Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Miscellaneous · ·
$45.64
▼ $0.11 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 12:18 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$3.37B
Day Range
$45.52 - $45.89
52-Week Range
$33.31 - $48.50
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$44.65
Resistance
$48.20
+15.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/30 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 98.1%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $18.57 vs. price $45.64 (-59.3%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (62/100), 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.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
48
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
62
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
36
Risk
44
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
45
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of NCR Atleos Corporation has primarily focused on its financial performance and an impending merger. The company reported mixed Q2 earnings in August 2026, with adjusted earnings rising but revenue falling short of estimates, causing a slight stock decline. Most headlines highlighted its earnings beat on a non-GAAP basis while noting revenue misses. Additionally, the UK regulator opened an investigation into Brink’s $6.6 billion proposed takeover, which aims to merge Brink’s cash handling operations with NCR Atleos’ ATM servicing, expected to close early 2027.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about NCR Atleos Corporation. News trend score: 68. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
57
Fundamentals
45
Technical
36
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
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.
Price (3M)
+5%
Market Narrative
62
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+22
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests investors view NATL as markedly overvalued, as indicated by a +149% premium to DCF and earnings growth outpacing price, supporting the dominant Overconfidence state. Moderate euphoria scores reflect the sizable price premium relative to historical averages, while low FOMO, Panic Selling, and Anchoring scores point to limited short‑term anxiety. The narrative gap, with a reality score of 40 versus a narrative score of 63, hints that market storytelling may be outpacing fundamentals. An open question is whether new fundamental data will narrow this gap.
Updated: 09/11/2026, 02:39 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"UK regulator opens probe into Brink’s $6.6bn takeover of NCR Atleos"
"NCR Atleos Q2 Adj. EPS $1.49 beats $0.97 Estimate"
"revenue $1.10B misses $1.133B estimate"
"Brink's merger expected early 2027"
📈 12D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing strong potential while others flag it as a high-risk or overvalued bet. The highest-scoring approaches—like Thorstein Veblen’s focus on real value creation and Peter Lynch’s growth candidate thesis—suggest the stock aligns with long-term expansion or undervalued momentum, while Charles Mackay’s neutral stance implies no obvious speculative bubble. Meanwhile, mid-tier models like Samuel Nelson’s cycle analysis and Jack Schwager’s disciplined setup offer cautious optimism, balancing risk with perceived reward. On the opposite end, the lowest-scoring frameworks—particularly Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria, Walter Bagehot’s liquidity concerns, and Morgan Housel’s volatility warnings—paint a picture of instability, poor valuation, or structural risks that would deter patient or conservative investors. The split reflects a tension between growth optimism and fundamental caution, with no clear consensus on whether the stock’s risks justify its potential.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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)
🟢 80
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 72
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 70
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 61
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 41
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 34
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 24
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 23
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 7
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 6
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 5
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 7 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$44.65
Range Bottom
$48.20
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
11.0%
Net Margin
3.7%
EBITDA Margin
17.3%
ROE
40.2%
ROA
2.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.20
Cash
$456.00M
Total Debt
$2.76B
Current Ratio
0.96
Debt/Equity
6.84
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$45.64
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$18.57
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-59.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
1.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.8% | $243.23M | $223.15M |
| 2 | 2.0% | $247.98M | $208.72M |
| 3 | 2.1% | $253.28M | $195.58M |
| 4 | 2.3% | $259.15M | $183.59M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $265.63M | $172.64M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$239.00M
Terminal Value
$4.19B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.72B
Enterprise Value
$3.71B
Net Debt
$2.30B
Equity Value
$1.40B
*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
$5.33
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$27.16
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 9 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Retail Banker International · 27.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 14.8.2026
MarketBeat · 5.8.2026
ChartMill · 5.8.2026
StockStory · 5.8.2026
Zacks · 5.8.2026
MT Newswires · 5.8.2026
Associated Press · 5.8.2026
Business Wire · 5.8.2026
Benzinga · 5.8.2026
Argus Research · 4.8.2026
MT Newswires · 28.7.2026
Business Wire · 28.7.2026
Business Wire · 21.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 11.7.2026
MT Newswires · 30.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 30.6.2026
NCR Atleos Corporation (NATL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
NATL currently scores 48/100 (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, NATL's estimated fair value is $18.57, which is 59.3% below the current price of $45.64. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
NATL's technical score is 36/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 98.1%; Net income growth: 102.5%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $18.57 vs. price $45.64 (-59.3%); Current ratio: 0.96; Free cash flow growth: -7.0%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for NATL.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reece Joseph E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 1,325 | +1,325 | $43.41 |
| Reece Joseph E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 12,463 | +1,325 | $43.41 |
| Reece Joseph E | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 4,351 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Niederauer Duncan L | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 4,351 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| von Gillern Jeffry H. | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 4,351 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Baker Mary Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 4,351 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Almeida Odilon | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 4,351 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Natoli Frank A | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 4,351 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Niederauer Duncan L | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 11,472 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Natoli Frank A | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 23,975 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| von Gillern Jeffry H. | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 23,975 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Almeida Odilon | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 23,975 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Reece Joseph E | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 47,953 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Baker Mary Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 23,975 | +4,351 | $44.82 |
| Reece Joseph E | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 1,205 | +1,205 | $43.58 |
| Reece Joseph E | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 11,138 | +1,205 | $43.58 |
| NUNEZ RICARDO J | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 34,928 | +34,928 | $44.56 |
| OLIVER TIMOTHY CHARLES | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 219,915 | +219,915 | $44.56 |
| Burson Andrea Richards | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 19,404 | +19,404 | $44.56 |
| Wamser R Andrew Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 45,277 | +45,277 | $44.56 |
| Hornfeck Traci | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 8,977 | +8,977 | $44.56 |
| Mackinnon Stuart | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 58,213 | +58,213 | $44.56 |
| OLIVER TIMOTHY CHARLES | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 542,068 | +219,915 | $44.56 |
| Hornfeck Traci | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 36,714 | +8,977 | $44.56 |
| Burson Andrea Richards | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.3.2026 | 33,117 | +19,404 | $44.56 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,474,707 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,896,303 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
63.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 42.3% 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