Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$78.43
▼ $1.28 (-1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:08 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$10.70B
Day Range
$78.23 - $80.47
52-Week Range
$77.37 - $122.29
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
Support
$77.37
Resistance
$110.78
DECK is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-32.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 16/32 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $155.52 vs. price $78.43 (+98.3%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.06 (3y annualized return -4.0% / max drawdown 65.3%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+5.1%
Median 40D Outcome
50/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+7.6% … +12.5%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.3% … -0.3%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-12.9% … -2.1%
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, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.3%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
5 occurrence(s) · 60% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
3 occurrence(s) · 67% 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 | 67% (42%–85%) | +5.2% | -1.4% … +7.5% | +0.7% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.9% | -1.4% … +10.1% | +1.1% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +3.3% | -2.3% … +10.4% | +2.2% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +5.1% | -5.8% … +14.6% | +6.2% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | +1.0% | -3.9% … +11.2% | +9.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-02-07 | 82/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -18.4% | -5.8% |
| 2026-05-19 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +12.1% | -1.3% |
| 2022-02-22 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -1.9% | -20.4% |
| 2022-01-18 | 77/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -2.7% | -15.8% |
| 2019-09-25 | 75/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +14.8% | +21.7% |
| 2022-03-10 | 74/100 | High Volatility | +3.3% | +6.0% |
| 2026-03-30 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +11.8% | +8.0% |
| 2019-08-23 | 72/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -0.3% | +22.5% |
| 2017-08-02 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -1.7% | +9.8% |
| 2025-03-05 | 70/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -13.3% | -22.5% |
| 2022-04-18 | 70/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -11.8% | -2.1% |
| 2024-07-25 | 69/100 | Consolidation | +13.5% | +15.4% |
| 2026-05-05 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +9.0% | -1.7% |
| 2025-06-25 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +3.9% | +12.6% |
| 2025-07-16 | 67/100 | Downtrend | +8.8% | +1.0% |
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 XLY (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
| Symbol | Matched date | Similarity | 20D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSPN | 2026-06-24 | 48/100 | +9.1% |
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
59
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
64
Quality
63
Value
67
Momentum
17
Risk
54
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
83
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING DECK...
Recent media coverage on Deckers Brands has been limited and indirect, as the provided sources focus almost entirely on competitors like Nike, Lululemon, and ONON (a subsidiary of Deckers). The few mentions of Deckers itself are minimal, with one headline noting its stock performance amid broader market declines. No substantive details about Deckers’ operations, strategy, or recent developments are explicitly discussed in the given sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Deckers Brands. News trend score: 92. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
73
Fundamentals
83
Technical
17
Valuation
67
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-28%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
-2
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
DECK’s psychology is dominated by **anchoring** (98), where traders fixate on the near-term support level (0.1% above). Herding (79) and loss aversion (65) suggest investors are following peers and resisting further declines, possibly due to the stock’s proximity to a psychological floor. The narrative gap (-21) hints at a disconnect between market sentiment (optimistic narrative score) and objective reality (higher reality score), reinforcing anchoring. The key question: will traders hold near support or break below it, triggering a shift in behavior?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 10:10 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"DECK's DTC momentum, led by HOKA and UGG, is reshaping its sales mix while supporting higher margins and continued fiscal 2027 growth"
"Deckers Outdoor passes quality screen with high ROIC, no debt, strong cash conversion, and steady growth"
📈 14D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 33/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for DECK split sharply between those emphasizing structural strength and those flagging relative value or market efficiency concerns. The highest-scoring approaches—from Mackay, Bagehot, and Nelson—prioritize liquidity, cycle positioning, and the absence of speculative mania, suggesting the stock holds up well under stress or in a favorable market phase. Meanwhile, Graham’s Defensive and Enterprising frameworks, along with Smith’s and Livermore’s, lean toward skepticism, either because the valuation lacks the deep discount of classic bargain stocks or because the price already embeds most of its growth potential. Fisher and Lynch’s mixed verdicts further highlight a tension: while the stock shows solid fundamentals, it doesn’t meet the bar for Fisher’s exceptional quality or Lynch’s 'tenbag' potential. The divide underscores whether DECK’s appeal lies in its defensive resilience (as Bagehot or Mackay might argue) or whether its current price simply reflects average market behavior (as the efficient-market camp suggests).
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 96
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 87
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 80
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 78
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 70
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟢 67
A real, well-supported case — deviating from a broad index may be justified here
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 65
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 65
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 60
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)
🟡 59
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 58
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 33
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
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 (1 bullish · 11 bearish · 0 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
57.7%
Operating Margin
23.1%
Net Margin
18.7%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
41.0%
ROA
27.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$7.04
Cash
$1.91B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.54
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$78.43
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$155.52
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+98.3%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
14.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14.7% | $1.26B | $1.16B |
| 2 | 11.7% | $1.41B | $1.18B |
| 3 | 8.6% | $1.53B | $1.18B |
| 4 | 5.6% | $1.61B | $1.14B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.65B | $1.07B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.10B
Terminal Value
$26.06B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$16.94B
Enterprise Value
$22.68B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$22.68B
*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
$17.86
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$17.75
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 7 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
StockStory · 11.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Investing.com · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Deckers Brands (DECK) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, 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.
DECK currently scores 59/100 (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, DECK's estimated fair value is $155.52, which is 98.3% above the current price of $78.43. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
DECK's technical score is 17/100, 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: $155.52 vs. price $78.43 (+98.3%); SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.06 (3y annualized return -4.0% / max drawdown 65.3%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for DECK.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luis Victor | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 914 | +914 | — |
| Figuereo Juan R | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 535 | +535 | — |
| Stewart Bonita C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 535 | +535 | — |
| Ibrahim Maha Saleh | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 816 | +816 | — |
| Chan Nelson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 535 | +535 | — |
| Grismer Patrick J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 535 | +535 | — |
| Davis Cindy L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 535 | +535 | — |
| Shanahan Lauri M | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 535 | +535 | — |
| Burwick David A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 535 | +535 | — |
| Stefano Caroti | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 109,912 | +109,912 | — |
| Spangenberg Anne | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 25,862 | +25,862 | — |
| Fasching Steven J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 10,209 | +10,209 | — |
| Ogbechie Angela | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 5,548 | +5,548 | — |
| Ellerker Marco | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 16,162 | +16,162 | — |
| Spring-Green Robin | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 7,324 | +7,324 | — |
| Stefano Caroti | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 37,731 | +37,731 | — |
| Fasching Steven J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 29,740 | +29,740 | — |
| Garcia Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 19,396 | +19,396 | — |
| Garcia Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 6,658 | +6,658 | — |
| Spangenberg Anne | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 8,878 | +8,878 | — |
| Ellerker Marco | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 5,548 | +5,548 | — |
| Ogbechie Angela | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 16,162 | +16,162 | — |
| Spring-Green Robin | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.8.2026 | 21,336 | +21,336 | — |
| Ellerker Marco | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 1,231 | -1,231 | — |
| Garcia Thomas | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 2,360 | -2,360 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,916,921 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 6,356,844 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.8% 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