Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$11.89
▲ $0.20 (+1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/19 08:09 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$1.25B
Day Range
$11.51 - $12.11
52-Week Range
$7.56 - $20.40
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$10.41
Resistance
$13.28
HLF is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+28.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/32 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $19.60 vs. price $11.89 (+64.9%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
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
54
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
48
Quality
47
Value
67
Momentum
46
Risk
40
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
50
Institutional
20
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 **Herbalife Ltd.** has primarily focused on its **$250 million stock buyback program**, announced in mid-September 2026, signaling investor confidence. Additionally, the company’s stock experienced **volatility**, with headlines noting a **sharp decline** in late August 2026 amid broader consumer stock weakness. Analysts have also debated whether Herbalife’s shares are **undervalued**, though broader market trends and macroeconomic factors (like rising interest rates) appear to influence its performance.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Herbalife Ltd. Common. News trend score: 86. Reason: 7 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
13
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
14
Fundamentals
50
Technical
46
Valuation
67
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.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-0%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+13
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests **FOMO** dominates, fueled by recent momentum (+2.9% ROC) and elevated volume (1.14x avg), despite neutral RSI (53) and modest sentiment (68/100). The narrative-reality gap (5 points) hints at selective optimism, as traders may overlook valuation (-37% vs. DCF) or underperformers (-4.9% peer avg). Overconfidence (4) and panic (5) are secondary, reflecting mixed volatility (1.18x ATR) and divergence from fundamentals. The key question: *Will momentum sustain despite valuation disconnects?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:08 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""Herbalife (HLF) Stock Is Nosediving""
""Herbalife Chief Executive Stephan Gratziani to Step Down; Shares Down Pre-Bell""
📈 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
Benjamin Graham — 83/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies rooted in fundamental value and those skeptical of speculative or cyclical risks. Charles Mackay’s high score reflects his focus on avoiding crowd-driven mania, while Benjamin Graham’s defensive and enterprising approaches split—one seeing it as a solid bargain, the other noting it lacks the extreme undervaluation of his 'net-net' standard. Howard Marks leans cautiously optimistic, balancing risk against cyclical positioning, whereas Morgan Housel’s moderate stance suggests it’s holdable but not a no-brainer. Conversely, Fisher, Livermore, and Lynch dismiss it outright, prioritizing growth quality, trend alignment, and reasonable valuation—all of which this stock fails to meet. Meanwhile, the most bearish voices—from Loeb’s risk aversion to Schwager’s trading discipline—see it as a red flag, while Veblen’s low score hints at a speculative bubble dynamic. The contrast underscores a tension between value investors who tolerate modest risk and those who demand ironclad fundamentals or trend integrity.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 83
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 78
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
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 67
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 62
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 39
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 38
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)
🔴 34
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 30
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 22
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)
🔴 19
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 17
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 5 bearish · 2 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
77.9%
Operating Margin
9.5%
Net Margin
4.5%
EBITDA Margin
12.0%
ROE
-44.3%
ROA
8.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.22
Cash
$353.10M
Total Debt
$1.99B
Current Ratio
1.13
Debt/Equity
-3.87
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$11.89
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$19.60
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+64.9%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-1.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1.1% | $250.20M | $229.54M |
| 2 | -0.2% | $249.75M | $210.21M |
| 3 | 0.7% | $251.54M | $194.23M |
| 4 | 1.6% | $255.58M | $181.06M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $261.97M | $170.26M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$252.90M
Terminal Value
$4.13B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.68B
Enterprise Value
$3.67B
Net Debt
$1.64B
Equity Value
$2.03B
*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
-$4.97
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$8.98
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 12 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
StockStory · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Business Wire · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
StockStory · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
ChartMill · 1.9.2026
MT Newswires · 31.8.2026
Herbalife Ltd. Common (HLF) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
HLF currently scores 54/100 (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, HLF's estimated fair value is $19.60, which is 64.9% above the current price of $11.89. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HLF's technical score is 46/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $19.60 vs. price $11.89 (+64.9%); SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Free cash flow growth: 54.8%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 4.8% of price; Calmar: -0.10 (3y annualized return -6.5% / max drawdown 66.8%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for HLF.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lamberti Frank | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 1,710 | -1,710 | $12.80 |
| Lamberti Frank | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.8.2026 | 34,914 | -1,710 | $12.80 |
| L'Helias Sophie | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 1,200 | +1,200 | $11.31 |
| L'Helias Sophie | Open Market Purchase | 4.6.2026 | 79,882 | +1,200 | $11.31 |
| Hicks Troy | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $12.32 |
| Hicks Troy | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 9,706 | -10,000 | $12.32 |
| Hicks Troy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.5.2026 | 65,789 | -65,789 | — |
| Hicks Troy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 14,562 | -14,562 | $12.59 |
| Hicks Troy | Open Market Sale | 18.5.2026 | 38,377 | -38,377 | $12.93 |
| Hicks Troy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 58,064 | -58,064 | $12.59 |
| Hicks Troy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.5.2026 | 65,789 | +65,789 | $9.58 |
| Hicks Troy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.5.2026 | 17,481 | -17,481 | — |
| Hicks Troy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.5.2026 | 17,481 | +17,481 | $8.31 |
| Hicks Troy | Open Market Sale | 18.5.2026 | 9,062 | -38,377 | $12.93 |
| Hicks Troy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.5.2026 | 26,543 | +17,481 | $8.31 |
| Hicks Troy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 11,981 | -14,562 | $12.59 |
| Hicks Troy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.5.2026 | 77,770 | +65,789 | $9.58 |
| Hicks Troy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 19,706 | -58,064 | $12.59 |
| Hicks Troy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.5.2026 | 34,964 | -17,481 | — |
| Hicks Troy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 18.5.2026 | 32,895 | -65,789 | — |
| Lamberti Frank | Open Market Sale | 12.5.2026 | 134,982 | -134,982 | $13.50 |
| Lamberti Frank | Open Market Sale | 12.5.2026 | 36,624 | -134,982 | $13.50 |
| Lamberti Frank | Open Market Sale | 11.5.2026 | 7,937 | -7,937 | $13.86 |
| Lamberti Frank | Open Market Sale | 11.5.2026 | 171,606 | -7,937 | $13.86 |
| Miller Perkins | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.5.2026 | 13,626 | +13,626 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,723,133 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,075,137 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
65.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.2% 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