Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$930.91
▲ $37.30 (+4.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:13 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$83.50B
Day Range
$896.01 - $951.60
52-Week Range
$144.52 - $1,085.68
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$594.84
Resistance
$1,026.76
LITE is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+442.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 17/32 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 83.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $108.09 vs. price $930.91 (-88.4%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
-9.9%
Median 40D Outcome
0/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
33%
+7.5% … +21.6%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
67%
-18.5% … -5.4%
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, 33% (95% CI 15%–58%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -4.8%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
4 occurrence(s) · 25% 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 | 13% (4%–38%) | -5.4% | -8.5% … -1.9% | +0.7% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -6.5% | -12.5% … +4.2% | +1.3% |
| 20D | 33% (15%–58%) | -4.8% | -9.9% … +5.5% | +1.5% |
| 40D | 27% (11%–52%) | -9.9% | -14.4% … +9.4% | +2.5% |
| 60D | 33% (15%–58%) | -3.9% | -19.4% … +6.6% | +2.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-05-05 | 81/100 | Uptrend | -4.8% | +11.0% |
| 2020-04-16 | 78/100 | High Volatility | -7.3% | -0.5% |
| 2019-08-20 | 76/100 | Uptrend | -2.4% | +13.2% |
| 2017-09-13 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -1.4% | -17.4% |
| 2020-06-16 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +7.5% | -8.6% |
| 2019-05-06 | 75/100 | Uptrend | -28.5% | -7.8% |
| 2020-07-14 | 75/100 | Uptrend | +11.4% | -0.2% |
| 2017-07-28 | 75/100 | Uptrend | -8.4% | -3.9% |
| 2022-08-23 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -20.9% | -39.1% |
| 2020-11-11 | 74/100 | Uptrend | +3.6% | +2.1% |
| 2017-11-02 | 74/100 | Uptrend | -11.2% | -21.3% |
| 2025-02-06 | 74/100 | High Volatility | -33.0% | -31.8% |
| 2024-02-05 | 73/100 | Uptrend | -8.7% | -21.7% |
| 2025-07-09 | 70/100 | Uptrend | +21.6% | +87.7% |
| 2026-01-15 | 70/100 | High Volatility | +63.9% | +148.4% |
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 XLK (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
60
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
6d ago · $927.03
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 58)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
10d ago · $988.98
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 21 to 47 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
54
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
69
Risk
62
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
49
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING LITE...
Recent media coverage of Lumentum has centered on its strong market performance—up over 500% in 2026—driven by AI-driven demand for high-speed optical networking components like 1.6T modules and optical switches. Analysts highlight supply constraints and Lumentum’s vertical integration as key advantages, boosting earnings potential and margins. However, some reports question whether the stock’s valuation now reflects overoptimism, despite fresh AI-driven demand. The focus remains on its chokehold on critical Indium Phosphide lasers and industry supply bottlenecks.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lumentum. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 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
50
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
45
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
49
Technical
69
Valuation
38
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
85
Fundamental Reality
45
Narrative Gap
+40
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence reflects a disconnect between LITE’s extreme valuation (+715% above DCF) and its collapsing earnings growth (-252.2% EPS). Momentum-driven euphoria (score 36) and FOMO (score 21) suggest traders are ignoring fundamentals, prioritizing short-term gains. The 39-point narrative gap (84 vs. 45) underscores how detached perceptions are from reality. The key question: Will traders sustain overconfidence despite deteriorating fundamentals, or will reality intrude?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 01:24 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Indium Phosphide lasers—a scarce, capital-intensive material where demand outpaces supply by 30%. LITE holds the choke point, shifting pricing power and margin upstream"
"AI datacenter spending has turned optical networking into one of 2026's hottest trades"
"Lumentum's 1.6T module gains and optical switch demand may drive upside to FY28 earnings and 50%+ margins"
"current valuation checks based on market multiples point to an overvalued profile"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 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
Philip Fisher — 75/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-oriented fundamentalists and more cautious or contrarian methodologies. Philip Fisher and Edgar Lawrence Smith, both known for seeking high-quality, long-term businesses, rate it exceptionally well (75 and 71), praising its enduring fundamentals and potential for decade-long holding. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham and Thorstein Veblen—who prioritize value, defensive metrics, and skepticism toward speculative growth—reject it outright (28 and 21), flagging either weak fundamentals or unsustainable momentum. The middle ground is occupied by mixed signals: Peter Lynch and Howard Marks see growth already priced in, while Walter Bagehot and Gerald Loeb note moderate risks or liquidity concerns. Even Jack Schwager’s disciplined, rule-based approach dismisses it entirely (16), contrasting sharply with Fisher’s enthusiasm. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s strengths (quality, growth) justify its valuation or if it’s overhyped by market sentiment.
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 59
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 58
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 55
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 49
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 47
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 43
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 39
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 32
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 32
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
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)
🔴 28
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 21
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
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 an uptrend (7 bullish · 2 bearish · 3 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
41.7%
Operating Margin
17.4%
Net Margin
-230.1%
EBITDA Margin
17.4%
ROE
-149.3%
ROA
-94.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$92.96
Cash
$2.04B
Total Debt
$1.64B
Current Ratio
1.68
Debt/Equity
0.35
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$930.91
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$108.09
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-88.4%
🔴 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% | $375.13M | $344.15M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $447.81M | $376.91M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $509.38M | $393.33M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $550.77M | $390.18M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $564.53M | $366.91M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$300.10M
Terminal Value
$8.90B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.79B
Enterprise Value
$7.66B
Net Debt
$-406.10M
Equity Value
$8.06B
*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
$62.25
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$43.53
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 5 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Lumentum (LITE) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 60/100, 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.
LITE currently scores 60/100 (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, LITE's estimated fair value is $108.09, which is 88.4% below the current price of $930.91. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LITE's technical score is 69/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: Revenue growth (last year): 83.2%; Free cash flow growth: 386.6%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $108.09 vs. price $930.91 (-88.4%); Net margin: -230.1% (negative); ATR: 7.2% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LITE.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 23 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 10.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $961.44 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 9.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $978.54 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $895.99 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $860.00 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $870.01 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $864.49 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 500 | -500 | $901.04 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $895.00 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $940.95 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 119,127 | -500 | $958.66 |
| HURLSTON MICHAEL E. | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 186,951 | -548 | $958.66 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $958.66 |
| HURLSTON MICHAEL E. | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 548 | -548 | $958.66 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 91,729 | -500 | $882.15 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $882.15 |
| Ali Wajid | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.8.2026 | 99,616 | +5,005 | — |
| Kim Jae | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 46,842 | -600 | $849.14 |
| Wupen Yuen | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 92,229 | -500 | $856.65 |
| Kim Jae | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 48,959 | -360 | $844.66 |
| Kim Jae | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 47,933 | -456 | $847.00 |
| Kim Jae | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 48,389 | -570 | $845.96 |
| Kim Jae | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 47,442 | -491 | $847.94 |
| Kim Jae | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 49,319 | -280 | $843.68 |
| Wupen Yuen | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.8.2026 | 120,627 | +5,138 | — |
| Kim Jae | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 49,599 | -205 | $842.39 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,122,028 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 8,551,325 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 44.8% 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