Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$98.06
▼ $1.33 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:04 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$10.35B
Day Range
$97.14 - $100.92
52-Week Range
$95.35 - $225.98
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.12.2026
Support
$95.35
Resistance
$128.86
LULU is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-42.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $148.16 vs. price $98.06 (+51.1%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.9% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
79/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
-6.2%
Median 40D Outcome
50/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
27%
+4.0% … +9.8%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
73%
-11.0% … -4.2%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 20 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 27% (95% CI 11%–52%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -5.0%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
8 occurrence(s) · 13% 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 | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.5% | -4.9% … +4.7% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | -3.0% | -6.2% … +6.6% | +0.9% |
| 20D | 27% (11%–52%) | -5.0% | -8.7% … +0.8% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 33% (15%–58%) | -6.2% | -14.1% … +4.2% | +2.5% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -6.1% | -22.6% … +6.8% | +5.1% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-09-18 | 79/100 | High Volatility | -3.0% | +20.7% |
| 2026-06-23 | 79/100 | Downtrend | +4.1% | -8.7% |
| 2026-02-12 | 78/100 | Downtrend | -6.9% | -25.5% |
| 2024-08-09 | 74/100 | Downtrend | +4.1% | +33.3% |
| 2026-01-27 | 72/100 | Downtrend | -2.1% | -24.0% |
| 2026-05-08 | 72/100 | Downtrend | -10.4% | -5.8% |
| 2026-03-26 | 69/100 | Downtrend | -5.0% | -28.1% |
| 2025-08-12 | 68/100 | Downtrend | -15.0% | -13.1% |
| 2022-05-17 | 68/100 | High Volatility | -6.5% | +5.3% |
| 2026-05-22 | 68/100 | Downtrend | -14.4% | -6.1% |
| 2026-04-24 | 67/100 | High Volatility | -11.6% | -21.2% |
| 2026-06-08 | 66/100 | Downtrend | -3.3% | +2.1% |
| 2025-11-18 | 64/100 | Downtrend | +26.8% | +8.4% |
| 2026-03-12 | 64/100 | Downtrend | +3.6% | -25.7% |
| 2025-10-02 | 64/100 | High Volatility | -5.7% | +19.3% |
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 XLY (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
45
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
14d ago · $100.61
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 25 to 76 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
58
Value
67
Momentum
15
Risk
40
Sentiment
38
Fundamental
73
Institutional
75
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING LULU...
Recent media coverage of Lululemon Athletica highlights significant challenges under its new CEO, Heidi O’Neill, including a steep stock decline—over 50% year-to-date—and concerns over declining traffic and negative social media sentiment. Analysts like JPMorgan have lowered price targets, while reports suggest internal struggles, including founder tensions. The focus remains on reversing performance slumps amid broader retail and consumer confidence pressures.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lululemon Athletica. News trend score: 38. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 7 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
33
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
57
Fundamentals
73
Technical
15
Valuation
67
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-12%
Market Narrative
15
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
-25
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant **panic-selling regime**, driven by extreme volatility (1.46x ATR) and oversold conditions (RSI 30). Traders appear to be liquidating aggressively despite a slight rebound (+2.6%), while anchoring near support (2.6% above) hints at hesitation. The narrative gap (-27) further implies a disconnect between market sentiment and fundamentals, consistent with distressed selling. The key question is whether the recent rebound (+2.6%) signals exhaustion of panic or merely a fleeting countertrend. Loss aversion (7) remains muted, suggesting no strong reluctance to cut losses further.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 08:51 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Lululemon’s incoming CEO has a mountain of problems to fix"
"LULU Stock Is Down Over 50% YTD As Heidi O’Neill Takes Over"
"Lululemon Stock Crashed 80%, and Founders are Now Divorcing"
"Lululemon Says Negative Social Media Buzz Hurt Traffic"
📈 14D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two stark camps: those who see it as a cautiously favorable opportunity and those who flag it as a high-risk or overpriced bet. The highest-scoring models—Charles Mackay, Samuel Nelson, and Howard Marks (cycle-focused)—view it as relatively stable or undervalued within market cycles, with Mackay and Nelson even dismissing crowd-driven euphoria or overbought conditions. Meanwhile, Graham’s defensive and enterprising frameworks, along with Schwager’s disciplined setup, still rate it as attractive but less compelling, while Bagehot and Veblen introduce caution around liquidity and profit sustainability. On the opposite end, the lowest scorers—Livermore, Housel, and Fisher—reject it outright, with Livermore’s trend-following rule and Housel’s volatility aversion making it a clear non-starter for patient, long-term holders. The divide underscores whether the stock’s current valuation aligns with cyclical opportunity (or defensive value) or if it’s a speculative gamble with hidden risks.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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)
🟢 89
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 78
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 63
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 60
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
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
🟡 58
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 54
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)
🟡 39
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 36
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 33
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
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)
🔴 26
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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)
🔴 0
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
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 (1 bullish · 10 bearish · 0 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.
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
56.6%
Operating Margin
19.9%
Net Margin
14.2%
EBITDA Margin
24.4%
ROE
31.8%
ROA
18.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$13.27
Cash
$1.81B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.26
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$98.06
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$148.16
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+51.1%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
11.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.2% | $1.02B | $940.09M |
| 2 | 9.0% | $1.12B | $940.16M |
| 3 | 6.8% | $1.19B | $921.52M |
| 4 | 4.7% | $1.25B | $884.91M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.28B | $832.14M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$921.67M
Terminal Value
$20.19B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$13.12B
Enterprise Value
$17.64B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$17.64B
*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
$41.67
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$40.07
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 4 neutral, 9 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Lululemon Athletica (LULU) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, 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.
LULU currently scores 45/100 (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, LULU's estimated fair value is $148.16, which is 51.1% above the current price of $98.06. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LULU's technical score is 15/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $148.16 vs. price $98.06 (+51.1%); Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 31.8% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.9% of price; Calmar: -0.45 (3y annualized return -36.6% / max drawdown 81.2%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -9.4%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LULU.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 3 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O'NEILL HEIDI | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 40,223 | +40,223 | — |
| O'NEILL HEIDI | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 28,079 | +28,079 | — |
| O'NEILL HEIDI | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 105,295 | +105,295 | — |
| MORFITT MARTHA A M | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| Loehnis Alison | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| Henry Kathryn | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| White Emily | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| Gentile Laura | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| McNeill Jon | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| Bergh Charles V | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| Maurer Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| Bracey Esi Eggleston | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| Mahe Isabel | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| List Teri | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,606 | +1,606 | — |
| Bergh Charles V | Open Market Purchase | 15.6.2026 | 4,275 | +4,275 | $117.05 |
| Bergh Charles V | Open Market Purchase | 15.6.2026 | 10,365 | +4,275 | $117.05 |
| Bracey Esi Eggleston | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 247 | +247 | — |
| Bracey Esi Eggleston | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 247 | +247 | — |
| FRANK MEGHAN | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.6.2026 | 28 | -28 | $117.55 |
| NEUBURGER NICOLE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.6.2026 | 55 | -55 | $117.55 |
| FRANK MEGHAN | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.6.2026 | 31,964 | -28 | $117.55 |
| NEUBURGER NICOLE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 8.6.2026 | 19,101 | -55 | $117.55 |
| NEUBURGER NICOLE | Open Market Sale | 8.4.2026 | 19,156 | -622 | $161.00 |
| MAESTRINI ANDRE | Open Market Purchase | 1.4.2026 | 34,551 | +3,275 | $151.02 |
| MAESTRINI ANDRE | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.3.2026 | 31,276 | -357 | $153.10 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
13,466,687 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 9,845,442 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
50.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.3% 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