Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$81.24
▼ $0.02 (-0.0%)
Market data updated: 10/08 06:44 PM
Fundamentals updated: 10/08/2026
News analyzed: 10/08/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$80.29 - $81.77
52-Week Range
$56.37 - $110.09
Beta
—
Next Earnings
16.11.2026
Support
$77.13
Resistance
$110.09
VIK is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
THE BOTTOM LINE · IN ONE SECOND
Negative
2 of 10 sources for, 5 against
If right
+7.1%
to the target
If wrong
-6.9%
to the stop
Possible gain is 1.0x the possible loss
🏛️ Legendary investors
6 of 16 would buy
🧠 Crowd mood: Loss aversion
🏭 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
$87.00+7.1%
🛡️ Support
$76.89-5.4%
🛑 Stop
$75.60-6.9%
💎 Fair value (DCF)
—
⚖️ The jury
10 independent data sources from the site — each one votes
🏛️ Legendary investors who would buy:Peter Lynch · Philip Fisher · Charles Mackay · Thorstein Veblen · Samuel Armstrong Nelson · Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
🚫 who would pass:Howard Marks · Burton Malkiel & John Bogle · Jesse Livermore · Gerald M. Loeb · Morgan Housel · Walter Bagehot
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.
+36.5% (1Y)
Computed automatically from real price data (swing highs/lows, volume flow) as of 2026-10-08. The lines are also drawn on the chart above. Not investment advice.
Strengths: 11/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 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): 21.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.79
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 4 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 4
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
60
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
74
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
42
Risk
36
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
64
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 Viking Holdings Ltd. News trend score: 100. Reason: 16 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
🏛️ 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
Peter Lynch — 84/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Peter Lynch's documented principles, the model estimates the stock is a growth candidate with price lagging earnings, reflected in his high score of 84. Fisher, Mackay, Veblen and Nelson also assign relatively strong scores (78‑69), emphasizing exceptional company quality, absence of crowd mania, growth aligned with real value creation, and a favorable cycle position. In contrast, Howard Marks, the efficient‑market view, Jesse Livermore, Gerald Loeb, Morgan Housel, Walter Bagehot and Benjamin Graham all give low scores (≤37), flagging valuation risk, liquidity concerns, volatility and failure to meet defensive criteria. The middle‑range scores from Marks‑cycle and Jack Schwager suggest the model sees no clear edge, resulting in a split view where growth‑oriented frameworks are optimistic while risk‑averse and market‑efficiency frameworks remain cautious.
An automatic analysis based on principles these investors published — not their opinion. They are not affiliated with StockIQ and did not review or endorse this content.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 84
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 78
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 75
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
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)
🟡 64
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 52
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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)
🔴 29
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)
🔴 24
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 15
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)
🔴 5
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
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
🔴 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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 294 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 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.
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
43.3%
Operating Margin
22.8%
Net Margin
17.6%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
104.9%
ROA
9.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.59
Cash
$3.80B
Total Debt
$5.50B
Current Ratio
0.79
Debt/Equity
5.25
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$2.45
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.28
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 16 positive, 3 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 8.10.2026
Yahoo · 7.10.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.10.2026
Benzinga · 6.10.2026
Yahoo · 6.10.2026
Yahoo · 2.10.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.10.2026
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Benzinga · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Benzinga · 28.9.2026
Fintel · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Benzinga · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Viking Holdings Ltd (VIK) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 60/100, 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.
VIK currently scores 60/100 (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.
VIK's technical score is 42/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 21.9%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 613.9%; Net income growth: 650.5%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.79; Debt/equity: 5.25; Price is below the 50-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for VIK.
As of 2026-10-08, at a price of $81.47, the nearest support is $76.89, the nearest resistance is $87.00, a stop below support sits at $75.60. 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): money flowing out; over the longer term money has been flowing out for 3 months.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 25 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hugh Milton | Open Market Sale | 11.9.2026 | 585,571 | -2,591 | $86.80 |
| Hugh Milton | Open Market Sale | 11.9.2026 | 594,671 | -10,900 | $84.96 |
| Hugh Milton | Open Market Sale | 11.9.2026 | 588,162 | -6,509 | $86.11 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 14 | -14 | $95.50 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 145 | -145 | $94.59 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 110,785 | -145 | $94.59 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 110,771 | -14 | $95.50 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 100 | -100 | $96.05 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 1,820 | -1,820 | $94.84 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 4,200 | -4,200 | $94.03 |
| Hofmann Anton | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 1,606 | -1,606 | $96.04 |
| Hofmann Anton | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 92,670 | -92,670 | $95.32 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 112,850 | -4,200 | $94.03 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 111,030 | -1,820 | $94.84 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 110,930 | -100 | $96.05 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 400 | -400 | $94.65 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 4,200 | -4,200 | $93.38 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 6,687 | -6,687 | $92.41 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 121,650 | -6,687 | $92.41 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 117,450 | -4,200 | $93.38 |
| Marnell Richard | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 117,050 | -400 | $94.65 |
| Hofmann Anton | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 5,956 | -5,956 | $91.00 |
| Hofmann Anton | Open Market Sale | 10.6.2026 | 387,095 | -5,956 | $91.00 |
| Hofmann Anton | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 65,283 | -65,283 | $91.32 |
| Hofmann Anton | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 393,051 | -65,283 | $91.32 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,723,114 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 6,999,885 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 25.9% 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 media coverage of Viking Holdings Ltd has centered on its status as a top cruise operator, with analysts like Jim Cramer praising its strong fundamentals despite a recent stock sell-off. The company faces operational challenges due to low water levels in Europe, but Wall Street remains optimistic about its long-term growth. Viking’s performance in Q2 earnings was compared to peers, highlighting its position in the travel sector amid robust consumer demand for experiences.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
68
Fundamentals
64
Technical
42
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
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)
-18%
Market Narrative
65
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+24
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 2.1% proximity to support, possibly due to recent price action or technical levels. The narrative gap (55 vs. 41) hints at a disconnect where optimism (e.g., positive sentiment) overshadows technical weakness (e.g., negative momentum, oversold RSI). Low FOMO and herding scores imply limited urgency or peer-driven momentum. The key question: *Will traders break free from the 2.1% anchor, or will it act as a magnet for further consolidation?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:57 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""called Viking a best-in-class cruise operator and told viewers the recent sell-off looks overdone""
""reported second-quarter 2026 adjusted EPS of $1.31, topping consensus estimates... revenue expanded 16.5% year-over-year""
""Barclays analyst lowers price target from $93 to $90""
""battling historically low water levels in Europe""
📈 7D 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.