Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$361.04
▼ $1.15 (-0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/17 04:11 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$12.56B
Day Range
$359.11 - $368.09
52-Week Range
$350.22 - $587.27
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
LII is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-34.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/33 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
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $290.64 vs. price $361.04 (-19.5%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
79/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
88/100
Analog Quality
+2.1%
Median 40D Outcome
47/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
53%
+3.1% … +16.4%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.3% … +0.3%
🔴 Bearish
40%
-9.4% … -3.8%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 53% (95% CI 30%–75%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.2%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
2 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
1 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 | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.9% | +0.1% … +5.4% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.3% | -2.5% … +5.7% | +0.5% |
| 20D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -4.7% … +10.0% | +1.4% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.1% | -7.8% … +9.6% | +2.6% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +2.3% | -11.7% … +21.3% | +3.7% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-02-22 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +9.4% | -19.6% |
| 2025-09-23 | 72/100 | Downtrend | +3.5% | -8.1% |
| 2022-02-04 | 71/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -2.9% | -19.2% |
| 2022-05-23 | 70/100 | Downtrend | -8.1% | +30.3% |
| 2022-06-21 | 68/100 | Downtrend | +18.2% | +33.8% |
| 2025-11-19 | 67/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +10.7% | +24.1% |
| 2022-04-28 | 67/100 | Downtrend | -6.5% | +0.6% |
| 2022-01-14 | 66/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -9.8% | -16.7% |
| 2026-04-02 | 66/100 | Downtrend | +15.8% | +26.0% |
| 2019-09-17 | 66/100 | Downtrend | +2.0% | +8.8% |
| 2022-04-13 | 65/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -11.8% | -12.5% |
| 2025-10-29 | 65/100 | Downtrend | +1.2% | +2.3% |
| 2025-09-02 | 65/100 | Downtrend | -2.6% | -10.9% |
| 2026-03-18 | 64/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +0.3% | +7.1% |
| 2022-10-14 | 63/100 | Downtrend | +25.8% | +18.5% |
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 XLI (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
51
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
34
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
27
Risk
54
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
83
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING LII...
Recent media coverage of Lennox International highlights mixed investor sentiment, with analysts like Morgan Stanley warning of potential challenges ahead, including weaker residential HVAC volumes, elevated inventory levels, and softer demand heading into 2027. The firm also lowered its price target from $450 to $375 while maintaining an underweight rating. On a positive note, Lennox announced the opening of a new Florida training center to bolster its commercial HVAC workforce, signaling ongoing investments in technical expertise and workforce development. Some financial screens, however, still view Lennox favorably for its strong revenue growth, high return on invested capital, and reliable cash flow.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lennox International. News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
63
Fundamentals
83
Technical
27
Valuation
38
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-32%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** (58) reflects a market behavior consistent with traders clinging to positions despite a prolonged drawdown, as evidenced by the 23.5% drop over three months. Herding (55) further suggests synchronized selling, likely driven by peer-group alignment rather than individual conviction. Overconfidence (30) hints at lingering optimism—despite weak momentum—due to the stock’s 33% premium to DCF, though this may be fading. The key open question is whether traders will break their reluctance to sell below support (3.7% away) or if the narrative gap (8) will widen, reinforcing selective bias. The absence of panic or FOMO signals stability in risk aversion.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 02:28 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Morgan Stanley analyst Betsy Graseck maintains Lennox International (NYSE:LII) with an Underweight and lowers the price target from $450 to $375"
"Lennox International may face weaker residential volumes, elevated inventories, softer demand"
"Lennox's ongoing investment in developing a highly skilled commercial HVAC workforce"
"Lennox International (LII) clears quality investing screen: strong revenue/EBIT growth, 32% ROIC, low debt, and reliable cash flow"
📈 6D 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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 22/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between cyclical and fundamental investors. The highest-scoring methodologies—Howard Marks (Market Cycle), Charles Mackay, and Samuel Nelson—all see it as a mid-cycle or oversold opportunity, suggesting it aligns with their principles of identifying favorable market phases or undervalued conditions. Meanwhile, disciplined traders like Jack Schwager and value-focused investors like Edgar Smith also find merit, though with varying degrees of conviction, emphasizing its potential as a structured or long-term hold. In contrast, strict fundamentalists like Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, and Peter Lynch dismiss it outright, citing failures in defensive metrics, growth quality, or valuation thresholds. The split reflects a core tension: cyclical and trend-following approaches see opportunity in relative positioning, while deep-value and growth investors demand stronger intrinsic justification.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 82
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)
🟢 81
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 69
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 66
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
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)
🟡 63
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 56
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 56
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 46
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
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 36
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
🔴 34
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 32
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
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 (2 bullish · 9 bearish · 1 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
33.4%
Operating Margin
20.0%
Net Margin
15.5%
EBITDA Margin
22.2%
ROE
69.3%
ROA
19.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$22.89
Cash
$34.20M
Total Debt
$18.30M
Current Ratio
1.60
Debt/Equity
0.02
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 30.6.2026 | $1.360 |
| 29.6.2026 | $1.360 |
| 31.3.2026 | $1.300 |
| 30.3.2026 | $1.300 |
| 31.12.2025 | $1.300 |
| 30.12.2025 | $1.300 |
| 30.9.2025 | $1.300 |
| 29.9.2025 | $1.300 |
| 30.6.2025 | $1.300 |
| 29.6.2025 | $1.300 |
| 30.4.2025 | $1.150 |
| 29.4.2025 | $1.150 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$361.04
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$290.64
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-19.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
3.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.4% | $660.23M | $605.72M |
| 2 | 3.1% | $680.97M | $573.16M |
| 3 | 2.9% | $700.91M | $541.23M |
| 4 | 2.7% | $719.93M | $510.02M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $737.93M | $479.60M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$638.80M
Terminal Value
$11.64B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$7.56B
Enterprise Value
$10.27B
Net Debt
$-15.90M
Equity Value
$10.29B
*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
$32.86
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$11.10
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 8 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Barrons.com · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
PR Newswire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
StockStory · 24.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
StockStory · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 15.8.2026
Lennox International (LII) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 51/100, 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.
LII currently scores 51/100 (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, LII's estimated fair value is $290.64, which is 19.5% below the current price of $361.04. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LII's technical score is 27/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 69.3% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $290.64 vs. price $361.04 (-19.5%); Calmar: -0.03 (3y annualized return -1.5% / max drawdown 46.8%); Revenue growth (last year): -2.7%.
Yes — LII 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 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NORRIS JOHN W III | Gift | 6.8.2026 | 8,988 | -8,988 | — |
| NORRIS JOHN W III | Gift | 6.8.2026 | 168,942 | -8,988 | — |
| NORRIS JOHN W III | Gift | 28.5.2026 | 990 | -990 | — |
| NORRIS JOHN W III | Gift | 28.5.2026 | 177,930 | -990 | — |
| Somasundaram Sivasankaran | Disposition to the Company | 26.5.2026 | 343 | -343 | — |
| Somasundaram Sivasankaran | Disposition to the Company | 26.5.2026 | 767 | -343 | — |
| Embree Tracy A | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| Somasundaram Sivasankaran | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| NORRIS JOHN W III | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| Wall Shane D | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| Vander Ark Jon | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| TESKE TODD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| Quintos Karen H | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| Buck Sherry | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| Somasundaram Sivasankaran | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 1,110 | +343 | — |
| NORRIS JOHN W III | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 178,920 | +343 | — |
| Embree Tracy A | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 343 | +343 | — |
| Wall Shane D | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 2,548 | +343 | — |
| Vander Ark Jon | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 617 | +343 | — |
| TESKE TODD J | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 7,224 | +343 | — |
| Quintos Karen H | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 7,253 | +343 | — |
| Buck Sherry | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.5.2026 | 2,306 | +343 | — |
| Kosel Chris | Open Market Sale | 6.5.2026 | 971 | -971 | $544.80 |
| Kosel Chris | Open Market Sale | 6.5.2026 | 1,090 | -971 | $544.80 |
| Somasundaram Sivasankaran | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.4.2026 | 51 | +51 | $505.31 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,898,783 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,915,159 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
72.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.1% 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