Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$305.73
▲ $3.19 (+1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 08:52 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$68.81B
Day Range
$302.16 - $305.77
52-Week Range
$253.54 - $358.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
Support
$300.00
Resistance
$340.20
HLT is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+14.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 2/27 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
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $163.15 vs. price $305.73 (-46.6%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
90/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
92/100
Analog Quality
+7.0%
Median 40D Outcome
74/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+3.2% … +7.3%
🟡 Base
27%
-0.7% … -0.3%
🔴 Bearish
7%
-4.6% … -4.6%
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, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.1%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.3% | +0.4% … +3.0% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +4.9% | +0.8% … +5.8% | +1.1% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.1% | -0.1% … +5.5% | +2.0% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +7.0% | -0.2% … +9.3% | +4.1% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +8.0% | +0.0% … +12.2% | +5.7% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-08-15 | 90/100 | Downtrend | +3.6% | -5.5% |
| 2018-10-17 | 82/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -4.6% | -2.7% |
| 2025-04-02 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +1.2% | +15.1% |
| 2024-08-13 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +3.1% | +20.1% |
| 2025-10-03 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -0.6% | +12.4% |
| 2026-03-20 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +17.2% | +19.7% |
| 2018-08-01 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -0.5% | -14.0% |
| 2023-05-31 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +5.7% | +8.0% |
| 2017-07-12 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -0.9% | +12.0% |
| 2018-09-05 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +1.1% | +1.0% |
| 2023-03-30 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +4.8% | +2.8% |
| 2024-05-03 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +0.3% | +8.7% |
| 2025-08-11 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +5.3% | -0.9% |
| 2024-05-30 | 73/100 | Consolidation | +11.0% | +9.5% |
| 2026-05-12 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +7.9% | +1.3% |
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 XLY (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
41
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
42
Quality
58
Value
33
Momentum
9
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
48
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING HLT...
Recent media coverage of Hilton Worldwide has highlighted its strong financial performance and market position. Analysts note its outperformance in the leisure and entertainment sector, resilient earnings, and robust growth in revenue per available room (RevPAR) and unit expansion. The company is praised for its asset-light growth strategy and is identified as a key player in Asia’s rapidly growing tourism market. While some valuation concerns exist, Hilton’s long-term stock returns—including a 165% gain over five years—remain a focal point for investors.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Hilton Worldwide. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
75
Fundamentals
48
Technical
9
Valuation
33
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
74
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s fixation on anchoring (score 99) suggests traders are treating this stock’s support level as a rigid floor, ignoring broader weakness like negative momentum and muted volume. The narrative gap (27) implies investors are clinging to overly optimistic narratives (e.g., DCF valuation) despite conflicting technical signals. Overconfidence (45) and loss aversion (45) may reinforce this, as traders resist selling into perceived support. The key question: *Will traders break free from the support anchor if momentum worsens?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 11:26 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Hilton Worldwide Holdings (HLT) has outperformed the market over the past 10 years by 6.82% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 20.28%"
"Hilton Worldwide Holdings (HLT) as its asset-light growth story keeps fair value in focus"
"Hilton Worldwide Holdings has delivered very strong share price gains over the past five years... leaves existing shareholders sitting on... standard valuation checks lean cautious"
"resilient earnings, strong margins, RevPAR and unit growth"
📈 10D 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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological contrasts: Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score suggests it’s near a cyclical low, while Benjamin Graham’s zeroes indicate it fails even his most lenient valuation tests. Meanwhile, the 'buy-and-hold' advocates like Edgar Lawrence Smith and Charles Mackay see potential in its momentum or crowd-driven appeal, contrasting sharply with Jesse Livermore’s outright rejection of its trend or Walter Bagehot’s liquidity concerns. Philip Fisher and Peter Lynch’s low scores highlight the stock’s lack of growth or quality, while Howard Marks’ cautionary stance and Gerald Loeb’s moderate risk flag point to valuation or structural red flags. The divide between cyclical bulls (Nelson, Smith) and defensive bears (Graham, Bagehot) underscores whether this is a speculative bet or a fundamentally flawed opportunity.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 71
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
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)
🟢 70
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)
🟡 64
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 62
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 59
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)
🟡 43
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 42
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 37
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)
🔴 34
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 33
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 29
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 5
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
22.4%
Net Margin
12.1%
EBITDA Margin
23.8%
ROE
-27.0%
ROA
8.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.18
Cash
$918.00M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.66
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 21.8.2026 | $0.150 |
| 22.5.2026 | $0.150 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.150 |
| 27.2.2026 | $0.150 |
| 26.2.2026 | $0.150 |
| 21.11.2025 | $0.150 |
| 20.11.2025 | $0.150 |
| 29.8.2025 | $0.150 |
| 28.8.2025 | $0.150 |
| 23.5.2025 | $0.150 |
| 22.5.2025 | $0.150 |
| 21.2.2025 | $0.150 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$305.73
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$163.15
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-46.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
11.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.2% | $2.26B | $2.07B |
| 2 | 9.0% | $2.46B | $2.07B |
| 3 | 6.8% | $2.63B | $2.03B |
| 4 | 4.7% | $2.75B | $1.95B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.82B | $1.83B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.03B
Terminal Value
$44.44B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$28.88B
Enterprise Value
$38.83B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$38.83B
*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
-$22.64
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$45.87
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 9 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Barchart · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
Fintel · 2.9.2026
CNBC · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Hilton Worldwide (HLT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 41/100, 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.
HLT currently scores 41/100 (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, HLT's estimated fair value is $163.15, which is 46.6% below the current price of $305.73. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HLT's technical score is 9/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Operating margin: 22.4% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $163.15 vs. price $305.73 (-46.6%); Current ratio: 0.66; Return on equity (ROE): -27.0% (negative).
Yes — HLT 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charnaux Christian H. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 1,854 | -1,854 | $324.56 |
| Charnaux Christian H. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 16,435 | -1,854 | $324.56 |
| STEENLAND DOUGLAS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 8.904 | +8.904 | — |
| MAYER MARISSA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 0.81 | +0.81 | — |
| Mabus Raymond E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 5.413 | +5.413 | — |
| SMITH ELIZABETH A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 8.446 | +8.446 | — |
| Carr Chris | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 2.785 | +2.785 | — |
| GRAY JONATHAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 4.212 | +4.212 | — |
| BEGLEY CHARLENE T | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 5.855 | +5.855 | — |
| Healey Melanie | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 6.13 | +6.13 | — |
| GRAY JONATHAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 9,294 | +4 | — |
| SMITH ELIZABETH A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 23,325 | +8 | — |
| BEGLEY CHARLENE T | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 15,445 | +6 | — |
| STEENLAND DOUGLAS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 29,176 | +9 | — |
| Mabus Raymond E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 15,223 | +5 | — |
| Healey Melanie | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 16,678 | +6 | — |
| MAYER MARISSA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 1,788 | +1 | — |
| Carr Chris | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 8,691 | +3 | — |
| MAYER MARISSA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 742 | +742 | — |
| SMITH ELIZABETH A | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 742 | +742 | — |
| Healey Melanie | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 742 | +742 | — |
| Mabus Raymond E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 742 | +742 | — |
| GRAY JONATHAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 742 | +742 | — |
| STEENLAND DOUGLAS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 742 | +742 | — |
| GRAY JONATHAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 9,290 | +742 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,111,967 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,564,321 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
37.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 34.5% 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