Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$87.74
▼ $0.56 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/19 03:34 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$85.87 - $88.73
52-Week Range
$71.88 - $155.66
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$79.34
Resistance
$109.88
-41.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/22 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
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 45.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.4% of price
Risk
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
52
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
65
Quality
55
Value
50
Momentum
16
Risk
40
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
69
Institutional
100
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 Hamilton Lane Incorporated highlights its exceptional fiscal growth, with a first-quarter report showing a **56% year-over-year revenue surge to $275.3 million** and assets exceeding **$1.1 trillion**. Analysts praise its **strong fee-related earnings growth (49%)** and efficient fee conversion, positioning it as a **high-growth, reasonably valued "growth-at-a-reasonable-price" play** with low debt and robust returns. However, some mention **volatile client flows** as a potential risk, though the firm’s balance sheet remains solid.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Hamilton Lane Incorporated. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
34
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
46
Fundamentals
69
Technical
16
Valuation
50
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+7%
Market Narrative
52
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests **herding** as the dominant state, driven by HLNE’s parallel decline with peers (-1.8% vs. -2.0%), indicating passive alignment rather than active conviction. While euphoria lingers (+13.4% above 200-day average), it remains muted by weak momentum (-2.0% ROC) and neutral sentiment (74). The narrative gap (11 points) hints at a disconnect between investor expectations and reality, but no clear bias like overconfidence or loss aversion is active. The key question is whether this herding reflects rational positioning or a delayed reaction to broader sector trends.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:08 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Revenue jumped 56% year over year to $275.3 million, fee-related earnings climbed 49% to $124.5 million, and the firm’s total asset footprint pushed past $1.1 trillion"
"The fee engine is working, converting FEAUM growth into recurring fees and FRE"
"HLNE stock passes Peter Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price screen with 16.6% EPS growth, 0.95 PEG, low debt, and 29.4% ROE"
📈 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some approaches seeing strong potential while others flag caution or uncertainty. Thorstein Veblen and Walter Bagehot both score highly (93 and 92, respectively), but their verdicts hinge on limited balance-sheet data—Veblen’s confidence stems from perceived alignment with real value creation, while Bagehot’s score is constrained by insufficient financials. Meanwhile, Samuel Armstrong Nelson (83) and Edgar Lawrence Smith (77) lean bullish, with Nelson citing a favorable cycle position and Smith endorsing it as a long-term hold, though Fisher (73) and Marks (55) temper enthusiasm, noting it lacks exceptional quality or may already be priced for growth. On the other end, crowd psychology (Mackay’s 69) and market efficiency (Malkiel/Bogle’s 63) raise red flags, while Livermore (54) and Schwager (48) see no clear edge, reflecting a lack of decisive momentum or edge. The contrast underscores whether the stock’s perceived fundamentals or speculative hype drive its appeal.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 93
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 92
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 77
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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 73
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 73
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 (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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 59
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 55
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 21
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 10 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 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
32.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
27.2%
ROA
10.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$371.90M
Total Debt
$278.42M
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.30
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.6.2026 | $0.600 |
| 17.6.2026 | $0.600 |
| 20.3.2026 | $0.540 |
| 19.3.2026 | $0.540 |
| 19.12.2025 | $0.540 |
| 18.12.2025 | $0.540 |
| 19.9.2025 | $0.540 |
| 18.9.2025 | $0.540 |
| 20.6.2025 | $0.540 |
| 19.6.2025 | $0.540 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.490 |
| 13.3.2025 | $0.490 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Hamilton Lane Incorporated (HLNE) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 52/100, 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.
HLNE currently scores 52/100 (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.
HLNE'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: Free cash flow growth: 45.2%; Return on equity (ROE): 27.2% — strong; Debt/equity: 0.30.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.4% of price; Calmar: -0.02 (3y annualized return -1.2% / max drawdown 63.4%); Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — HLNE 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 — 13 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BERKMAN DAVID J | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 15,000 | +15,000 | $76.27 |
| Kramer Andrea Anigati | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 1,283 | +1,283 | $77.46 |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 10,612 | +10,612 | $77.86 |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 27,678 | +27,678 | $78.73 |
| BERKMAN DAVID J | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 25,000 | +15,000 | $76.27 |
| Kramer Andrea Anigati | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 87,350 | +1,283 | $77.46 |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 66,078 | +10,612 | $77.86 |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 11.6.2026 | 93,756 | +27,678 | $78.73 |
| Armbrister Jeffrey Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 2,109 | +2,109 | — |
| Gavalis Lydia | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 1,139 | +1,139 | — |
| Delgado-Moreira Juan | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 38,087 | +38,087 | — |
| Kramer Andrea Anigati | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 3,543 | +3,543 | — |
| Hirsch Erik R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 42,145 | +42,145 | — |
| Carl Drew Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 675 | +675 | — |
| Delgado-Moreira Juan | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 1,376,134 | +38,087 | — |
| Gavalis Lydia | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 34,028 | +1,139 | — |
| Hirsch Erik R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 105,727 | +42,145 | — |
| Kramer Andrea Anigati | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 86,067 | +3,543 | — |
| Carl Drew Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 1,846 | +675 | — |
| Armbrister Jeffrey Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 12,958 | +2,109 | — |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 27.5.2026 | 466 | +466 | $92.76 |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 27.5.2026 | 466 | +466 | $92.69 |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 27.5.2026 | 55,466 | +466 | $92.69 |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 26.5.2026 | 47,025 | +47,025 | $89.99 |
| Rogers Hartley R. | Open Market Purchase | 26.5.2026 | 7,975 | +7,975 | $90.43 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,857,879 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,855,743 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.0% 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