Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$0.29
▼ $0.05 (-13.9%)
Market data updated: 09/26 02:02 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$2.73M
Day Range
$0.25 - $0.34
52-Week Range
$0.25 - $12.53
Beta
—
Next Earnings
30.11.2026
Support
$0.25
Resistance
$3.06
LESL is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-95.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/32 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 58.1% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -13.7% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
38
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
26
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
16
Risk
46
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
43
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 Leslie’s, Inc. has focused on financial distress and declining performance. The company was downgraded to CCC- by S&P Global in late August, with a warning of a potential distressed exchange, as it explores strategic alternatives. Its stock plummeted 42.2% in August after reporting a weak third-quarter revenue drop of 8.4% and withdrawing full-year guidance, raising concerns about its ability to remain operational. The downturn reflects broader consumer discretionary sector struggles amid softer demand.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Leslie's, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
85
Fundamentals
43
Technical
16
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-97%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme loss aversion (score: 100) reflects a near-total focus on past declines (-87.6% in 3 months) and subdued trading activity (0.26x average volume). This suggests investors are prioritizing risk mitigation over potential recovery, despite modestly positive sentiment (74). The narrative gap (+6) and weak fundamentals (revenue/shrinking margins) may reinforce confirmation bias, but the dominant psychological state remains rooted in aversion to further losses. The key question is whether recent outperformance (+4.6% today) will shift focus away from loss aversion—or if it’s merely a fleeting rebound ignored by the broader risk-averse stance.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 02:04 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"S&P downgraded Leslie’s Inc. to CCC-, from CCC, retaining a negative outlook, after the company said it has ‘begun exploring strategic alternatives’ with certain stakeholders."
"Revenue for the quarter fell 8.4% year over year to $458.5 million, missing Wall Street estimates, as comparable sales declined 6.2%."
"flagged substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."
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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing strong potential while others flag significant risks. The highest-scoring approaches—Howard Marks’ *Market Cycle* (87) and Charles Mackay’s (86)—suggest the stock aligns with early-to-mid cycle dynamics and lacks crowd-driven mania, implying a disciplined, opportunistic fit. Samuel Armstrong Nelson (79) and Jack Schwager (76) further reinforce this, emphasizing favorable cycle positioning and disciplined reward/risk tradeoffs. However, the stark contrast emerges with Fisher (7), Lynch (22), and Veblen (36), who dismiss it outright for lacking growth quality, failing Lynch’s *GARP* criteria, or exhibiting speculative excess. Meanwhile, Graham’s split verdict (69 vs. 77) highlights valuation ambiguity, while Livermore (39) and the Efficient Market proponents (38) outright reject it as trend-defying or unselectable. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s cyclical or structural appeal outweighs its volatility or speculative traits—clearly a contentious call.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 87
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 86
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 77
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 69
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 69
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 46
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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)
🟡 36
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 35
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
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)
🔴 31
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 22
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 10 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.
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
35.4%
Operating Margin
-13.7%
Net Margin
-19.1%
EBITDA Margin
-11.3%
ROE
58.1%
ROA
-32.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$25.57
Cash
$64.34M
Total Debt
$752.05M
Current Ratio
1.57
Debt/Equity
-1.84
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$0.29
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$97.97
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
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% | $-15.84M | $-14.53M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-15.34M | $-12.91M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-15.15M | $-11.70M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-15.24M | $-10.80M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-15.62M | $-10.15M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-16.67M
Terminal Value
$-246.39M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-160.14M
Enterprise Value
$-220.23M
Net Debt
$687.72M
Equity Value
$-907.94M
*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
-$44.02
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$47.34
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 6 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 25.9.2026
Benzinga · 25.9.2026
ChartMill · 24.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Pitchbook · 26.8.2026
StockStory · 20.8.2026
Yahoo · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 19.8.2026
StockStory · 16.8.2026
Yahoo · 16.8.2026
StockStory · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
ChartMill · 13.8.2026
ChartMill · 13.8.2026
ChartMill · 13.8.2026
Leslie's, Inc. (LESL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 38/100, 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.
LESL currently scores 38/100 (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.
LESL's technical score is 16/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 58.1% — strong; Debt/equity: -1.84; Current ratio: 1.57.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -13.7% (negative); Net margin: -19.1% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LESL.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McDonell Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.9.2026 | 9,536 | +4,957 | — |
| McDonell Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.9.2026 | 56,362 | -4,957 | — |
| McDonell Jason | Tax Withholding in Shares | 9.9.2026 | 8,170 | -1,366 | $0.54 |
| McDonell Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.9.2026 | 4,957 | +4,957 | — |
| McDonell Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.9.2026 | 4,957 | -4,957 | — |
| McDonell Jason | Tax Withholding in Shares | 9.9.2026 | 1,366 | -1,366 | $0.54 |
| Cramer Naomi | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.8.2026 | 255 | -255 | $0.61 |
| Cramer Naomi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | — |
| Cramer Naomi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| Lindquist Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| Lindquist Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | — |
| Lindquist Benjamin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.8.2026 | 280 | -280 | $0.61 |
| Cramer Naomi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 10,378 | +1,000 | — |
| Lindquist Benjamin | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.8.2026 | 2,419 | -280 | $0.61 |
| Lindquist Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 7,434 | -1,000 | — |
| Cramer Naomi | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 24,854 | -1,000 | — |
| Lindquist Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 26.8.2026 | 2,699 | +1,000 | — |
| Cramer Naomi | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.8.2026 | 10,123 | -255 | $0.61 |
| College Amy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 5,095 | +5,095 | — |
| College Amy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 5,095 | -5,095 | — |
| College Amy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.8.2026 | 1,515 | -1,515 | $0.77 |
| College Amy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 5,095 | +5,095 | — |
| College Amy | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 14.8.2026 | 19,103 | -5,095 | — |
| College Amy | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.8.2026 | 3,580 | -1,515 | $0.77 |
| Lindquist Benjamin | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.5.2026 | 171 | -171 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,756,651 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 1,843,888 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.8% 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