Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$0.96
▼ $0.02 (-2.1%)
Market data updated: 09/26 10:36 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$46.66M
Day Range
$0.96 - $0.98
52-Week Range
$0.27 - $2.38
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$0.34
Resistance
$1.05
HOWL is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
-52.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/26 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 1.62
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -3933.5% (negative)
Fundamental
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
57
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
54
Quality
50
Value
55
Momentum
70
Risk
40
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
30
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 of Werewolf Therapeutics, Inc. (ticker: HOWL) has centered on its dramatic stock surge following a $150 million funding round and a biotech merger announcement, which propelled its shares up over 100% in a single day. The company’s sudden market activity—including high trading volume and unusual price movements—has drawn attention as investors weigh its potential growth against associated risks. Most reports highlight its recent financial boost and volatility rather than substantive operational details.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Werewolf Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
44
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
30
Technical
70
Valuation
55
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+197%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
HOWL’s psychology is dominated by overconfidence (100) and euphoria (96), consistent with extreme price momentum (+127.4% ROC) and a narrative-reality gap (38). The disconnect between price gains and meager EPS growth (+0.2%) suggests traders are ignoring fundamentals, while perfect news sentiment (100/100) fuels uncritical optimism. The key question: *Is this momentum self-sustaining, or will fundamentals eventually reassert?* Low volume (0.05x avg) hints at selective participation, not herd-driven euphoria. The absence of panic (score 5) underscores confidence, not fear.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:46 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Werewolf Therapeutics shares surge 120% after Ambros merger and $150 million financing"
"A merger and a $150 million capital infusion is giving Werewolf's next chapter more firepower"
"The trading volume of these stocks is deviating from the norm in today's session"
📈 5D 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
Jesse Livermore — 57/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological clashes between momentum-driven and fundamental/defensive approaches. Jesse Livermore’s high score celebrates its price action as a clear upward trend, while the majority of value-oriented and risk-averse frameworks—from Graham’s defensive criteria to Marks’ late-cycle caution—reject it outright, flagging valuation gaps, liquidity risks, or stretched cycles. Even Peter Lynch and the Efficient Market proponents see only modest upside, suggesting the stock’s appeal is either overpriced or too speculative. Meanwhile, behavioral economists like Mackay and Housel warn of crowd-driven volatility, contrasting sharply with Fisher’s outright dismissal for lacking the quality traits he demanded. The divide underscores whether the stock’s price momentum justifies its risks or if it’s a speculative bubble doomed to correct.
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 59
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)
🟡 57
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 52
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: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 52
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
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)
🟡 43
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
🟡 41
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)
🟡 37
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 30
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 29
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 25
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 20
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 13
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 11
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 2
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 2 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 uptrend 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
-3933.5%
Net Margin
-3740.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-245.2%
ROA
-87.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.32
Cash
$57.05M
Total Debt
$32.09M
Current Ratio
1.62
Debt/Equity
1.14
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$0.96
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$23.50
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $-66.32M | $-60.85M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-71.71M | $-60.36M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-76.19M | $-58.83M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-79.53M | $-56.34M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-81.51M | $-52.98M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-60.29M
Terminal Value
$-1.29B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-835.42M
Enterprise Value
$-1.12B
Net Debt
$-24.96M
Equity Value
$-1.10B
*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
$0.51
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.89
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 10 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Barchart · 26.8.2026
ChartMill · 21.8.2026
ChartMill · 21.8.2026
Barchart · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
ChartMill · 21.8.2026
ChartMill · 21.8.2026
Associated Press · 21.8.2026
ChartMill · 21.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
ChartMill · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 21.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Werewolf Therapeutics, Inc. (HOWL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 57/100, 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.
HOWL currently scores 57/100 (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.
HOWL's technical score is 70/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: Current ratio: 1.62; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -3933.5% (negative); Net margin: -3740.8% (negative); ATR: 5.6% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for HOWL.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 25 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EVNIN LUKE | Open Market Sale | 7.7.2026 | 107,429 | -107,429 | $0.31 |
| EVNIN LUKE | Open Market Sale | 7.7.2026 | 0 | -107,429 | $0.31 |
| EVNIN LUKE | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 35,770 | -35,770 | $0.32 |
| EVNIN LUKE | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 107,429 | -35,770 | $0.32 |
| EVNIN LUKE | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 157,084 | -157,084 | $0.30 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 17.6.2026 | 389,216 | -389,216 | $0.35 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 17.6.2026 | 27,695 | -27,695 | $0.35 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 17.6.2026 | 4,268,448 | -389,216 | $0.35 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 17.6.2026 | 303,719 | -27,695 | $0.35 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 9,939 | -9,939 | $0.37 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 139,686 | -139,686 | $0.37 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 4,657,664 | -139,686 | $0.37 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 331,414 | -9,939 | $0.37 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 120,216 | -120,216 | $0.39 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 8,554 | -8,554 | $0.39 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 4,797,350 | -120,216 | $0.39 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 341,353 | -8,554 | $0.39 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 11,322 | -11,322 | $0.40 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 159,119 | -159,119 | $0.40 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 4,917,566 | -159,119 | $0.40 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 349,907 | -11,322 | $0.40 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 11.6.2026 | 17,437 | -17,437 | $0.38 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 11.6.2026 | 245,066 | -245,066 | $0.38 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 11.6.2026 | 5,076,685 | -245,066 | $0.38 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Open Market Sale | 11.6.2026 | 361,229 | -17,437 | $0.38 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,705,956 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 1,668,357 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
22.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 39.5% 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