Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$113.24
▲ $5.97 (+5.6%)
Market data updated: 09/19 01:57 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$110.86 - $113.77
52-Week Range
$91.99 - $192.67
Beta
—
Next Earnings
23.11.2026
Support
$106.64
Resistance
$132.57
BABA is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-34.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/30 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.25
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$393.18 vs. price $113.24 (-447.2%)
Fair Value
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
44
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
55
Value
38
Momentum
16
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
55
Institutional
86
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.
Recent media coverage of Alibaba Group focuses on investor concerns and market volatility, with analysts split on its stock outlook amid AI spending scrutiny and broader macroeconomic pressures. The company faces competitive headwinds, including comparisons with rivals like Coupang and Shopify, while its expansion—such as Alibaba Cloud’s entry into Brazil—aims to bolster AI-driven growth. Geopolitical tensions and global market shifts also impact its shares, alongside discussions about its financial strategy and leadership role in upcoming U.S.-China engagements.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Alibaba Group Holding Limited American Depositary Shares each representing eight Ordinary share. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 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
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
65
Fundamentals
55
Technical
16
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+19
🔀 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 2.2% support level, likely due to its proximity. The narrative-reality gap (13 points) hints at a disconnect between market expectations and fundamentals, while low FOMO/Euphoria scores imply no aggressive buying pressure. The key question is whether traders will hold or break this support anchor, given muted volume and neutral momentum. Overconfidence and loss aversion remain absent, suggesting no extreme behavioral extremes are driving the market.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:17 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Alibaba’s AI spending draws investor scrutiny, analysts split"
"Alibaba (BABA) Shares Decline Amid Macro and Competitive Headwinds"
"Xi Jinping set to bring top Chinese business leaders to Trump summit"
"Alibaba Cloud Expands Into Brazil With New Data Centers To Drive Latin America AI Growth"
📈 9D 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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between bullish and cautious views on BABA, with scores ranging from Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect 94—suggesting the stock sits in a favorable cycle position—to Philip Fisher’s 11, dismissing it as lacking the quality and growth Fisher demanded. The top-tier scores (Nelson, Mackay, Graham, Smith) align on seeing potential in the stock’s fundamentals or market positioning, with Nelson’s cycle analysis and Graham/Smith’s long-term buy-and-hold frameworks all signaling opportunity. Meanwhile, the middle tier (Marks, Loeb, Housel) introduces nuance, warning of overvaluation or moderate risk, while the bottom half—especially Livermore, Fisher, and Veblen—rejects the stock outright, either due to trend resistance, lack of growth, or speculative overreach. The divide underscores how technical/cycle-driven models (Nelson, Livermore) clash with fundamental/long-term frameworks (Graham, Smith), while even the most bullish investors acknowledge some caution (e.g., Marks’ mixed verdict).
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 71
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 71
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 60
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 59
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
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
🟡 46
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 23
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)
🔴 17
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)
🔴 11
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 9 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.
High 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
39.8%
Operating Margin
4.8%
Net Margin
10.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
10.0%
ROA
5.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$45.60
Cash
$172.92B
Total Debt
$259.02B
Current Ratio
1.28
Debt/Equity
0.25
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 11.6.2026 | $1.050 |
| 10.6.2026 | $1.050 |
| 12.6.2025 | $2.000 |
| 11.6.2025 | $2.000 |
| 13.6.2024 | $1.660 |
| 12.6.2024 | $1.660 |
| 20.12.2023 | $1.000 |
| 19.12.2023 | $1.000 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$113.24
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$393.18
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-447.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.6% | $-53.59B | $-49.16B |
| 2 | 4.9% | $-56.20B | $-47.30B |
| 3 | 4.1% | $-58.49B | $-45.16B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $-60.41B | $-42.79B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-61.92B | $-40.24B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-50.72B
Terminal Value
$-976.40B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-634.59B
Enterprise Value
$-859.25B
Net Debt
$86.11B
Equity Value
$-945.36B
*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
$57.10
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$56.18
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 8 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
PR Newswire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Alibaba Group Holding Limited American Depositary Shares each representing eight Ordinary share (BABA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 44/100, 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.
BABA currently scores 44/100 (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, BABA's estimated fair value is -$393.18, which is 447.2% below the current price of $113.24. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BABA's technical score is 16/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.25; Debt/equity: 0.25; Debt/equity: 0.25.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$393.18 vs. price $113.24 (-447.2%); Calmar: 0.15 (3y annualized return 7.6% / max drawdown 49.9%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -17.3%.
Yes — BABA 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 — 6 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 320,000 | +320,000 | — |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 10.9.2026 | 320,000 | -320,000 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 114,979,168 | +720,000 | $14.47 |
| Tsai Joseph C | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 720,000 | +720,000 | $14.47 |
| Wu Yongming | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 1,364,418 | +350,000 | $14.24 |
| Tsai Joseph C | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 114,259,168 | +720,000 | $14.29 |
| Wu Yongming | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 350,000 | +350,000 | $14.24 |
| Tsai Joseph C | Open Market Purchase | 24.8.2026 | 720,000 | +720,000 | $14.29 |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 28,000 | +28,000 | — |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 13,333 | +13,333 | — |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 13,333 | -13,333 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 3,333 | -3,333 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 7,500 | -7,500 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | — |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 28,000 | -28,000 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 3,333 | +3,333 | — |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 986,418 | +13,333 | — |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 1,014,418 | +28,000 | — |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 253,334 | -13,333 | — |
| Wu Yongming | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 420,000 | -28,000 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 817,738 | +3,333 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 825,238 | +7,500 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 63,334 | -3,333 | — |
| Tsai Joseph C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 112,500 | -7,500 | — |
| EVANS J. MICHAEL | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 27,008 | -27,008 | $95.59 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
42,234,428 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 41,841,275 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 51.7% 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