Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$115.00
▼ $0.13 (-0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/22 07:24 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$1.17B
Day Range
$114.51 - $116.58
52-Week Range
$97.27 - $148.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
21.10.2026
Support
$109.74
Resistance
$125.14
LNN is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-16.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/30 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 35.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.01 (3y annualized return 0.4% / max drawdown 30.6%)
Risk
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
53
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
73
Quality
63
Value
50
Momentum
21
Risk
54
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
69
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 Lindsay Corporation has centered on its financial performance and leadership transitions. The company faced a Q2 revenue decline and missed expectations, though it beat earnings per share (EPS) forecasts, sparking investor debate over its stock valuation. Additionally, Lindsay announced interim co-Chief Financial Officers, Alicia Pfeifer and Brett Coburn, effective September 1, 2026, aiming to strengthen financial strategy and investor communication amid ongoing market scrutiny.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lindsay Corporation. News trend score: 68. Reason: 7 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
9
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
10
Fundamentals
69
Technical
21
Valuation
50
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
39
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
-3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 1.4% gap below resistance, likely due to recent price action. FOMO and herding signals are present but muted, while overconfidence hints at overestimating momentum relative to fundamentals. The narrative gap (9 points) implies a disconnect between market perception and underlying reality. The key question remains: will traders break the resistance anchor, or will the stock consolidate near this level?
Updated: 09/06/2026, 03:15 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Vice President, Business Finance Alicia Pfeifer and Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer Brett Coburn were appointed interim co-Chief Financial Officers"
"Lindsay (LNN) missed on revenue but beat EPS"
"the year to date share price return is down 5.15% and the 1 year total shareholder return has fallen 15.18%"
📈 4D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological disagreements about risk, timing, and valuation. The highest-scoring approaches—like Walter Bagehot’s focus on liquidity and Edgar Lawrence Smith’s long-term buy-and-hold philosophy—see it as a resilient, durable hold, emphasizing stability and endurance. Meanwhile, more skeptical frameworks, such as Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s cycle analysis or Jack Schwager’s disciplined trading rules, flag overvaluation or lack of clear momentum, dismissing it outright. Even within value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham, the distinction between the Defensive and Enterprising Investor splits the stock in half: one sees it as borderline, while the other deems it too pricey. This tension underscores whether the stock’s strengths (like growth or liquidity) justify its price—or if it’s simply a speculative bet for those willing to ignore red flags.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 90
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)
🟢 83
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 82
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 77
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 76
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)
🟢 68
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 66
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 62
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 57
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 55
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 40
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 38
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 15
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
Based on the last 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 7 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.
High 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
31.2%
Operating Margin
13.0%
Net Margin
10.9%
EBITDA Margin
16.1%
ROE
13.9%
ROA
8.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$6.82
Cash
$250.57M
Total Debt
$115.04M
Current Ratio
3.71
Debt/Equity
0.22
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 17.8.2026 | $0.380 |
| 15.5.2026 | $0.370 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.370 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.370 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.370 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.370 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.370 |
| 15.8.2025 | $0.370 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.370 |
| 16.5.2025 | $0.360 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.360 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.360 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$115.00
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$125.34
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+9.0%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-3.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -3.7% | $87.08M | $79.89M |
| 2 | -2.1% | $85.21M | $71.72M |
| 3 | -0.6% | $84.71M | $65.41M |
| 4 | 1.0% | $85.51M | $60.58M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $87.65M | $56.97M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$90.41M
Terminal Value
$1.38B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$898.33M
Enterprise Value
$1.23B
Net Debt
$-135.53M
Equity Value
$1.37B
*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
$48.80
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$38.93
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 9 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Zacks · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 21.8.2026
Zacks · 20.8.2026
Zacks · 18.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.8.2026
Yahoo · 6.8.2026
Zacks · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.8.2026
Lindsay Corporation (LNN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, 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.
LNN currently scores 53/100 (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, LNN's estimated fair value is $125.34, which is 9.0% above the current price of $115.00. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LNN's technical score is 21/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 35.4%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.22.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.01 (3y annualized return 0.4% / max drawdown 30.6%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — LNN 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 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coburn Brett Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.1.2026 | 162 | +162 | — |
| Coburn Brett Richard | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.1.2026 | 1,651 | +162 | — |
| Di Si Pablo | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 1,046 | +1,046 | — |
| RAYBURN DAVID B | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 1,046 | +1,046 | — |
| Di Si Pablo | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 684 | +684 | — |
| CHRISTODOLOU MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 1,046 | +1,046 | — |
| Brunner Robert E | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 1,046 | +1,046 | — |
| Khandaker Jahidul Huq | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 1,046 | +1,046 | — |
| Madere Consuelo E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 1,046 | +1,046 | — |
| LINDSEY MARY A | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 1,046 | +1,046 | — |
| RAYBURN DAVID B | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 10,799 | +1,046 | — |
| CHRISTODOLOU MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 15,822 | +1,046 | — |
| Brunner Robert E | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 3,594 | +1,046 | — |
| Madere Consuelo E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 7,668 | +1,046 | — |
| LINDSEY MARY A | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 6,808 | +1,046 | — |
| Di Si Pablo | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 5,350 | +1,046 | — |
| Di Si Pablo | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 6,034 | +684 | — |
| Khandaker Jahidul Huq | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.1.2026 | 1,335 | +1,046 | — |
| Magnusson Brian James | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.12.2025 | 427 | +427 | — |
| Magnusson Brian James | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.12.2025 | 5,623 | +427 | — |
| Hinrichsen Samuel S | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 2,674 | +2,674 | — |
| Hinrichsen Samuel S | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 4,339 | +4,339 | — |
| Hinrichsen Samuel S | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 2,674 | +2,674 | — |
| Hinrichsen Samuel S | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 4,339 | +4,339 | — |
| Wood Randy A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.11.2025 | 2,958 | +2,958 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
743,689 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 683,500 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
67.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 60.0% 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