Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$40.98
▲ $0.64 (+1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:53 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$20.05B
Day Range
$40.52 - $41.34
52-Week Range
$29.26 - $55.11
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
Support
$37.58
Resistance
$50.13
LUV is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+27.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/30 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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.52
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+0.3%
Median 40D Outcome
45/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+5.2% … +18.6%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.4% … +0.4%
🔴 Bearish
53%
-10.9% … -5.0%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -2.3%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
2 occurrence(s) · 50% 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.3% | -5.2% … +4.5% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | -1.5% | -4.8% … +4.7% | -0.0% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -2.3% | -6.3% … +6.4% | -0.4% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.3% | -5.3% … +7.4% | -0.7% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.6% | -6.1% … +12.1% | +0.0% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-04-19 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -5.2% | -3.6% |
| 2019-01-15 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +16.9% | +6.8% |
| 2021-09-22 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -2.3% | -22.0% |
| 2026-05-21 | 75/100 | Uptrend | +19.1% | +4.2% |
| 2023-06-12 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +22.5% | -6.5% |
| 2024-06-05 | 74/100 | Consolidation | -5.3% | +1.6% |
| 2022-07-14 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +1.3% | -17.1% |
| 2018-12-06 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -10.7% | -1.0% |
| 2023-02-02 | 73/100 | Consolidation | -7.2% | -16.9% |
| 2022-02-10 | 73/100 | Consolidation | -13.5% | -5.8% |
| 2024-08-21 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +8.9% | +22.0% |
| 2026-05-07 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +0.4% | +17.7% |
| 2026-04-14 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -4.3% | +17.4% |
| 2024-07-16 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -11.5% | +6.7% |
| 2025-09-23 | 70/100 | Uptrend | +4.0% | +22.9% |
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 XLI (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
51
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $40.98
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 0 to 26 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
today · $40.98
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 4 to 43 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
48
Quality
58
Value
45
Momentum
56
Risk
34
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
36
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING LUV...
Recent media coverage of Southwest Airlines has centered on its strong demand and commercial initiatives that are meeting or exceeding financial expectations, as highlighted by CFO Tom Doxey at an investor conference. Analysts have adjusted outlooks, with Barclays keeping an overweight rating but lowering its price target to $58 and UBS cutting its target to $49 while maintaining a buy rating, citing potential earnings pressure from fuel costs. The airline also participated in an FAA meeting on a new software‑based system to reduce flight delays.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Southwest Airlines. News trend score: 80. Reason: 7 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
37
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
43
Fundamentals
36
Technical
56
Valuation
45
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.
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-15%
Market Narrative
66
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+26
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior reflects a coordinated pullback across LUV and its peers, with no extreme sentiment or momentum to drive divergence. The narrative-reality gap (21 points) hints at overestimation of positive fundamentals relative to technicals, but the lack of volatility (0.82x ATR) and neutral volume (1.00x) dampens panic or FOMO. Traders appear anchored near support (4.0% above), possibly waiting for confirmation before acting. The key question: Will the gap close as fundamentals (EPS growth) align with technicals, or will herding persist until a clear breakout/bust emerges?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 06:02 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Southwest Airlines' First-Ever Lounges to Debut in Austin, Baltimore, Honolulu, and Nashville; with at Least Seven More Planned"
"Southwest Airlines Just Dropped 14% in a Month. Is It Time to Sell?"
"Southwest Airlines (LUV) is Reshaping Operations to Unlock Margin Growth"
"Seaport Global Adjusts Price Target on Southwest Airlines to $62 From $67, Keeps Buy Rating"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 8D 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
Jack Schwager — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for LUV split sharply between bullish and bearish camps, reflecting starkly different priorities. Technical and cyclical investors like Samuel Armstrong Nelson (89) and Jack Schwager (80) see this stock as oversold or in a favorable mid-cycle position, prioritizing momentum and relative valuation. Meanwhile, value-focused thinkers such as Benjamin Graham (16) and his Enterprising Investor variant (0) dismiss it outright, arguing it fails even basic defensive metrics or lacks statistical cheapness. The middle ground—where investors like Howard Marks (50) or Gerald Loeb (35)—cautions about overvaluation or risk, highlighting tensions between growth potential and fundamental fragility. The contrast underscores whether LUV’s appeal lies in its cyclical or speculative traits (favored by Nelson or Schwager) or its lack of Graham-style defensive qualities (rejected by both Graham variants).
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 85
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 72
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
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)
🟡 61
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)
🟡 53
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 51
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 44
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 43
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 35
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 32
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)
🔴 23
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 22
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 17
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 15
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (7 bullish · 6 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.
Low 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
1.5%
Net Margin
1.6%
EBITDA Margin
7.1%
ROE
5.5%
ROA
1.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.82
Cash
$3.23B
Total Debt
$4.93B
Current Ratio
0.52
Debt/Equity
0.62
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 3.9.2026 | $0.180 |
| 11.6.2026 | $0.180 |
| 10.6.2026 | $0.180 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.180 |
| 11.3.2026 | $0.180 |
| 26.12.2025 | $0.180 |
| 25.12.2025 | $0.180 |
| 3.9.2025 | $0.180 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.180 |
| 18.6.2025 | $0.180 |
| 17.6.2025 | $0.180 |
| 12.3.2025 | $0.180 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$14.30
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.03
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 11 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Southwest Airlines (LUV) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 51/100, 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.
LUV currently scores 51/100 (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.
LUV's technical score is 56/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.52; Calmar: 0.37 (3y annualized return 12.3% / max drawdown 33.8%); Net income growth: -5.2%.
Yes — LUV 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martinez Jimmy Ryan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 21.8.2026 | 25,244 | -179 | $40.38 |
| Martinez Jimmy Ryan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 21.8.2026 | 179 | -179 | $40.38 |
| Krishna Varun | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 3,787 | +3,787 | — |
| Liberty Jason T | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 3,787 | +3,787 | — |
| Liberty Jason T | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 3,787 | +3,787 | — |
| Krishna Varun | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 3,787 | +3,787 | — |
| Woods Lauren Tauscher | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 7,598 | +7,598 | — |
| Jones Justin | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 8,568 | +8,568 | — |
| Watterson Andrew M | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 2,995 | +2,995 | — |
| Roach Anthony | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 9,506 | +9,506 | — |
| Jordan Robert E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 28,321 | +28,321 | — |
| Doxey Tom | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 6,316 | +6,316 | — |
| Jordan Robert E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 534,055 | +28,321 | — |
| Watterson Andrew M | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 209,840 | +2,995 | — |
| Jones Justin | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 85,784 | +8,568 | — |
| Doxey Tom | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 111,116 | +6,316 | — |
| Roach Anthony | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 73,179 | +9,506 | — |
| Woods Lauren Tauscher | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 56,658 | +7,598 | — |
| BROOKS DOUGLAS H | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 4,108 | +4,108 | — |
| Hess David P | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 4,108 | +4,108 | — |
| Grissen David | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 4,108 | +4,108 | — |
| Breber Pierre R | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 4,108 | +4,108 | — |
| Feinberg Sarah | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 4,108 | +4,108 | — |
| FORNARO ROBERT L | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 4,108 | +4,108 | — |
| BROOKS DOUGLAS H | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 84,223 | +4,108 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
28,150,523 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 32,904,494 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
62.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.1% 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