Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$76.43
▼ $3.27 (-4.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 09:07 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$75.70 - $79.10
52-Week Range
$75.70 - $133.76
Beta
—
Next Earnings
14.12.2026
Support
$75.70
Resistance
$89.65
LEN is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-42.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/26 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.27
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$6.57 vs. price $76.43 (-108.6%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+2.9%
Median 40D Outcome
68/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+4.3% … +10.6%
🟡 Base
27%
-0.6% … +0.7%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-6.9% … -2.8%
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, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +0.7%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 33% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
1 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 | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.7% | +0.4% … +7.3% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 73% (48%–89%) | +6.5% | +1.5% … +9.3% | +0.7% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.7% | -1.6% … +5.2% | +1.0% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.9% | -0.4% … +5.7% | +1.3% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.5% | -7.3% … +16.6% | +2.3% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-15 | 82/100 | Downtrend | +9.1% | +3.5% |
| 2025-04-07 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -0.8% | +2.8% |
| 2018-10-23 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +3.5% | +6.9% |
| 2018-10-08 | 78/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -2.3% | -9.3% |
| 2018-12-21 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +12.1% | +22.1% |
| 2025-11-19 | 75/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -5.9% | +5.3% |
| 2025-02-19 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -0.5% | -9.0% |
| 2022-09-14 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +4.2% | +21.8% |
| 2025-06-18 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +6.0% | +29.4% |
| 2026-04-07 | 73/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +0.7% | +3.0% |
| 2025-03-21 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -10.0% | -9.2% |
| 2025-05-21 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +0.7% | +24.4% |
| 2025-07-15 | 69/100 | Consolidation | +15.5% | +11.5% |
| 2025-10-13 | 69/100 | Consolidation | +4.4% | -7.2% |
| 2026-06-17 | 69/100 | Downtrend | -3.0% | -7.5% |
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
38
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
9d ago · $77.14
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 10 to -20 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
26
Quality
55
Value
43
Momentum
13
Risk
48
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
56
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING LEN...
Recent media coverage of Lennar highlights its stock underperformance amid market uncertainty, with shares down **37.6% over the past year** and a **39.9% total shareholder return decline** in 2026. Analysts have trimmed fair value estimates (from **$88.54 to $86.23**) and debated its valuation, noting concerns over land banking costs and a focus on entry-level buyers. Despite launching new communities like *The Oaks at Eclectic* (Alabama) and *Lake Shore* (Georgia), Lennar faces skepticism over pricing strategy and growth potential.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lennar. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 8 vs. 8 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
81
Fundamentals
56
Technical
13
Valuation
43
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-15%
Market Narrative
35
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
-4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **herding** behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers rather than independent analysis, as LEN’s -3.8% drop aligns closely with its sector (-3.1%). Low FOMO and panic scores imply no extreme urgency, while anchoring (4.5% above support) hints at hesitation to exit. The narrative gap (-2) suggests minor misalignment, but the key question remains: *Will traders break from the herd if LEN diverges further?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:49 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Lennar’s fair value estimate has been adjusted slightly lower from US$88.54 to US$86.23"
"the year to date share price return down 19.80%, and the 1 year total shareholder return declining 39.90%"
"Lennar stock has fallen sharply over the past year, yet some valuation checks still flag it as potentially cheap"
"Lennar’s heavier tilt to entry level buyers"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 10D 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 1/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Benjamin Graham’s defensive approach scoring it nearly perfect (99) as an attractive bargain, while Fisher’s quality-focused framework dismisses it outright (score: 1). The contrast stems from Graham’s emphasis on deep valuation and margin of safety—here, the stock appears undervalued relative to fundamentals—versus Fisher’s insistence on long-term growth and managerial excellence, which the model finds absent. Mid-tier investors like Marks (64) and Smith (67) see potential but temper it with caution, noting either inflated expectations or the need for patience, while cyclical analysts like Nelson (89) and Livermore (13) split sharply: one spots a favorable market position, the other flags a negative trend. Meanwhile, behavioral economists like Veblen (24) and Lynch (20) reject it for its perceived speculative or unsustainable growth traits, while efficient-market adherents (31) argue passive indexing is the rational default. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s valuation or cyclical positioning justifies its merits—or if deeper flaws (like overvaluation or lack of growth) invalidate it entirely.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 95
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 92
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 79
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
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
🟢 74
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 52
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 31
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 24
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 1
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 · 10 bearish · 1 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
6.1%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
9.5%
ROA
6.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$7.98
Cash
$3.76B
Total Debt
$5.87B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.27
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 10.7.2026 | $0.500 |
| 9.7.2026 | $0.500 |
| 22.4.2026 | $0.500 |
| 21.4.2026 | $0.500 |
| 4.2.2026 | $0.500 |
| 3.2.2026 | $0.500 |
| 10.10.2025 | $0.500 |
| 9.10.2025 | $0.500 |
| 3.7.2025 | $0.500 |
| 2.7.2025 | $0.500 |
| 23.4.2025 | $0.500 |
| 22.4.2025 | $0.500 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$76.43
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$6.57
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-108.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
0.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.6% | $28.34M | $26.00M |
| 2 | 1.0% | $28.63M | $24.10M |
| 3 | 1.5% | $29.07M | $22.45M |
| 4 | 2.0% | $29.66M | $21.01M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $30.40M | $19.76M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$28.18M
Terminal Value
$479.34M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$311.54M
Enterprise Value
$424.85M
Net Debt
$2.12B
Equity Value
$-1.69B
*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
$85.20
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$71.11
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 4 neutral, 8 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Benzinga · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
CNBC · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Lennar (LEN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 38/100, 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.
LEN currently scores 38/100 (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, LEN's estimated fair value is -$6.57, which is 108.6% below the current price of $76.43. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LEN's technical score is 13/100, 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: 0.27; P/E: 9.6; Debt/equity: 0.27.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$6.57 vs. price $76.43 (-108.6%); Calmar: -0.21 (3y annualized return -12.4% / max drawdown 59.0%); Revenue growth (last year): -3.5%.
Yes — LEN 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLIVERA ARMANDO J | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 535 | +535 | $84.11 |
| SONNENFELD JEFFREY | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.8.2026 | 341 | +341 | $84.11 |
| Smith Dacona | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 14 | +14 | $84.27 |
| HUDSON SHERRILL W | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 14 | +14 | $84.27 |
| Wolfe Serena | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 14 | +14 | $84.27 |
| Gilliam Theron I | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 14 | +14 | $84.27 |
| Banse Amy | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 14 | +14 | $84.27 |
| McClure Teri P | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 14 | +14 | $84.27 |
| OLIVERA ARMANDO J | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 19 | +19 | $84.27 |
| SONNENFELD JEFFREY | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 17 | +17 | $84.27 |
| SONNENFELD JEFFREY | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 320 | +320 | $89.78 |
| OLIVERA ARMANDO J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 501 | +501 | $89.78 |
| OLIVERA ARMANDO J | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 22,792 | +501 | $89.78 |
| SONNENFELD JEFFREY | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.5.2026 | 27,828 | +320 | $89.78 |
| MILLER STUART A | Gift | 11.5.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| MILLER STUART A | Gift | 11.5.2026 | 1,465,966 | -2,000 | — |
| McClure Teri P | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 12 | +12 | $94.45 |
| SONNENFELD JEFFREY | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 13 | +13 | $94.45 |
| OLIVERA ARMANDO J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 14 | +14 | $94.45 |
| Banse Amy | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 12 | +12 | $94.45 |
| OLIVERA ARMANDO J | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 22,291 | +14 | $94.45 |
| HUDSON SHERRILL W | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 38,279 | +12 | $94.45 |
| SONNENFELD JEFFREY | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 27,508 | +13 | $94.45 |
| McClure Teri P | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 31,984 | +12 | $94.45 |
| Gilliam Theron I | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.4.2026 | 36,809 | +12 | $94.45 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
18,236,142 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,759,614 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
62.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.8% 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