3.2026 | 1,219 | +1,219 | — |
| Alfano Andrew | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.3.2026 | 2,409 | +2,409 | — |
| Benacci Nancy Cunningham | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.3.2026 | 7,146 | +1,219 | — |
| Lintonsmith Susan | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.3.2026 | 19,074 | +12,125 | — |
| Alfano Andrew | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.3.2026 | 2,409 | +2,409 | — |
| MacDonald Keelee | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.2.2026 | 1,486 | +1,486 | — |
| MacDonald Keelee | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.2.2026 | 1,486 | +1,486 | — |
| Zupfer Kersten Delores | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.12.2025 | 622 | -622 | $28.61 |
| Zupfer Kersten Delores | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.12.2025 | 15,468 | -622 | $28.61 |
| MERRIMAN MICHAEL J | Open Market Sale | 17.12.2025 | 500 | -500 | $28.00 |
| MERRIMAN MICHAEL J | Open Market Sale | 17.12.2025 | 13,067 | -500 | $28.00 |
| Lintonsmith Susan | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.12.2025 | 1,470 | +1,470 | — |
| Lintonsmith Susan | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.12.2025 | 6,949 | +1,470 | — |
| Ferranti Michael Heath | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.11.2025 | 708 | -708 | $26.90 |
| LAIN JIM BRIAN | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.11.2025 | 802 | -802 | $26.90 |
| DeVore Michelle St. Lawrence | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.11.2025 | 328 | -328 | $26.90 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
45,350 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 39,740 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
65.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 32.6% 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