Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$106.30
▼ $0.62 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/17 02:21 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$34.50B
Day Range
$104.59 - $109.78
52-Week Range
$84.64 - $138.77
Beta
—
Next Earnings
13.10.2026
UAL is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+2.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/29 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.65
Risk
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
56
Quality
58
Value
55
Momentum
42
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
48
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING UAL...
Recent media coverage of United Airlines Holdings highlights CEO Scott Kirby’s strategic initiatives, including plans to re-enter New York’s JFK Airport via a partnership with JetBlue and preparations for AI’s impact on the industry. The airline faces challenges with delayed Boeing 737 Max 10 deliveries, leaving hundreds of uninstalled premium seats unused, while also expanding its international routes to 10 new destinations in 2027. Stock performance remains volatile amid high jet fuel costs and broader airline sector struggles.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about United Airlines Holdings. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 6 vs. 6 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
13
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
60
Fundamentals
48
Technical
42
Valuation
55
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+0
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **herding** behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers despite UAL’s sharper pullback (-2.8% vs. -1.3% sector). The **narrative-reality gap (17)** hints at optimism outpacing fundamentals, while **euphoria’s low score** reflects muted enthusiasm. **FOMO/Panic Selling** tie scores indicate indecision—volume spikes may stem from profit-taking or speculative chasing. The key question: Is the underperformance a signal to exit or a buying opportunity?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:04 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"United Airlines Holdings must decide what to do with hundreds of lie-flat premium seats originally ordered for the Boeing 737 Max 10, a plane whose certification has run more than six years behind its original 2020 target."
"United Airlines Holdings will add 10 new international destinations for 2027, the largest international expansion in the airline’s nearly 100-year history."
"CEO Scott Kirby said he is preparing for how artificial intelligence will impact the industry."
"United Airlines Holdings CEO Scott Kirby wants to expand United’s presence at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport through a new partnership with JetBlue."
📈 9D 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 — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 6/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides the historical methodologies sharply, with a handful of approaches seeing potential while the majority flag significant red flags. The highest-scoring models—Samuel Armstrong Nelson, Charles Mackay, and Jack Schwager—suggest it’s either oversold, lacks crowd-driven mania, or offers a disciplined trade with favorable risk/reward, implying a tactical or cyclical opportunity. Meanwhile, value-focused investors like Benjamin Graham and Howard Marks (both versions) dismiss it outright, citing weak defensive metrics, valuation concerns, or excessive risk. The divide between growth-oriented thinkers (Veblen, Schwager) and traditional value/quality investors (Graham, Fisher, Lynch) is stark: the former sees alignment with fundamentals or market structure, while the latter rejects it for lacking stability, cheapness, or quality. Even the most patient long-term hold (Smith) or volatility-tolerant (Housel) approaches downgrade it, suggesting this stock fails to meet the consistency or patience thresholds of most legendary investors.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 98
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)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 77
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 67
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 42
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 37
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)
🔴 35
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)
🔴 34
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 33
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 27
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 23
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 21
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 6
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 6
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 278 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 7 bearish · 2 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
8.0%
Net Margin
5.7%
EBITDA Margin
13.0%
ROE
21.9%
ROA
4.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$10.32
Cash
$5.94B
Total Debt
$21.27B
Current Ratio
0.65
Debt/Equity
1.39
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
$46.52
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$24.66
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 8 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Stocktwits · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
United Airlines Holdings (UAL) 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.
UAL 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.
UAL's technical score is 42/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 21.9% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.65; Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for UAL.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nocella Andrew P | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 214,955 | -5,000 | $117.00 |
| Nocella Andrew P | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $117.00 |
| SHAPIRO EDWARD | Gift | 19.8.2026 | 50,000 | -50,000 | — |
| Nocella Andrew P | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $132.30 |
| Nocella Andrew P | Open Market Sale | 4.8.2026 | 219,955 | -3,000 | $132.30 |
| Leskinen Michael D. | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $128.19 |
| Leskinen Michael D. | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 47,436 | -10,000 | $128.19 |
| Gebo Kate | Gift | 28.7.2026 | 4,968 | +4,968 | — |
| Gebo Kate | Gift | 28.7.2026 | 4,968 | -4,968 | — |
| Hart Brett J | Gift | 28.7.2026 | 7,461 | -7,461 | — |
| Nocella Andrew P | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 4,200 | -4,200 | $120.48 |
| Hart Brett J | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 30,108 | -30,108 | $120.72 |
| Hart Brett J | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 371,583 | -30,108 | $120.72 |
| Gebo Kate | Gift | 28.7.2026 | 69,018 | -4,968 | — |
| Hart Brett J | Gift | 28.7.2026 | 364,122 | -7,461 | — |
| Nocella Andrew P | Open Market Sale | 28.7.2026 | 222,955 | -4,200 | $120.48 |
| Hart Brett J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 17,245 | -17,245 | $120.57 |
| Hart Brett J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.7.2026 | 21,521 | +21,521 | $77.56 |
| Hart Brett J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.7.2026 | 21,521 | -21,521 | — |
| Hart Brett J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.7.2026 | 418,936 | +21,521 | $77.56 |
| Hart Brett J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.7.2026 | 401,691 | -17,245 | $120.57 |
| Hart Brett J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.7.2026 | 0 | -21,521 | — |
| Gebo Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.7.2026 | 17,837 | +17,837 | — |
| Hart Brett J | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.7.2026 | 46,375 | +46,375 | — |
| KIRBY J SCOTT | Tax Withholding in Shares | 25.7.2026 | 28,076 | -28,076 | $118.27 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
17,436,713 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 23,511,391 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.4% 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