Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Telecommunications · ·
$8.41
▼ $0.12 (-1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/19 03:47 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$8.29 - $8.51
52-Week Range
$4.58 - $8.95
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$6.97
Resistance
$8.95
+51.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/29 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
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
Net margin
Net margin: -13.8% (negative)
Fundamental
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
50
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
54
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
49
Risk
36
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
32
Institutional
91
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 **Liberty Latin America Ltd.** has centered on significant insider share purchases, including a $10 million acquisition by Director De Angoitia and a $9.98 million buy by billionaire John Malone, who expanded his stake amid a 72% stock surge over the past year. Analysts have also debated whether the stock—down 39% over five years—is undervalued, given recent price gains and shifting investor sentiment. The company’s valuation and long-term performance remain key discussion points.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Liberty Latin America Ltd.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 10 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)
41
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
32
Technical
49
Valuation
50
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+75%
Market Narrative
54
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+13
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
LILA’s psychology is dominated by **anchoring** (52), where traders appear fixated on the 2.4% gap below resistance, despite euphoric momentum (+6.4% ROC) and extreme narrative optimism (98/100 sentiment). The **confirmation bias** (39) and **overconfidence** (16) further amplify focus on upside narratives, ignoring stagnant fundamentals. The **FOMO** (32) signal hints at late-stage participation, but the absence of panic or herding suggests discipline remains. The key question: *Will traders break free from resistance anchors, or will the narrative gap widen further?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:39 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Director Emeritus purchased shares through a charitable trust as stock surged 72% over 12 months"
"Liberty Latin America shareholders have seen the stock decline about 39% over 5 years"
"investors are weighing this level against the company’s latest financial profile"
"Liberty Latin America Shares Down After Morgan Stanley Downgrade"
📈 13D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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 — 87/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 3/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits historical methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: a small group of investors who see potential in its growth or market efficiency, while the vast majority flag it as a high-risk or speculative play. Thorstein Veblen and the efficient-market proponents (Malkiel/Bogle) both score relatively high, with Veblen’s model estimating the stock’s growth aligns with real value creation, while the efficient-market approach justifies a deviation from broad indices. In contrast, the majority—from Graham and Marks to Schwager and Mackay—pile on warnings, with scores as low as 3, citing excessive risk, overvaluation, or speculative bubbles. Even Peter Lynch and Fisher, who prioritize growth, dismiss it outright, while cycle-focused thinkers like Marks and Nelson see it as late-stage or overbought. The divide suggests a rare case where a few methodologies detect underlying fundamentals or market logic, while the rest treat it as a speculative trap.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 87
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 74
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
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)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 49
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)
🟡 44
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 42
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)
🔴 32
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)
🔴 29
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 28
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 27
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)
🔴 23
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 22
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 21
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 16
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 15
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: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 3
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 6 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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low 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
78.0%
Operating Margin
2.4%
Net Margin
-13.8%
EBITDA Margin
22.8%
ROE
-110.0%
ROA
-5.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.06
Cash
$783.90M
Total Debt
$8.27B
Current Ratio
1.14
Debt/Equity
14.89
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$2.78
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$14.10
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 5 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.9.2026
Motley Fool · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Motley Fool · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
PR Newswire · 25.8.2026
Motley Fool · 20.8.2026
MT Newswires · 20.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Motley Fool · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Liberty Latin America Ltd. (LILA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
LILA currently scores 50/100 (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.
LILA'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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -13.8% (negative); Calmar: 0.25 (3y annualized return 14.4% / max drawdown 57.1%); Return on equity (ROE): -110.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LILA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 20 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DE ANGOITIA ALFONSO | Open Market Purchase | 2.9.2026 | 313,104 | +313,104 | $20.95 |
| DE ANGOITIA ALFONSO | Open Market Purchase | 1.9.2026 | 17,596 | +17,596 | $20.65 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 1.9.2026 | 69,454 | +69,454 | $8.50 |
| DE ANGOITIA ALFONSO | Open Market Purchase | 31.8.2026 | 145,490 | +145,490 | $21.00 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 28.8.2026 | 51,832 | +51,832 | $8.48 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 14.8.2026 | 6,761 | +6,761 | $8.50 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 178,524 | +28,219 | $8.50 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 28,219 | +28,219 | $8.50 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 11.8.2026 | 150,305 | +22,477 | $8.50 |
| BRACKEN CHARLES H R | Open Market Purchase | 11.8.2026 | 41,192 | +17,425 | $20.93 |
| BRACKEN CHARLES H R | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 0 | -42,975 | $8.57 |
| BRACKEN CHARLES H R | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 42,975 | -42,975 | $8.57 |
| BRACKEN CHARLES H R | Open Market Purchase | 11.8.2026 | 17,425 | +17,425 | $20.93 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 11.8.2026 | 22,477 | +22,477 | $8.50 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 1,351,126 | +15,749 | $20.40 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 127,828 | +97,955 | $8.47 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 15,749 | +15,749 | $20.40 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 97,955 | +97,955 | $8.47 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 7.8.2026 | 29,873 | +29,873 | $8.50 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 7.8.2026 | 1,335,377 | +73,455 | $20.42 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 7.8.2026 | 73,455 | +73,455 | $20.42 |
| MALONE JOHN C | Open Market Purchase | 7.8.2026 | 29,873 | +29,873 | $8.50 |
| WINTER JOHN M | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 663 | +663 | — |
| Nair Balan | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 803 | +803 | — |
| NOYES CHRISTOPHER J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 30.6.2026 | 658 | -658 | $7.79 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,045,878 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 856,309 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
69.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.2% 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