Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$320.71
▼ $2.02 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/21 02:37 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$26.01B
Day Range
$319.38 - $322.68
52-Week Range
$244.52 - $341.80
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$262.11
Resistance
$341.80
LH 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.
+15.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/31 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $183.09 vs. price $320.71 (-42.9%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (67/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
+3.3%
Median 40D Outcome
71/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+5.5% … +8.4%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.4% … -0.4%
🔴 Bearish
53%
-5.0% … -2.1%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -1.1%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
2 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
3 occurrence(s) · 0% 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.3% | -1.6% … +1.9% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 33% (15%–58%) | +0.5% | -3.5% … +1.6% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -1.1% | -3.7% … +5.5% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.3% | -4.7% … +9.9% | +1.9% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +2.0% | +1.1% … +10.3% | +2.9% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-02-13 | 82/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +2.0% | +1.7% |
| 2021-03-17 | 81/100 | Uptrend | +8.6% | +8.3% |
| 2024-09-19 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -4.2% | +3.3% |
| 2024-12-26 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +7.6% | +1.0% |
| 2020-12-09 | 81/100 | Consolidation | +5.5% | +18.2% |
| 2019-10-04 | 81/100 | Consolidation | -0.4% | +1.2% |
| 2021-06-07 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +5.5% | +14.9% |
| 2020-08-13 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -4.8% | +12.2% |
| 2024-03-04 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -3.3% | -12.1% |
| 2026-03-26 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -1.7% | -3.6% |
| 2025-07-23 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +11.0% | +13.3% |
| 2025-10-08 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -9.7% | -8.8% |
| 2024-12-10 | 77/100 | Uptrend | -1.1% | +2.0% |
| 2025-02-12 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -2.3% | +1.9% |
| 2026-04-22 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -5.6% | +3.2% |
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 XLV (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
55
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
67
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
49
Risk
50
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
52
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING LH...
Recent media coverage of Labcorp has primarily focused on strategic growth and technological advancements. The company made headlines in September 2026 for acquiring **MLM Medical Labs**, expanding its global central laboratory and biomarker capabilities for clinical trials. Additionally, Labcorp introduced an upgraded **Labcorp Global Trial Connect™ platform**, enhancing digital tools for sponsors and investigator sites to streamline clinical trial processes. The company also confirmed its participation in the **Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference**, signaling investor engagement. Analysts adjusted Labcorp’s price target upward, reflecting positive market sentiment.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Labcorp. 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
37
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
52
Technical
49
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.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+25%
Market Narrative
74
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+38
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests traders are overconfident in LH’s valuation (+78% vs DCF) despite weak price momentum versus earnings growth. The narrative gap (67 vs 36) implies optimism exceeds tangible fundamentals, while anchoring near resistance hints at reluctance to accept declines. Herding is muted, and euphoria persists despite negative short-term momentum. The key question is whether traders will adjust expectations as valuation diverges further from fundamentals.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 07:23 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Labcorp Holdings (LH) introduced the Elecsys pTau-217 blood test, the first FDA-cleared single biomarker test for Alzheimer’s disease"
"Labcorp announced enhancements to the digital experience of Labcorp Global Trial Connect™, the company's portfolio of clinical trial services"
"Labcorp Holdings Acquires MLM Medical Labs, Expanding Global Central Laboratory and Biomarker Capabilities for Clinical Trials"
"Argus Adjusts Price Target on Labcorp Holdings to $370 From $310, Keeps Buy Rating"
📈 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 — 63/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with scores ranging from a cautious optimism at **70** (Samuel Armstrong Nelson) to a resounding rejection at **13** (Benjamin Graham). Nelson’s high score reflects a technical or cyclical view—suggesting the stock may be near a favorable bottom—but contrasts sharply with Graham’s deep-value framework, which dismisses it outright for lacking margin of safety. Meanwhile, mid-tier thinkers like Housel and Smith offer lukewarm endorsements, framing it as ‘holdable’ or ‘reasonable’ but not compelling enough for aggressive bets. The split between trend-followers (Livermore’s negative verdict) and growth hunters (Fisher’s outright dismissal) further highlights whether the stock’s appeal lies in momentum, valuation, or fundamental quality—all of which the models weigh differently. Even the most permissive ‘Enterprising Investor’ (Graham) still flags it as too expensive, while the most disciplined (Schwager) sees no setup at all.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 63
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 60
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 56
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)
🟡 52
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 51
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 49
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 39
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)
🟡 38
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 25
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
🔴 19
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 13
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 (3 bullish · 5 bearish · 3 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
28.8%
Operating Margin
9.9%
Net Margin
6.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
10.2%
ROA
4.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$10.54
Cash
$532.30M
Total Debt
$5.58B
Current Ratio
1.42
Debt/Equity
0.66
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 28.8.2026 | $0.720 |
| 29.5.2026 | $0.720 |
| 28.5.2026 | $0.720 |
| 27.2.2026 | $0.720 |
| 26.2.2026 | $0.720 |
| 26.11.2025 | $0.720 |
| 25.11.2025 | $0.720 |
| 28.8.2025 | $0.720 |
| 27.8.2025 | $0.720 |
| 29.5.2025 | $0.720 |
| 28.5.2025 | $0.720 |
| 27.2.2025 | $0.720 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$320.71
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$183.09
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-42.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.6% | $1.27B | $1.17B |
| 2 | 4.8% | $1.33B | $1.12B |
| 3 | 4.0% | $1.39B | $1.07B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $1.43B | $1.02B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.47B | $955.08M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.21B
Terminal Value
$23.17B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$15.06B
Enterprise Value
$20.39B
Net Debt
$5.05B
Equity Value
$15.34B
*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
$104.86
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$61.12
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 9 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
StockStory · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
PR Newswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Labcorp (LH) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 55/100, 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.
LH currently scores 55/100 (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, LH's estimated fair value is $183.09, which is 42.9% below the current price of $320.71. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LH's technical score is 49/100, 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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; +23.4% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $183.09 vs. price $320.71 (-42.9%); Operating margin is eroding over time; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — LH 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 12 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caveney Brian J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 3,000 | +3,000 | — |
| Vaughn Bryan T | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 1,500 | +1,500 | — |
| Oyegunwa Akinbolade | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 750 | +750 | — |
| Meltzer Jonathan C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 900 | +900 | — |
| ANDERSON KERRII B | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $318.02 |
| Schechter Adam H | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 4,669 | -4,669 | $320.37 |
| Schechter Adam H | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 102,565 | -4,669 | $320.37 |
| Summy Amy B. | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 924 | -924 | $306.74 |
| Summy Amy B. | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 6,956 | -924 | $306.74 |
| Wilkinson Peter J | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 82 | -82 | $309.22 |
| Wilkinson Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 1,338 | -1,338 | — |
| Wilkinson Peter J | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 1,338 | -1,338 | $309.23 |
| Wilkinson Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 1,338 | +1,338 | $209.25 |
| Wilkinson Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 3,108 | +1,338 | $209.25 |
| Wilkinson Peter J | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 1,770 | -1,338 | $309.23 |
| Wilkinson Peter J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 0 | -1,338 | — |
| Kyle Kathryn W | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 92 | -92 | $286.19 |
| Vaughn Bryan T | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 234 | -234 | $286.19 |
| Kyle Kathryn W | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 3,904 | -92 | $286.19 |
| Vaughn Bryan T | Open Market Sale | 2.7.2026 | 6,746 | -234 | $286.19 |
| Kyle Kathryn W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 256 | +256 | — |
| Vaughn Bryan T | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 93 | -93 | $283.88 |
| Kyle Kathryn W | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 73 | -73 | $283.88 |
| Vaughn Bryan T | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 327 | +327 | — |
| Kyle Kathryn W | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 256 | -256 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,103,302 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,094,544 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
62.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.0% 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