Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$39.98
▼ $0.69 (-1.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:34 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$25.90B
Day Range
$39.73 - $40.79
52-Week Range
$39.73 - $70.45
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
Support
$39.73
Resistance
$50.08
LVS is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-24.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/28 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $68.30 vs. price $39.98 (+70.8%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.14 (3y annualized return -6.3% / max drawdown 44.4%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
77/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+5.1%
Median 40D Outcome
52/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+3.1% … +12.4%
🟡 Base
13%
+0.0% … +0.2%
🔴 Bearish
47%
-5.6% … -2.5%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -0.1%.
No major conflicts found.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
5 occurrence(s) · 40% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
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 | 40% (20%–64%) | -1.2% | -2.0% … +1.7% | -0.1% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.8% | -1.6% … +5.1% | -0.1% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.1% | -4.4% … +3.8% | -0.6% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +5.1% | -3.2% … +14.3% | -0.4% |
| 60D | 53% (30%–75%) | +5.0% | -9.1% … +11.5% | +0.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-10-24 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -0.1% | +10.2% |
| 2024-08-02 | 73/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +2.4% | +40.9% |
| 2023-09-26 | 73/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +5.2% | +5.0% |
| 2020-07-27 | 73/100 | Downtrend | +14.6% | +6.3% |
| 2025-03-31 | 72/100 | Downtrend | -5.3% | +12.9% |
| 2021-11-29 | 72/100 | Downtrend | +1.0% | +17.0% |
| 2019-05-30 | 71/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +5.8% | -4.4% |
| 2026-06-17 | 71/100 | Downtrend | -5.8% | -11.9% |
| 2020-10-14 | 71/100 | Downtrend | +26.6% | +25.4% |
| 2020-06-26 | 70/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +0.3% | +6.7% |
| 2023-09-12 | 70/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -5.5% | -8.5% |
| 2021-07-19 | 70/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -16.9% | -15.0% |
| 2026-05-22 | 70/100 | Downtrend | -3.4% | -5.8% |
| 2024-04-25 | 69/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -1.6% | -9.7% |
| 2025-01-17 | 68/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -1.3% | -26.4% |
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
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
70
Quality
58
Value
62
Momentum
6
Risk
42
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
65
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING LVS...
Recent media coverage of Las Vegas Sands has centered on its stock performance and market positioning, with analysts like Wolfe Research initiating coverage at a "Peer Perform" rating, suggesting cautious optimism. Discussions also highlight speculative trading opportunities, including cheap call options and institutional investor activity. While earnings reports were recently released, the focus remains on whether the stock can rebound amid broader comparisons with airlines and cruise lines. No major operational or strategic shifts are explicitly mentioned.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Las Vegas Sands. News trend score: 74. Reason: 6 of the last 20 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
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
87
Fundamentals
65
Technical
6
Valuation
62
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-18%
Market Narrative
31
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (score 60) reflects traders’ fixation on the 2.0% support level, a common reaction when price hovers near a psychological barrier. Loss aversion (score 38) is also active, as the 12.9% drop over three months may deter aggressive selling despite subdued volume. Herding (score 28) persists passively, with the stock underperforming peers but moving in lockstep, suggesting traders follow rather than lead. The narrative gap (-9) hints at a disconnect between market sentiment (32) and objective reality (41), but no extreme bias (e.g., FOMO or euphoria) is evident. The key question: will traders break support (2.0% below) or hold near it, reinforcing anchoring?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:42 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Wolfe Research initiates coverage on Las Vegas Sands (NYSE:LVS) with a Peer Perform rating."
"Las Vegas Sands (LVS) Down 0.1% Since Last Earnings Report: Can It Rebound?"
"Sands' guiding principle is to make strategic investments that ensure its resorts deliver world-class service and the most desirable offerings."
📈 17D 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 — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with scores ranging from a near-bullish 96 (Charles Mackay) to a deep red flag at 13 (Benjamin Graham’s Enterprising Investor). The highest-rated approaches—Mackay’s lack of crowd mania detection, Nelson’s cycle positioning, and Smith’s ‘buy-and-hold’ signal—suggest a fundamentally sound, undervalued opportunity with room to grow, while Marks, Schwager, and Lynch’s mid-range scores acknowledge favorable conditions but temper enthusiasm with caution about overpriced growth. Meanwhile, Fisher’s lower score reflects a missed threshold for exceptional quality, and the efficient-market camp dismisses the stock entirely, questioning its edge over passive indexing. At the other extreme, Graham, Loeb, Livermore, and Bagehot’s warnings—rooted in risk, liquidity, or trend violations—paint a picture of instability or structural weakness, clashing directly with the more optimistic, long-term growth narratives. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s cyclical or fundamental strengths outweigh its perceived volatility or valuation gaps.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 88
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 86
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 84
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 82
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 71
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 67
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 65
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 47
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 30
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 23
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
🔴 17
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
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 (0 bullish · 11 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
21.6%
Net Margin
12.5%
EBITDA Margin
32.9%
ROE
102.3%
ROA
7.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.35
Cash
$3.84B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.14
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.8.2026 | $0.300 |
| 3.8.2026 | $0.300 |
| 5.5.2026 | $0.300 |
| 4.5.2026 | $0.300 |
| 9.2.2026 | $0.300 |
| 8.2.2026 | $0.300 |
| 4.11.2025 | $0.250 |
| 3.11.2025 | $0.250 |
| 5.8.2025 | $0.250 |
| 4.8.2025 | $0.250 |
| 6.5.2025 | $0.250 |
| 5.5.2025 | $0.250 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$39.98
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$68.30
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+70.8%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $2.32B | $2.13B |
| 2 | 19.4% | $2.77B | $2.33B |
| 3 | 13.8% | $3.15B | $2.43B |
| 4 | 8.1% | $3.40B | $2.41B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $3.49B | $2.27B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.85B
Terminal Value
$55.03B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$35.76B
Enterprise Value
$47.33B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$47.33B
*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
$2.29
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.47
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 12 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Barchart · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
PR Newswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Fintel · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
ChartMill · 26.8.2026
CNBC · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
Zacks · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 18.8.2026
Las Vegas Sands (LVS) 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.
LVS 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, LVS's estimated fair value is $68.30, which is 70.8% above the current price of $39.98. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LVS's technical score is 6/100, 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: $68.30 vs. price $39.98 (+70.8%); Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 102.3% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.14 (3y annualized return -6.3% / max drawdown 44.4%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — LVS 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 31.8.2026 | 7,947,648 | -7,947,648 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 31.8.2026 | 1,077,046 | -1,077,046 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 43,859,459 | +43,859,459 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 43,859,459 | +43,859,459 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 43,859,459 | +43,859,459 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 43,859,460 | +43,859,460 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 87,718,918 | -87,718,918 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 87,718,919 | -87,718,919 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 0 | -87,718,918 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 43,859,460 | +43,859,460 | — |
| Adelson Miriam | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 43,859,459 | +43,859,459 | — |
| Chau Micheline | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,948 | +3,948 | — |
| Forman Charles D | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,948 | +3,948 | — |
| Kramer Lewis | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,948 | +3,948 | — |
| Chafetz Irwin | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,948 | +3,948 | — |
| Li Alain | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,948 | +3,948 | — |
| Pant Muktesh | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,948 | +3,948 | — |
| Besca Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 3,948 | +3,948 | — |
| Forman Charles D | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 180,376 | +3,948 | — |
| Chafetz Irwin | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 74,897 | +3,948 | — |
| Chau Micheline | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 35,293 | +3,948 | — |
| Pant Muktesh | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 8,694 | +3,948 | — |
| Kramer Lewis | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 31,336 | +3,948 | — |
| Besca Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 8,694 | +3,948 | — |
| Li Alain | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 12,931 | +3,948 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
17,731,635 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 14,739,427 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.4% 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