Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$274.06
▼ $1.29 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:20 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$270.93 - $275.00
52-Week Range
$186.67 - $314.28
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$235.76
Resistance
$314.28
GRMN is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+15.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/28 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
🔴 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: $144.26 vs. price $274.06 (-47.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (70/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
80/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+1.9%
Median 40D Outcome
48/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+4.8% … +8.3%
🟡 Base
27%
-0.2% … +0.4%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-13.6% … -6.0%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 40 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.8%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
6 occurrence(s) · 33% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #3 — Trend Acceleration
2 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 | 33% (15%–58%) | -0.7% | -1.1% … +3.0% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.5% | -1.4% … +5.5% | +0.8% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.8% | -2.0% … +5.4% | +1.6% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +1.9% | -4.5% … +15.8% | +3.7% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.9% | +0.2% … +20.2% | +6.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-01 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +0.3% | +22.1% |
| 2026-06-18 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +4.5% | +19.1% |
| 2019-05-23 | 79/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +5.1% | +1.2% |
| 2019-08-07 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +7.5% | +21.3% |
| 2018-10-29 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +5.8% | +9.5% |
| 2018-03-21 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.5% | +2.9% |
| 2018-02-27 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -3.5% | +0.1% |
| 2019-07-24 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +0.8% | +10.1% |
| 2024-10-23 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +27.2% | +33.8% |
| 2020-09-22 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +3.8% | +24.4% |
| 2025-03-24 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -10.8% | -7.5% |
| 2026-03-31 | 74/100 | Uptrend | +9.1% | +0.2% |
| 2025-02-14 | 73/100 | Consolidation | -0.1% | -5.7% |
| 2025-10-28 | 72/100 | Uptrend | -22.2% | -16.6% |
| 2026-04-30 | 72/100 | Consolidation | -6.9% | +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.
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
61
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
70
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
44
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
76
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING GRMN...
Recent media coverage of Garmin has primarily focused on its **dividend performance and investor appeal**, with the company featured in lists of top "Strong Buy" income stocks and dividend updates. Additionally, there has been attention on Garmin’s **expansion into marine electronics**, including new products like the SmartDrive autopilot and JL Audio-branded boat systems, alongside broader industry trends in **wearable and health tech**, particularly in the growing body area network market. Analysts have also briefly compared Garmin’s valuation to competitors. No major controversies or operational disruptions were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Garmin. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
36
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
76
Technical
44
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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)
+17%
Market Narrative
76
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+35
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence (score 45) suggests traders are ignoring fundamental divergence—price momentum lags EPS growth while valuations remain extreme. The narrative gap (28) reinforces this disconnect, as optimism (69) outpaces reality (41). Euphoria (39) aligns with valuation metrics, while FOMO (12) and panic (21) appear muted by neutral technical signals. The key question: *Will traders adjust pricing to fundamentals, or will herd behavior sustain mispricing?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:53 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Garmin expanded its marine electronics lineup with new products, including the SmartDrive autopilot system and GMI 40 instrument display"
"GRMN made it to the Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) income stocks list"
"Garmin’s recent stream of marine and wearable launches... strong multi-year total shareholder returns"
"Garmin (GRMN) looks 2% overvalued as new marine launches test its range"
📈 13D 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
Benjamin Graham — 18/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Walter Bagehot’s documented principles, the model estimates the stock’s strong liquidity and credit resilience earns it a top score, while Samuel Nelson’s cycle‑position framework also rates it favorably as oversold. Mid‑range scores from Thorstein Veblen, Gerald Loeb, Philip Fisher and Morgan Housel reflect that growth appears aligned with value creation and capital preservation, but not to the exceptional level those investors required. In contrast, Charles Mackay, Howard Marks (cycle), Peter Lynch and Jesse Livermore assign lower scores because crowd excitement, a middle‑cycle placement, price already embedding growth, and a negative trend conflict with their criteria. The most conservative lenses of Benjamin Graham (both defensive and enterprising) and Howard Marks flag the stock as risky and insufficiently cheap, resulting in the lowest scores. Overall, the divergence stems from each methodology’s emphasis—liquidity and long‑term stability versus trend, valuation depth, and market‑efficiency considerations.
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 83
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 82
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 66
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 64
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 53
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 48
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 44
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 44
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 36
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 31
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 18
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 (3 bullish · 6 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 uptrend 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
58.7%
Operating Margin
25.9%
Net Margin
23.0%
EBITDA Margin
25.9%
ROE
18.5%
ROA
15.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$8.65
Cash
$2.28B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.63
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 11.9.2026 | $1.050 |
| 15.6.2026 | $1.050 |
| 14.6.2026 | $1.050 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.900 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.900 |
| 12.12.2025 | $0.900 |
| 11.12.2025 | $0.900 |
| 12.9.2025 | $0.900 |
| 11.9.2025 | $0.900 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.900 |
| 15.6.2025 | $0.900 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.750 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$274.06
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$144.26
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-47.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
14.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 14.4% | $1.56B | $1.43B |
| 2 | 11.4% | $1.74B | $1.46B |
| 3 | 8.4% | $1.88B | $1.45B |
| 4 | 5.5% | $1.99B | $1.41B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.04B | $1.32B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.36B
Terminal Value
$32.09B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$20.86B
Enterprise Value
$27.93B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$27.93B
*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
$46.34
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$42.42
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 7 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
PR Newswire · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Garmin (GRMN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 61/100, 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.
GRMN currently scores 61/100 (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, GRMN's estimated fair value is $144.26, which is 47.4% below the current price of $274.06. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
GRMN's technical score is 44/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 3.63; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $144.26 vs. price $274.06 (-47.4%); Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — GRMN 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 — 0 purchases and 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 18.8.2026 | 393,000 | -393,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 18.8.2026 | 89,800 | +89,800 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 18.8.2026 | 393,000 | +393,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 18.8.2026 | 269,400 | -269,400 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 18.8.2026 | 45,600 | -45,600 | — |
| Wang Cheng-Wei | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 281 | -281 | $301.62 |
| Wang Cheng-Wei | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 3,102 | -3,102 | $297.84 |
| Wang Cheng-Wei | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 1,737 | -1,737 | $300.14 |
| Wang Cheng-Wei | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 2,260 | -2,260 | $301.01 |
| Wang Cheng-Wei | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 1,390 | -1,390 | $296.92 |
| Wang Cheng-Wei | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 538 | -538 | $299.17 |
| Wang Cheng-Wei | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 633 | -633 | $303.36 |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 17.8.2026 | 253,600 | +253,600 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 17.8.2026 | 41,000 | +41,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 17.8.2026 | 41,000 | -41,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 17.8.2026 | 253,600 | -253,600 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 10.8.2026 | 298,000 | +298,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 10.8.2026 | 90,000 | +90,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 10.8.2026 | 298,000 | -298,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 10.8.2026 | 90,000 | -90,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 10.8.2026 | 2,043,300 | -90,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 10.8.2026 | 4,073,752 | -298,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 10.8.2026 | 298,000 | +298,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 10.8.2026 | 716,043 | +90,000 | — |
| BURRELL JONATHAN | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 272,000 | -272,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,152,383 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,609,370 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.2% 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