Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$93.01
▼ $1.38 (-1.5%)
Market data updated: 09/19 11:24 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$92.43 - $94.01
52-Week Range
$74.38 - $106.06
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$92.34
Resistance
$106.06
LLYVA is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-2.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/28 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
Net income growth
Net income growth: 22.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is below the 50-day average
Technical
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (63/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (45/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
63
Quality
58
Value
45
Momentum
23
Risk
50
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
52
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 on **Liberty Live Holdings, Inc. (Series A Liberty Live Group)** is limited and indirect, primarily tied to its parent company **Liberty Media**. Headlines focus on Liberty Media’s **Q2 2026 revenue decline** and broader financial shifts, including Berkshire Hathaway’s portfolio adjustments. The company’s indirect ties to **Formula 1** (e.g., partnerships with Heineken, FlexJet, and community awards) are noted, but no direct updates on Liberty Live’s operations or performance are available. Sources are sparse, so no deeper insights can be provided.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Liberty Live Holdings, Inc. - Series A Liberty Live Group. News trend score: 92. Reason: 9 of the last 14 articles are positive, versus 2 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
86
Fundamentals
52
Technical
23
Valuation
45
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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 (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixated on the 2.0% support level, likely due to its proximity. The muted FOMO and herding scores indicate limited peer-driven momentum, while restrained panic selling and neutral volatility imply controlled risk-taking. The narrative gap’s equilibrium (0) suggests no misalignment between market perception and fundamentals. The key question: will traders hold near support or break below it, testing the anchoring anchor’s strength?
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:32 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"F1® AND FLEXJET ANNOUNCE MULTI-YEAR GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP"
"Starlight Children’s Foundation wins British F1® Allwyn Global Community Award"
📈 15D 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 — 94/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 27/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with some models seeing it as a compelling opportunity and others dismissing it outright. Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Charles Mackay’s high scores suggest a favorable cycle position and absence of crowd mania, while Peter Lynch, Thorstein Veblen, and Morgan Housel all highlight growth potential and patient-holding appeal—aligning with their focus on long-term fundamentals and undervaluation. Conversely, Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher’s low scores reflect skepticism, as the stock fails to meet their strict valuation or quality benchmarks. Meanwhile, Jesse Livermore’s negative verdict and Walter Bagehot’s liquidity concerns underscore contrasting priorities: trend-following discipline versus structural risk assessment. The split between growth-oriented and value-driven frameworks reveals whether the stock’s momentum or fundamentals are the primary drivers of its appeal.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 94
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 72
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 64
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 40%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 64
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 58
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 57
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 53
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 49
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)
🟡 49
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)
🟡 49
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 47
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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)
🟡 36
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 29
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)
🔴 27
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 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
33.7%
Operating Margin
12.9%
Net Margin
12.4%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
7.1%
ROA
3.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$545.49M
Total Debt
$3.33B
Current Ratio
1.46
Debt/Equity
0.66
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$30.97
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$10.60
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 3 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 14 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
MT Newswires · 6.8.2026
ChartMill · 3.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.7.2026
PR Newswire · 1.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 25.6.2026
Motley Fool · 24.5.2026
Liberty Live Holdings, Inc. - Series A Liberty Live Group (LLYVA) 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.
LLYVA 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.
LLYVA's technical score is 23/100, 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: Net income growth: 22.9%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; -4.0% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LLYVA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 13 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wilm Renee L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.3.2026 | 2,814 | -2,814 | $97.20 |
| Hollingsworth Chad | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.3.2026 | 609 | -609 | $97.20 |
| Wendling Brian J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.3.2026 | 1,491 | -1,491 | $97.20 |
| Hollingsworth Chad | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.3.2026 | 1,276 | -609 | $97.20 |
| Wendling Brian J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.3.2026 | 18,955 | -1,491 | $97.20 |
| Wilm Renee L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.3.2026 | 16,792 | -2,814 | $97.20 |
| Wendling Brian J | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.2.2026 | 3,180 | +3,180 | — |
| Hollingsworth Chad | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.2.2026 | 1,241 | +1,241 | — |
| Wilm Renee L | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.2.2026 | 6,205 | +6,205 | — |
| Hollingsworth Chad | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.2.2026 | 1,885 | +1,241 | — |
| Wendling Brian J | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.2.2026 | 20,446 | +3,180 | — |
| Wilm Renee L | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.2.2026 | 19,606 | +6,205 | — |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC | Open Market Sale | 16.1.2026 | 7,685 | -7,685 | $83.72 |
| BUFFETT WARREN E | Open Market Sale | 16.1.2026 | 10,587,143 | -7,685 | $83.72 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC | Open Market Sale | 15.1.2026 | 18,125 | -18,125 | $84.04 |
| BUFFETT WARREN E | Open Market Sale | 15.1.2026 | 10,594,828 | -18,125 | $84.04 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC | Open Market Sale | 14.1.2026 | 59,411 | -59,411 | $83.79 |
| BUFFETT WARREN E | Open Market Sale | 14.1.2026 | 10,612,953 | -59,411 | $83.79 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC | Open Market Sale | 13.1.2026 | 30,643 | -30,643 | $82.78 |
| BUFFETT WARREN E | Open Market Sale | 13.1.2026 | 10,672,364 | -30,643 | $82.78 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC | Open Market Sale | 12.1.2026 | 66,568 | -66,568 | $83.27 |
| BUFFETT WARREN E | Open Market Sale | 12.1.2026 | 10,703,007 | -66,568 | $83.27 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC | Open Market Sale | 9.1.2026 | 18,689 | -18,689 | $82.40 |
| BUFFETT WARREN E | Open Market Sale | 9.1.2026 | 10,769,575 | -18,689 | $82.40 |
| BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC | Open Market Sale | 8.1.2026 | 65,071 | -65,071 | $82.25 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,311,243 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,556,819 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
65.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 72.6% 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