Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$11.77
▼ $0.52 (-4.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:16 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$5.26B
Day Range
$11.71 - $12.15
52-Week Range
$9.58 - $67.70
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$11.62
Resistance
$23.68
ALIT is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-82.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 2/32 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 90.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $3.93 vs. price $11.77 (-66.6%)
Fair Value
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
34
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 · $11.96
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 7 to 40 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
40
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
23
Risk
28
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
19
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Alight, Inc. has centered on its strategic expansions and financial performance. The company has appointed key executives, including Bruce E. Wolfe as Senior Vice President for Wealth Solutions and three leaders in leaves and consultant partnerships, signaling growth in specialized services. Alight also expanded its Partner Network by adding Spring Health, aiming to improve mental health care access for over 30 million people. Analysts examined its Q2 earnings, noting both a beat in profits and concerns about a shrinking core business, while comparing it to peers in HR and staffing solutions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Alight, Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 4 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
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
29
Psychology
75
Fundamentals
19
Technical
23
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
+3%
Market Narrative
52
Fundamental Reality
29
Narrative Gap
+23
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence (83) reflects a disconnect between ALIT’s momentum (+8.4% ROC) and deteriorating fundamentals (EPS down -19.2%). Confirmation bias (61) and euphoria (31) amplify this, as traders prioritize narrative (76) over reality (29), ignoring stagnant revenue and shrinking margins. FOMO (30) and herding (36) suggest partial participation, but the extreme valuation (+280% above DCF) is the clearest signal of detached optimism. The key question: will traders remain anchored to momentum or reassess fundamentals as the narrative gap widens?
Updated: 09/06/2026, 05:37 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Alight appoints Bruce E. Wolfe as Senior Vice President, Wealth Solution Leader (Article 1) / Alight Expands Expertise Across Leaves and Consultant Partnerships With Appointment of Three Seasoned Executives (Article 8)"
"Spring Health Joins the Alight Partner Network to Close the Gap Between Mental Health Benefits and Mental Health Care, Reaching More Than 30 Million People (Article 4)"
"Alight beats Q2 earnings but issues soft guidance, sending shares down 11% in after-hours trading (Article 12) / Alight’s (ALIT) Earnings Beat Hides A Shrinking Core (Article 7)"
"5 Revealing Analyst Questions From Alight’s Q2 Earnings Call (Article 6) / Alight’s (ALIT) Earnings Beat Hides A Shrinking Core (Article 7)"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 6D 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 — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 4/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for ALIT reflects deep methodological disagreements about risk, timing, and valuation. Howard Marks’ *Market Cycle* approach sees early-to-mid cycle potential (71), while his *core valuation* framework (31) flags red flags, illustrating how even the same investor’s principles can clash depending on focus. Meanwhile, Fisher (33) and Lynch (7) dismiss it for lacking growth quality or reasonable pricing, contrasting sharply with Mackay (65), who spots crowd-driven excitement—suggesting speculative momentum where others see instability. The lowest scores (Graham at 4, Loeb at 15) prioritize defensive metrics and capital preservation, while Livermore (36) and Nelson (28) warn of trend resistance or overbought conditions, highlighting how momentum and cycle-based thinkers differ from value or trend-following schools.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 77
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
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)
🟡 48
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 34
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 23
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 18
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 15
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 7
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 4
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 283 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.
High 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
33.8%
Operating Margin
-136.6%
Net Margin
-136.9%
EBITDA Margin
-123.5%
ROE
-296.6%
ROA
-67.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$5.87
Cash
$273.00M
Total Debt
$2.00B
Current Ratio
1.31
Debt/Equity
1.92
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 1.12.2025 | $0.800 |
| 30.11.2025 | $0.800 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.800 |
| 1.9.2025 | $0.800 |
| 2.6.2025 | $0.800 |
| 1.6.2025 | $0.800 |
| 3.3.2025 | $0.800 |
| 2.3.2025 | $0.800 |
| 2.12.2024 | $0.800 |
| 1.12.2024 | $0.800 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$11.77
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$3.93
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-66.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
0.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.9% | $252.37M | $231.53M |
| 2 | 1.3% | $255.74M | $215.25M |
| 3 | 1.7% | $260.15M | $200.89M |
| 4 | 2.1% | $265.65M | $188.19M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $272.29M | $176.97M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$250.00M
Terminal Value
$4.29B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.79B
Enterprise Value
$3.80B
Net Debt
$1.73B
Equity Value
$2.07B
*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
$1.98
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$3.06
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 15 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
StockStory · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Motley Fool · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Business Wire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
StockStory · 1.9.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
StockStory · 20.8.2026
Business Wire · 18.8.2026
StockStory · 17.8.2026
StockStory · 13.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 12.8.2026
Business Wire · 12.8.2026
StockStory · 12.8.2026
Alight, Inc. (ALIT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 34/100, 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.
ALIT currently scores 34/100 (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, ALIT's estimated fair value is $3.93, which is 66.6% below the current price of $11.77. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ALIT'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: Free cash flow growth: 90.8%; +1.4% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $3.93 vs. price $11.77 (-66.6%); Operating margin: -136.6% (negative); Net margin: -136.9% (negative).
Yes — ALIT 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Felli Martin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.9.2026 | 244 | -244 | $14.89 |
| Dorsey Donna | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.8.2026 | 3,833 | -3,833 | $13.80 |
| Dorsey Donna | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 75,000 | +12,500 | — |
| Tulsiani Dinesh V | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 87,500 | +25,000 | — |
| Verma Rohit | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 430,000 | +80,000 | — |
| Lasher Stephen Andrew | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 87,500 | +87,500 | — |
| Baweja Naveen | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 75,000 | +12,500 | — |
| Felli Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 75,000 | +12,500 | — |
| Baweja Naveen | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 12,500 | +12,500 | — |
| Dorsey Donna | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 12,500 | +12,500 | — |
| Felli Martin | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 12,500 | +12,500 | — |
| Verma Rohit | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 80,000 | +80,000 | — |
| Lasher Stephen Andrew | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 87,500 | +87,500 | — |
| Tulsiani Dinesh V | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Rajgopal Kausik | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 20,284 | +14,025 | — |
| SCHRIESHEIM ROBERT A | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 19,481 | +14,025 | — |
| FRADIN RUSSELL P | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 39,839 | +21,037 | — |
| Massey Richard N | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 96,016 | +14,025 | — |
| Rushing Coretha M | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 20,344 | +14,025 | — |
| Lopes Robert A. Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 22,292 | +14,025 | — |
| Nolan Mangini Siobhan | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 17,153 | +14,025 | — |
| Williams Lenore D | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 24,874 | +14,025 | — |
| FOLEY WILLIAM P II | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 64,670 | +14,025 | — |
| Hayes Michael E | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 16,261 | +14,025 | — |
| FRADIN RUSSELL P | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 21,037 | +21,037 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
891,238 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 822,546 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.7% 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