Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Real Estate · ·
$60.22
▼ $1.32 (-2.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 01:37 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$3.60B
Day Range
$60.09 - $61.55
52-Week Range
$60.09 - $91.07
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$60.09
Resistance
$73.75
HHH is a stock from the Real Estate sector — REITs and real-estate companies — highly sensitive to interest rates and property prices.
-28.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/28 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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $82.21 vs. price $60.22 (+36.5%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.18 (3y annualized return -5.9% / max drawdown 33.0%)
Risk
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
47
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
37
Quality
58
Value
67
Momentum
13
Risk
42
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
53
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 **Howard Hughes Holdings Inc.** (HHH) has primarily focused on its subsidiary **Vantage**, particularly its strategic acquisitions and leadership changes, such as the appointments of **Lucy Fato as General Counsel** and **Yves Charbonneau as Chief Risk Officer**. Analysts have also discussed HHH’s **shelf filing** and Vantage’s growth potential, alongside broader speculation about the company’s capital allocation and financial restructuring. While some commentary ties HHH to broader market trends, the focus remains on Vantage’s role in reshaping HHH’s expansion narrative.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Howard Hughes Holdings Inc.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 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
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
96
Fundamentals
53
Technical
13
Valuation
67
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 1.6% support level, likely due to its proximity. While sentiment remains positive (92/100), technicals (negative ROC, below 200-day average) and valuation (-22% vs DCF) indicate caution. The narrative gap (2 points) hints at a slight disconnect between perceived and actual fundamentals. The key question is whether traders will hold or adjust positions if support breaks, given the lack of panic or euphoria signals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:07 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Howard Hughes Holdings’ (HHH) Vantage acquisition sets the stage for compound growth (Insider Monkey)"
"HHH’s shelf filing and Vantage-fueled earnings beat reshape capital allocation narrative (Simply Wall St.)"
"Howard Hughes is transforming into an insurance-focused holding company following its acquisition of Vantage (SeekingAlpha)"
📈 9D 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 — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 19/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing potential while others flag it as risky or unattractive. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests a favorable cycle position, positioning it closer to oversold territory, but most value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher dismiss it outright—Graham’s defensive criteria and Fisher’s growth-quality standards aren’t met. Meanwhile, behavioral economists like Charles Mackay and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) offer cautious optimism, noting no obvious crowd mania or mid-cycle positioning, while efficiency advocates like Malkiel/Bogle and Lynch question whether the stock’s merits justify active selection over passive strategies. At the other end, ultra-critical voices like Veblen and Livermore reject it entirely—Veblen sees reckless growth chasing, and Livermore’s trend-following rule is violated, while Smith and Bagehot lack sufficient data or stability to justify a long-term or balance-sheet-based hold.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 80
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 75
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 67
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)
🟡 59
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 49
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 46
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 42
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 41
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 24
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 23
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 19
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)
🔴 11
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
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 (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
22.5%
Net Margin
8.4%
EBITDA Margin
34.9%
ROE
3.3%
ROA
1.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.22
Cash
$1.47B
Total Debt
$5.11B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
1.35
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$60.22
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$82.21
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+36.5%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
12.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.6% | $470.38M | $431.54M |
| 2 | 10.1% | $517.89M | $435.90M |
| 3 | 7.6% | $557.08M | $430.17M |
| 4 | 5.0% | $585.12M | $414.52M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $599.75M | $389.80M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$417.61M
Terminal Value
$9.46B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$6.15B
Enterprise Value
$8.25B
Net Debt
$3.64B
Equity Value
$4.61B
*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
$67.36
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$67.32
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 8.9.2026
PR Newswire · 20.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 20.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 19.8.2026
StockStory · 18.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 17.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.8.2026
StockStory · 15.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
Exec Edge · 12.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 11.8.2026
MarketBeat · 8.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 6.8.2026
CNW Group · 6.8.2026
Howard Hughes Holdings Inc. (HHH) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
HHH currently scores 47/100 (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, HHH's estimated fair value is $82.21, which is 36.5% above the current price of $60.22. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HHH'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: Estimated fair value: $82.21 vs. price $60.22 (+36.5%); Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Operating margin: 22.5% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.18 (3y annualized return -5.9% / max drawdown 33.0%); Revenue growth (last year): -15.8%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -44.2%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for HHH.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tighe Mary Ann | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 13,495 | -13,495 | $67.25 |
| Tighe Mary Ann | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 0 | -13,495 | $67.25 |
| GRANDISSON MARC | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.7.2026 | 68,653 | +68,653 | — |
| GRANDISSON MARC | Grant/Award from Employer | 15.7.2026 | 71,943 | +68,653 | — |
| Williams Anthony | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 2,169 | +2,169 | — |
| GRANDISSON MARC | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 3,290 | +3,290 | — |
| Wautier Jean-Baptiste Robert Bernard | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 2,169 | +2,169 | — |
| Lachman Thomas Cecil | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 3,290 | +3,290 | — |
| SELLERS R SCOT | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 4,038 | +4,038 | — |
| Tighe Mary Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 3,290 | +3,290 | — |
| PANUCCIO SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 3,290 | +3,290 | — |
| Eun David | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 3,290 | +3,290 | — |
| SELLERS R SCOT | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 71,555 | +4,038 | — |
| GRANDISSON MARC | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 3,290 | +3,290 | — |
| Williams Anthony | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 10,271 | +2,169 | — |
| Tighe Mary Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 37,371 | +3,290 | — |
| PANUCCIO SUSAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 5,754 | +3,290 | — |
| Eun David | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 9,720 | +3,290 | — |
| Lachman Thomas Cecil | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 5,754 | +3,290 | — |
| Wautier Jean-Baptiste Robert Bernard | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.6.2026 | 4,263 | +2,169 | — |
| Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 140,000 | +140,000 | $7,142.86 |
| ACKMAN WILLIAM A | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 140,000 | +140,000 | $7,142.86 |
| Carman James | Open Market Sale | 15.5.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | $64.20 |
| Carman James | Open Market Sale | 15.5.2026 | 22,096 | -1,500 | $64.20 |
| Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. | Other Transaction | 21.4.2026 | 341,033 | +341,033 | $65.86 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,544,116 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,818,424 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.0% 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