Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$14.12
▼ $0.27 (-1.9%)
Market data updated: 09/20 08:13 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$6.48B
Day Range
$14.07 - $14.46
52-Week Range
$14.07 - $26.09
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$14.07
Resistance
$21.27
NCLH is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-44.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 2/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
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: -$62.48 vs. price $14.12 (-542.5%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
85/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+19.2%
Median 40D Outcome
37/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+9.9% … +18.6%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.3% … +0.6%
🔴 Bearish
20%
-11.9% … -7.3%
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, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +8.5%.
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%) | +5.5% | -3.9% … +7.5% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 80% (55%–93%) | +7.3% | +1.7% … +12.8% | +0.1% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +8.5% | +0.4% … +17.6% | +0.2% |
| 40D | 80% (55%–93%) | +19.2% | +4.2% … +31.5% | -0.1% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +25.9% | +11.3% … +39.6% | -0.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-01 | 85/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +16.6% | +34.8% |
| 2022-12-23 | 82/100 | Downtrend | +18.6% | -3.3% |
| 2023-03-28 | 81/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +0.1% | +55.8% |
| 2026-05-11 | 80/100 | Downtrend | +14.8% | +16.8% |
| 2025-04-16 | 78/100 | High Volatility | +18.6% | +41.3% |
| 2022-03-11 | 78/100 | High Volatility | +14.0% | -9.1% |
| 2025-11-20 | 77/100 | High Volatility | +31.7% | +35.7% |
| 2019-01-03 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +26.4% | +37.8% |
| 2022-05-06 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -13.8% | -28.9% |
| 2023-04-14 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +4.7% | +72.5% |
| 2023-03-14 | 74/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -4.6% | +25.9% |
| 2023-10-18 | 74/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +2.5% | +20.5% |
| 2025-05-01 | 74/100 | High Volatility | +8.5% | +44.0% |
| 2026-03-30 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +0.8% | +18.9% |
| 2025-03-13 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -9.9% | +5.7% |
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
36
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
34
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
6
Risk
26
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
51
Institutional
100
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING NCLH...
Recent media coverage of Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings has centered on its recent stock performance and financial outlook, with analysts like Wells Fargo maintaining an "Overweight" rating but lowering the price target from $22 to $20. The company also received attention for its **opening of the Great Tides Waterpark** on its private island in The Bahamas, marking a major expansion in its onboard amenities. Additionally, analysts compared NCLH’s Q2 earnings against peers in the travel sector, while broader market trends—including oil price fluctuations—were noted for their indirect impact on cruise stocks.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings. News trend score: 68. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 6 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
93
Fundamentals
51
Technical
6
Valuation
38
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)
-31%
Market Narrative
41
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 1.7% support level, likely due to recent price stability near it. Loss aversion also plays a role, as the 17% drop over three months may be discouraging aggressive selling. However, the absence of panic (low volatility) and herding (peer divergence) indicates a cautious, non-emotional stance. The key question remains whether the support holds or if traders will break free from the anchor under further pressure. The narrow narrative gap (5-point) implies a balanced but uncertain outlook.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 12:36 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Wells Fargo analyst Trey Bowers maintains Norwegian Cruise Line with an Overweight rating but lowers the price target from $22 to $20"
"NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE® celebrates the opening of its all-new Great Tides Waterpark on Great Stirrup Cay"
"Norwegian Cruise Line shares shed a significant chunk of their value in a single month"
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for NCLH reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score suggests he sees a cyclical opportunity nearing oversold territory, while Charles Mackay and Jack Schwager also lean bullish, favoring disciplined setups or the absence of crowd-driven mania. In contrast, Fisher, Lynch, and Livermore dismiss it outright—Fisher and Lynch because it lacks their signature growth traits, while Livermore’s trend-following rules flag it as a countertrend bet. Meanwhile, Graham’s strict valuation and defensive criteria, along with Bagehot’s liquidity concerns and Housel’s volatility aversion, paint a picture of high risk, while Marks’ mixed verdict hints at a business with potential but already elevated expectations. The contrast between Nelson’s cyclical optimism and the caution of Graham or Loeb highlights whether one prioritizes timing, growth, or risk management.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 91
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 83
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 53
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 36
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 29
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 28
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 28
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 25
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 24
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)
🔴 16
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 11
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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
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 (0 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
42.6%
Operating Margin
15.9%
Net Margin
4.3%
EBITDA Margin
27.7%
ROE
19.2%
ROA
1.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.94
Cash
$209.89M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.21
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$14.12
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$62.48
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-542.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-1.46B | $-1.34B |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-1.75B | $-1.47B |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-1.99B | $-1.53B |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-2.15B | $-1.52B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-2.20B | $-1.43B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-1.17B
Terminal Value
$-34.70B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-22.55B
Enterprise Value
$-29.85B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-29.85B
*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
$4.63
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.29
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 5 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Stocktwits · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (NCLH) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 36/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
NCLH currently scores 36/100 (Weak) 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, NCLH's estimated fair value is -$62.48, which is 542.5% below the current price of $14.12. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
NCLH's technical score is 6/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Gross margin: 42.6% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$62.48 vs. price $14.12 (-542.5%); ATR: 4.2% of price; Current ratio: 0.21.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for NCLH.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 20 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAGLIUCA STEPHEN G | Open Market Purchase | 2.6.2026 | 685,000 | +685,000 | $18.06 |
| PAGLIUCA STEPHEN G | Open Market Purchase | 2.6.2026 | 1,388,912 | +685,000 | $18.06 |
| PAGLIUCA STEPHEN G | Open Market Purchase | 1.6.2026 | 695,000 | +695,000 | $18.16 |
| PAGLIUCA STEPHEN G | Open Market Purchase | 1.6.2026 | 703,912 | +695,000 | $18.16 |
| CHIDSEY JOHN | Open Market Purchase | 22.5.2026 | 153,000 | +153,000 | $16.37 |
| CHIDSEY JOHN | Open Market Purchase | 22.5.2026 | 1,139,940 | +153,000 | $16.37 |
| COHEN JONATHAN Z | Open Market Purchase | 20.5.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | $15.83 |
| COHEN JONATHAN Z | Open Market Purchase | 20.5.2026 | 38,912 | +30,000 | $15.83 |
| Cil Jose E. | Open Market Purchase | 19.5.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $14.91 |
| Cil Jose E. | Open Market Purchase | 19.5.2026 | 74,295 | +10,000 | $14.91 |
| Cil Jose E. | Open Market Purchase | 18.5.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $15.25 |
| Cil Jose E. | Open Market Purchase | 18.5.2026 | 64,295 | +5,000 | $15.25 |
| MacDonald Brian P | Open Market Purchase | 11.5.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $16.54 |
| MacDonald Brian P | Open Market Purchase | 11.5.2026 | 23,912 | +15,000 | $16.54 |
| Byng-Thorne Zillah | Open Market Purchase | 7.5.2026 | 25,015 | +25,015 | $17.67 |
| Lansberry Kevin Allen | Open Market Purchase | 7.5.2026 | 11,400 | +11,400 | $17.28 |
| Byng-Thorne Zillah | Open Market Purchase | 7.5.2026 | 4,452 | +4,452 | $17.83 |
| Byng-Thorne Zillah | Open Market Purchase | 7.5.2026 | 99,811 | +25,015 | $17.67 |
| Byng-Thorne Zillah | Open Market Purchase | 7.5.2026 | 25,742 | +4,452 | $17.83 |
| Lansberry Kevin Allen | Open Market Purchase | 7.5.2026 | 20,312 | +11,400 | $17.28 |
| MacDonald Brian P | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 8,912 | +8,912 | — |
| Lansberry Kevin Allen | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 8,912 | +8,912 | — |
| COHEN JONATHAN Z | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 8,912 | +8,912 | — |
| Cruz Alex | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 8,912 | +8,912 | — |
| PAGLIUCA STEPHEN G | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.4.2026 | 8,912 | +8,912 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
86,449,099 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 84,066,341 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.5% 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