Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$15.10
▼ $0.40 (-2.6%)
Market data updated: 09/19 08:07 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$5.72B
Day Range
$15.08 - $15.49
52-Week Range
$12.46 - $25.54
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$13.49
Resistance
$17.98
LYFT is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-31.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/29 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 11250.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -3.0% (negative)
Fundamental
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
48
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
68
Quality
63
Value
55
Momentum
23
Risk
32
Sentiment
38
Fundamental
61
Institutional
0
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 Lyft has primarily focused on its stock performance and the broader autonomous vehicle narrative. Investors are examining Lyft’s valuation amid mixed share trends—down 15.5% year-to-date but up 22.5% over three months—while weighing its potential in autonomous driving against industry competition. The company’s stock has drawn attention as part of discussions on ride-hailing innovation, though no specific Lyft developments beyond general market speculation are highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lyft, Inc.. News trend score: 38. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 6 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
22
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
28
Fundamentals
61
Technical
23
Valuation
55
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+6%
Market Narrative
28
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
-14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
LYFT’s dominant **Herding** state (68) reflects synchronized peer movement, where its -2.9% decline mirrors broader ride-share weakness (-2.3% peer avg). The near-zero narrative gap (42/42) suggests no disconnect between market perception and fundamentals, but the **Overconfidence** score (0) highlights a disconnect between EPS growth (+112.5%) and price momentum (-4.1%). Low FOMO (2) and Euphoria (9) scores indicate limited speculative enthusiasm, while stable volatility (1.01x) rules out panic. The key question: *Is this herding a tactical rotation or a structural shift?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:42 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Lyft (LYFT) continues to attract attention after a period of mixed share performance, with the stock last closing at US$16.72. Investors are weighing this price against the company’s current fundamentals and recent return profile."
"Uber Stock Falls As Wall Street Sizes Up Tesla's Cybercab Rollout"
📈 13D 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
Charles Mackay — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for LYFT reflects deep methodological disagreements about valuation, growth, and risk. Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Peter Lynch’s high scores (88 and 87) suggest they see LYFT as either cyclically oversold or a high-growth stock where the price hasn’t yet reflected its potential, aligning with their emphasis on momentum and growth. Meanwhile, value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham (65) and the Enterprising Investor variant (31) dismiss it as either too speculative or not cheap enough, prioritizing margin of safety over growth. Technical traders like Jesse Livermore (44) and Jack Schwager (33) reject it outright, seeing it as either trending downward or lacking a clear setup, while cyclical analysts like Howard Marks (57) and Walter Bagehot (31) warn of overvaluation or liquidity risks. The contrast highlights whether LYFT is a speculative bet (for growth-focused investors) or a risky, overpriced play (for value and risk-averse strategists).
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 93
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 87
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 72
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 70
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 67
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 40
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 33
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 32
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 31
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
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 · 9 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
41.5%
Operating Margin
-3.0%
Net Margin
45.0%
EBITDA Margin
-0.8%
ROE
86.9%
ROA
31.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.92
Cash
$1.13B
Total Debt
$1.05B
Current Ratio
0.65
Debt/Equity
0.32
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$7.84
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.36
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 6 neutral, 8 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Lyft, Inc. (LYFT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
LYFT currently scores 48/100 (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.
LYFT's technical score is 23/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 11250.0%; Net income growth: 12382.5%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -3.0% (negative); ATR: 4.3% of price; Current ratio: 0.65.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LYFT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llewellyn Lindsay Catherine | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 13,204 | -13,204 | $16.64 |
| Lawee David | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 119,124 | -4,613 | $17.33 |
| Beggs Jill | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 46,238 | -2,307 | $17.34 |
| Hope Stephen W. | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 299,974 | -5,982 | $17.34 |
| Lawee David | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 4,613 | -4,613 | $17.33 |
| Beggs Jill | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 2,307 | -2,307 | $17.34 |
| Hope Stephen W. | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 5,982 | -5,982 | $17.34 |
| Whiteside Janey | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 60,704 | -5,480 | $17.68 |
| Whiteside Janey | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 5,480 | -5,480 | $17.68 |
| Brewer Erin | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 852,303 | -15,000 | $17.63 |
| Brewer Erin | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | $17.63 |
| Brewer Erin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 1,018,465 | -186,735 | $17.43 |
| Brewer Erin | Gift | 20.8.2026 | 857,141 | -161,324 | — |
| Hope Stephen W. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 305,956 | -29,507 | $17.43 |
| Llewellyn Lindsay Catherine | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 794,356 | -23,161 | $17.43 |
| Brewer Erin | Gift | 20.8.2026 | 867,303 | +161,324 | — |
| Brewer Erin | Gift | 20.8.2026 | 161,324 | +161,324 | — |
| Llewellyn Lindsay Catherine | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 23,161 | -23,161 | $17.43 |
| Hope Stephen W. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 29,507 | -29,507 | $17.43 |
| Brewer Erin | Gift | 20.8.2026 | 161,324 | -161,324 | — |
| Brewer Erin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 186,735 | -186,735 | $17.43 |
| Whiteside Janey | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 14,220 | -14,220 | $17.00 |
| Whiteside Janey | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 66,184 | -14,220 | $17.00 |
| Llewellyn Lindsay Catherine | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 36,214 | -36,214 | $16.14 |
| Llewellyn Lindsay Catherine | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 817,517 | -36,214 | $16.14 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
68,547,399 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 76,720,374 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 66.4% 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