Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$12.04
▼ $0.08 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/27 02:06 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/27/2026
News analyzed: 09/27/2026
Market Cap
$1.02B
Day Range
$11.81 - $12.21
52-Week Range
$5.95 - $23.29
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$11.80
Resistance
$20.29
MLTX 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.
-78.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/26 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.24
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$52.69 vs. price $12.04 (-537.7%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
40
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
32
Quality
55
Value
38
Momentum
19
Risk
46
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
50
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.
MoonLake Immunotherapeutics has recently been in the spotlight for its promising Phase 3 trial results of sonelokimab, a drug for psoriatic arthritis. The IZAR-1 trial met its primary endpoint at Week 16, with 42.1% of biologic-naïve patients achieving at least a 50% symptom improvement, reinforcing the drug’s potential. Analysts, including HC Wainwright, have raised price targets and maintained a Buy rating, while the company reported a narrowing Q2 loss. Investor attention remains focused on sonelokimab’s pipeline and financial sustainability, with cash reserves extending through mid-2028.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about MoonLake Immunotherapeutics. News trend score: 74. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
52
Psychology
61
Fundamentals
50
Technical
19
Valuation
38
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.
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 (3M)
-39%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
52
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant loss aversion bias, as the stock’s 16.1% drop over three months and subdued volume align with investors prioritizing avoiding further losses. The anchoring effect (2.5% above support) may reinforce reluctance to sell, while herding remains muted due to selective underperformance. The narrative gap (-5) hints at a slight disconnect between market sentiment and fundamentals, but no extreme bias (e.g., panic or euphoria) is present. The key question is whether the stock’s proximity to support will trigger defensive positioning or if investors remain cautious without a clear catalyst.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 06:01 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"42.1% of patients on Sonelokimab achieved at least a 50% improvement in psoriatic arthritis symptoms, meeting the trial’s primary endpoint."
"HC Wainwright & Co. analyst Raghuram Selvaraju maintains MoonLake with a Buy and raises the price target from $45 to $50."
"The consensus price target hints at a 73.4% upside potential for MOONLAKE IMMUNO (MLTX)."
"MoonLake reported quarterly losses of $(0.84) per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.93) by 9.68 percent."
📈 3D 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
Walter Bagehot — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for MLTX reflects a clash between methodologies prioritizing liquidity, cyclical positioning, and trend-following versus those emphasizing valuation discipline, trend alignment, and long-term fundamentals. Bagehot and Nelson’s near-perfect scores highlight their focus on resilience in stress scenarios and favorable market positioning, while Marks (cycle) and Schwager’s moderate approvals suggest a disciplined, opportunistic view—though none see it as overextended. Conversely, Graham’s mixed verdict and the Enterprising Investor’s rejection underscore a valuation gap, as neither model finds the stock cheap enough for their respective risk tolerances. Meanwhile, Livermore’s outright negative score and Housel’s volatility warning reflect a consensus that the stock’s trend or stability may deter patient, long-term holders, while Fisher’s zero score and Veblen’s low rating point to a lack of fundamental depth or sustainable growth appeal. The contrast between these extremes illustrates how some investors prioritize defensive or cyclical tailwinds, while others demand ironclad valuation or trend alignment before even considering entry.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 99
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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)
🟢 87
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 86
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)
🟢 83
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 69
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
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)
🟡 53
Moderate risk 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
🟡 44
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 42
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 30
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 29
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 286 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.
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
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-74.7%
ROA
-53.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.53
Cash
$334.52M
Total Debt
$74.10M
Current Ratio
9.27
Debt/Equity
0.24
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$12.04
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$52.69
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-537.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
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% | $-215.65M | $-197.84M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-233.17M | $-196.25M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-247.74M | $-191.30M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-258.58M | $-183.18M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-265.04M | $-172.26M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-196.04M
Terminal Value
$-4.18B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-2.72B
Enterprise Value
$-3.66B
Net Debt
$-260.42M
Equity Value
$-3.40B
*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
$4.72
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.72
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 10 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
Stocktwits · 10.8.2026
Yahoo · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
MT Newswires · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Yahoo · 3.8.2026
Stocktwits · 3.8.2026
Yahoo · 31.7.2026
Zacks · 31.7.2026
MT Newswires · 20.7.2026
Stocktwits · 12.7.2026
Motley Fool · 3.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 30.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 25.6.2026
Motley Fool · 24.6.2026
MoonLake Immunotherapeutics (MLTX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 40/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
MLTX currently scores 40/100 (Weak) 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, MLTX's estimated fair value is -$52.69, which is 537.7% below the current price of $12.04. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MLTX's technical score is 19/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.24; Current ratio: 9.27; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$52.69 vs. price $12.04 (-537.7%); ATR: 6.1% of price; Calmar: -0.44 (3y annualized return -39.9% / max drawdown 90.2%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MLTX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 21 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 27.7.2026 | 1,100 | -1,100 | $20.00 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 27.7.2026 | 2,711,198 | -1,100 | $20.00 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 2,448 | -2,448 | $20.00 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 22.7.2026 | 2,712,298 | -2,448 | $20.00 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 21.7.2026 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $20.02 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 21.7.2026 | 2,714,746 | -50,000 | $20.02 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 20.7.2026 | 43,700 | -43,700 | $20.09 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 20.7.2026 | 2,764,746 | -43,700 | $20.09 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 16,105 | -16,105 | $20.01 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 2,808,446 | -16,105 | $20.01 |
| Santos da Silva Jorge | Open Market Sale | 10.7.2026 | 68,289 | -68,289 | $20.02 |
| Santos da Silva Jorge | Open Market Sale | 10.7.2026 | 2,774,893 | -68,289 | $20.02 |
| Santos da Silva Jorge | Open Market Sale | 9.7.2026 | 33,936 | -33,936 | $20.01 |
| Santos da Silva Jorge | Open Market Sale | 9.7.2026 | 2,843,182 | -33,936 | $20.01 |
| Santos da Silva Jorge | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 47,775 | -47,775 | $20.03 |
| Santos da Silva Jorge | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 2,877,118 | -47,775 | $20.03 |
| Bodenstedt Matthias | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 39,120 | -39,120 | $22.04 |
| Bodenstedt Matthias | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 1,115,435 | -39,120 | $22.04 |
| Bodenstedt Matthias | Open Market Sale | 18.6.2026 | 2,794 | -2,794 | $19.60 |
| Reich Kristian | Open Market Sale | 17.6.2026 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $19.43 |
| Bodenstedt Matthias | Open Market Sale | 17.6.2026 | 15,082 | -15,082 | $19.68 |
| Phillips Andrew John | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 22,195 | +22,195 | — |
| Xavier Ramnik | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 22,195 | +22,195 | — |
| BVF PARTNERS L P/IL | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 22,195 | +22,195 | — |
| Moukheibir Catherine | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.6.2026 | 22,195 | +22,195 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,947,906 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 7,144,513 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
33.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 20.8% 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