Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$29.30
▲ $0.22 (+0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/27 02:42 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/27/2026
News analyzed: 09/27/2026
Market Cap
$696.80M
Day Range
$28.47 - $29.42
52-Week Range
$18.29 - $31.34
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$25.26
Resistance
$31.34
LEGH is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+8.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 15/29 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 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: $15.51 vs. price $29.30 (-47.1%)
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
61
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $29.30
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 8 to 45 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
34
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
85
Risk
48
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
69
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 Legacy Housing Corporation has centered on its strong Q2 2026 financial performance, with earnings per share ($0.99) and revenue ($66.3 million) surpassing analyst estimates. Analysts highlighted its manufactured housing sector’s favorable macroeconomic drivers, including a 10.7x forward P/E ratio and a 57% valuation discount compared to peers. The company’s improving cash flow and operational efficiency were noted, though some analysts cautioned about valuation concerns. The focus remained on its growth potential amid industry tailwinds.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Legacy Housing Corporation. News trend score: 68. Reason: 4 of the last 11 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
43
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
56
Fundamentals
69
Technical
85
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+13%
Market Narrative
73
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+33
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
LEGH’s psychology is dominated by overconfidence, likely stemming from a disconnect between its extreme valuation (+83% above DCF) and modest fundamental growth. The confirmation bias (narrative gap +23 vs. deteriorating margins) suggests investors cherry-pick positive signals while ignoring weak fundamentals. Meanwhile, euphoria is muted by neutral momentum and RSI, while FOMO is absent due to low volume and negative ROC. The key question: *Will traders double down on overvaluation despite lagging fundamentals, or will deteriorating margins force a re-evaluation?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 12:41 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"reported quarterly earnings of $0.99 per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $0.65 by 52.31 percent"
"Strong Macro Drivers For Manufactured Homes"
"10.7x forward P/E at 57% peer discount"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides the historical methodologies sharply, with Walter Bagehot’s model standing alone at a perfect score, signaling near-unassailable liquidity and resilience in a credit crisis—an outlier among the pack. Meanwhile, the majority of approaches cluster in the mid-to-low 30s and 40s, reflecting skepticism about its fundamental strength or market positioning. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s moderate optimism contrasts with the outright rejection from Peter Lynch and Thorstein Veblen, who see either speculative momentum or unsustainable growth patterns. Benjamin Graham’s split verdict (55 vs. 57) underscores the stock’s ambiguity—somewhat discounted but not a clear bargain—while Howard Marks’ dual perspectives (36 for risk/valuation, 42 for cycle positioning) highlight its middling appeal. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s liquidity (Bagehot) or speculative edge (Nelson, Mackay) outweighs its volatility (Housel) or lack of stability (Smith, Lynch).
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
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)
🟡 61
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 55
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 46
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)
🟡 45
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 41
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 37
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 32
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 31
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 30
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 28
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 24
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)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 5
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 287 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 1 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 uptrend 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
48.5%
Operating Margin
29.4%
Net Margin
25.4%
EBITDA Margin
30.5%
ROE
7.9%
ROA
7.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.74
Cash
$8.48M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.51
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$29.30
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$15.51
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-47.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $26.74M | $24.54M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $25.91M | $21.81M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $25.58M | $19.76M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $25.74M | $18.24M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $26.39M | $17.15M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$28.15M
Terminal Value
$416.11M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$270.44M
Enterprise Value
$371.93M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$371.93M
*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
$22.04
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$21.72
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 6 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 11 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 31.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 31.8.2026
Moby · 6.8.2026
MarketBeat · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 5.8.2026
Benzinga · 5.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 5.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 4.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 31.7.2026
Zacks · 9.6.2026
Legacy Housing Corporation (LEGH) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 61/100, 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.
LEGH currently scores 61/100 (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, LEGH's estimated fair value is $15.51, which is 47.1% below the current price of $29.30. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LEGH's technical score is 85/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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; Current ratio: 3.51; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $15.51 vs. price $29.30 (-47.1%); Calmar: 0.41 (3y annualized return 14.4% / max drawdown 34.9%); Revenue growth (last year): -10.7%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LEGH.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 9 sales out of the last 20 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Langbert Jon | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.12.2025 | 25,189 | +25,189 | — |
| Langbert Jon | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.12.2025 | 25,189 | +25,189 | — |
| Howton Skyler Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.12.2025 | 869 | +479 | — |
| Stouder Jeffrey Kyle | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.12.2025 | 12,902 | +479 | — |
| Ferguson Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.12.2025 | 869 | +479 | — |
| Howton Skyler Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.12.2025 | 479 | +479 | — |
| Ferguson Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.12.2025 | 479 | +479 | — |
| Stouder Jeffrey Kyle | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.12.2025 | 479 | +479 | — |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 6.1.2025 | 10,468 | -10,468 | $23.65 |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 31.12.2024 | 8,116 | -8,116 | $24.62 |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 30.12.2024 | 9,184 | -9,184 | $24.53 |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 23.12.2024 | 17,300 | -17,300 | $24.49 |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 16.12.2024 | 17,300 | -17,300 | $25.20 |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 9.12.2024 | 17,300 | -17,300 | $25.42 |
| Howton Skyler Michelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.12.2024 | 390 | +390 | — |
| Ferguson Brian | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.12.2024 | 390 | +390 | — |
| Stouder Jeffrey Kyle | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.12.2024 | 390 | +390 | — |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 2.12.2024 | 17,300 | -17,300 | $25.96 |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 25.11.2024 | 17,300 | -17,300 | $26.53 |
| Hodgson Curtis Drew | Open Market Sale | 21.11.2024 | 6,000 | -6,000 | $25.60 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
797,431 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 771,325 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.5% 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