Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$1.18
▼ $0.03 (-2.5%)
Market data updated: 09/26 11:33 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$122.01M
Day Range
$1.17 - $1.23
52-Week Range
$0.56 - $2.72
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$0.56
Resistance
$1.45
INO 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.
-51.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/27 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 54.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -132871.3% (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
48
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
65
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
44
Risk
34
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
26
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 Inovio Pharmaceuticals has centered on its INO-3107 vaccine candidate, with anticipation building around an upcoming October 30th FDA decision under the PDUFA timeline. Analysts like Jefferies upgraded the stock to *Buy*, citing strong progress and a raised price target to $3, while Q2 earnings highlighted narrowed losses and funding secured through late 2027. The company’s focus remains on HPV-related diseases, cancer, and infectious disease treatments, with investor conferences scheduled to discuss its pipeline. No major unrelated developments were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 8 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
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
19
Psychology
64
Fundamentals
26
Technical
44
Valuation
50
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Price (3M)
+7%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
19
Narrative Gap
+28
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixated on the near-term resistance level, ignoring divergent fundamentals. Confirmation bias further amplifies this, as positive narratives outweigh deteriorating revenue and margins. Overconfidence in momentum over fundamentals and moderate FOMO/Euphoria imply complacency. The key question: Will traders break from anchoring if price tests resistance, or will confirmation bias sustain the bias despite weakening fundamentals?
Updated: 09/06/2026, 05:43 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"FDA has completed several key steps in its review of INO-3107 (article 11)"
"INO-3107 on track for potential launch (article 7)"
"Jefferies upgrades INO to Buy, raises price target to $3 (article 5)"
"October 30th PDUFA decision for INO-3107 (article 4)"
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 — 83/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides methodologies sharply, with Jesse Livermore’s high score (76) standing out as an outlier, suggesting the price action aligns with his trend-following principles. Meanwhile, most value-oriented investors—like Benjamin Graham (18) and Edgar Lawrence Smith (17)—reject it outright, citing weak defensive metrics and instability. The middle ground is occupied by growth-focused thinkers like Peter Lynch (54) and the Efficient Market Hypothesis proponents (55), who see potential but not enough edge to justify a strong bet. Meanwhile, cyclical and risk-averse voices like Samuel Armstrong Nelson (5) and Howard Marks (25) warn of overvaluation or late-cycle risks, while behavioral economists like Charles Mackay (31) and Walter Bagehot (38) flag speculative or liquidity concerns. The contrast highlights a clash between momentum-driven optimism and deep-value skepticism, with only a few methodologies finding cautious middle ground.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 83
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)
🟢 77
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 54
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 38
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 32
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 27
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 20
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 17
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 12
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 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 6 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
-132871.3%
Net Margin
-130000.0%
EBITDA Margin
-132871.3%
ROE
-352.5%
ROA
-114.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.81
Cash
$44.27M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.40
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.18
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$25.05
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
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $-84.47M | $-77.49M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-81.83M | $-68.87M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-80.81M | $-62.40M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-81.31M | $-57.60M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-83.34M | $-54.17M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-88.92M
Terminal Value
$-1.31B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-854.19M
Enterprise Value
$-1.17B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.17B
*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)
$0.51
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 10 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 25.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
Moby · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
MarketBeat · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
Associated Press · 12.8.2026
PR Newswire · 12.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
PR Newswire · 4.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (INO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
INO currently scores 48/100 (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.
INO's technical score is 44/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 54.2%; Net income growth: 20.8%; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -132871.3% (negative); Net margin: -130000.0% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for INO.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shea Jacqueline Elizabeth | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 100,240 | +100,240 | — |
| Shea Jacqueline Elizabeth | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 123,760 | +123,760 | — |
| Shea Jacqueline Elizabeth | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 28,296 | -28,296 | — |
| Shea Jacqueline Elizabeth | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.5.2026 | 12,306 | -12,306 | $1.23 |
| Sumner Michael John | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 9,450 | -9,450 | — |
| Sumner Michael John | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 46,876 | +46,876 | — |
| KIES PETER | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 39,760 | +39,760 | — |
| KIES PETER | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 32,480 | +32,480 | — |
| Shea Jacqueline Elizabeth | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 28,296 | +28,296 | — |
| KIES PETER | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.5.2026 | 4,688 | -4,688 | $1.23 |
| KIES PETER | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 8,700 | -8,700 | — |
| KIES PETER | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 8,700 | +8,700 | — |
| Sumner Michael John | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 37,684 | +37,684 | — |
| Sumner Michael John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.5.2026 | 2,693 | -2,693 | $1.23 |
| Humeau Laurent | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 6,027 | -6,027 | — |
| Humeau Laurent | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 34,160 | +34,160 | — |
| Humeau Laurent | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 6,027 | +6,027 | — |
| Sumner Michael John | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.5.2026 | 9,450 | +9,450 | — |
| Weiner David B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 41,800 | +41,800 | — |
| DANSEY ROGER D | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 41,800 | +41,800 | — |
| BENITO SIMON X | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 41,800 | +41,800 | — |
| BENITO SIMON X | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 34,200 | +34,200 | — |
| Miller Ann Calby | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 34,200 | +34,200 | — |
| Miller Ann Calby | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 41,800 | +41,800 | — |
| Shepard Jay | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 34,200 | +34,200 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
19,921,776 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 19,252,384 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
37.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 34.9% 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