Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$154.04
▼ $4.03 (-2.5%)
Market data updated: 09/19 03:44 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$61.50B
Day Range
$150.26 - $159.79
52-Week Range
$22.28 - $176.66
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$52.66
Resistance
$176.66
MRNA 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.
+532.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 17/33 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 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: 21.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$64.98 vs. price $154.04 (-142.2%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (68/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
74/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
86/100
Analog Quality
+8.1%
Median 40D Outcome
0/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+12.7% … +31.0%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
40%
-12.9% … -5.7%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +5.4%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
2 occurrence(s) · 50% 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 | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.6% | -2.4% … +15.1% | +0.3% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.5% | -6.2% … +26.5% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +5.4% | -6.2% … +25.4% | +0.4% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +8.1% | -11.5% … +24.6% | +2.8% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +11.1% | -10.3% … +62.8% | +2.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-09-07 | 74/100 | High Volatility | -23.9% | -28.8% |
| 2020-06-15 | 71/100 | High Volatility | +12.7% | -14.5% |
| 2021-05-25 | 69/100 | High Volatility | +25.3% | +121.9% |
| 2026-02-19 | 68/100 | ✓ High Volatility | +5.4% | -1.3% |
| 2020-05-04 | 68/100 | High Volatility | +18.6% | +57.4% |
| 2020-04-15 | 68/100 | High Volatility | +75.0% | +68.1% |
| 2021-08-23 | 67/100 | High Volatility | +5.4% | -43.1% |
| 2026-06-15 | 67/100 | High Volatility | +31.0% | +162.1% |
| 2026-04-15 | 67/100 | Uptrend | -7.1% | +23.5% |
| 2026-03-25 | 66/100 | ✓ High Volatility | -1.3% | +10.8% |
| 2023-01-13 | 65/100 | ✓ High Volatility | -10.7% | -19.0% |
| 2021-01-21 | 65/100 | High Volatility | +31.4% | +21.8% |
| 2026-05-27 | 64/100 | High Volatility | +25.5% | +204.8% |
| 2026-05-12 | 62/100 | High Volatility | -13.7% | +11.1% |
| 2026-03-10 | 62/100 | ✓ High Volatility | -5.2% | -6.2% |
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 XLV (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
59
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
1d ago · $145.62
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -5 to 20 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
13d ago · $145.55
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 42 to 10 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
68
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
72
Risk
46
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
39
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MRNA...
Recent media coverage of Moderna has centered on its **sharp stock surge (over 143% in a month)**, driven by promising **cancer vaccine trial results**, particularly in mRNA-based therapies. Analysts debate whether the rally reflects genuine breakthrough potential or overvaluation amid competition from rivals like Merck. The focus also includes broader industry trends, such as AI-driven diagnostics and infrastructure challenges, though Moderna’s own data center issues were briefly mentioned in passing. Overall, the narrative highlights optimism around its next-gen medicine pipeline amid investor speculation.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Moderna. News trend score: 100. Reason: 17 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
57
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
64
Fundamentals
39
Technical
72
Valuation
38
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+147%
Market Narrative
79
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+44
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers rather than independent analysis. Positive momentum and sentiment fuel FOMO and euphoria, but the narrative-reality gap and overconfidence indicate selective attention to bullish narratives. The key question is whether this synchronized movement reflects genuine conviction or a collective mispricing, given the weak fundamentals. Elevated volatility hints at lingering uncertainty beneath the surface.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:54 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Cancer progress, a broader pipeline ... can oncology drive its next growth phase?"
"Moderna (MRNA) Ascends While Market Falls"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 15D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principle that liquidity is paramount, the model estimates that Walter Bagehot would score MRNA at the top, viewing it as strong enough to survive a real credit squeeze. In contrast, value‑oriented thinkers such as Benjamin Graham and the Enterprising Graham see the stock as not cheap enough and not meeting strict safety tests, pulling its rating into the 40s and 60s, while Morgan Housel and Gerald M. Loeb consider it only moderately acceptable with moderate risk. Meanwhile, cycle‑focused analysts like Samuel Armstrong Nelson, Howard Marks and Charles Mackay flag a stretched market cycle, late‑cycle positioning and crowd‑delusion patterns, and growth‑focused evaluators such as Philip Fisher and Thorstein Veblen find the quality and profit‑translation characteristics insufficient, driving the overall score well below 40.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 66
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 63
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 60
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 32
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 28
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)
🔴 18
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 5
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 an uptrend (8 bullish · 4 bearish · 1 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.
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
55.3%
Operating Margin
-158.1%
Net Margin
-145.2%
EBITDA Margin
-147.3%
ROE
-32.6%
ROA
-22.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$7.26
Cash
$2.60B
Total Debt
$590.00M
Current Ratio
3.29
Debt/Equity
0.07
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$154.04
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$64.98
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-142.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
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% | $-1.96B | $-1.80B |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-1.90B | $-1.60B |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-1.88B | $-1.45B |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-1.89B | $-1.34B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-1.94B | $-1.26B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-2.06B
Terminal Value
$-30.52B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-19.84B
Enterprise Value
$-27.28B
Net Debt
$-2.00B
Equity Value
$-25.28B
*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
$22.24
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$21.99
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 17 positive, 1 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Moderna (MRNA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 59/100, 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.
MRNA currently scores 59/100 (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, MRNA's estimated fair value is -$64.98, which is 142.2% below the current price of $154.04. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MRNA's technical score is 72/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 21.8%; Free cash flow growth: 49.1%; Net income growth: 20.8%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$64.98 vs. price $154.04 (-142.2%); Operating margin: -158.1% (negative); Net margin: -145.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MRNA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mock James M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 5,704 | -5,704 | $148.87 |
| Mock James M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 11,797 | -11,797 | — |
| Mock James M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 11,797 | +11,797 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 11,797 | -11,797 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 5,704 | -5,704 | $148.87 |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.9.2026 | 11,797 | +11,797 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,166 | -2,166 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 3,471 | -3,471 | $139.95 |
| Hoge Stephen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 9,283 | +9,283 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 3,471 | +3,471 | $30.96 |
| Mock James M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,475 | +2,475 | — |
| Mock James M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,475 | -2,475 | — |
| Hoge Stephen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 9,283 | -9,283 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 2,166 | +2,166 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 1,048 | -1,048 | $140.34 |
| Mock James M | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 1,197 | -1,197 | $140.34 |
| Hoge Stephen | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 4,489 | -4,489 | $140.34 |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.9.2026 | 3,471 | -3,471 | — |
| Hoge Stephen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 611 | +611 | — |
| Hoge Stephen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 611 | -611 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 329 | +329 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 329 | -329 | — |
| Mock James M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 329 | -329 | — |
| Mock James M | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.8.2026 | 329 | +329 | — |
| Klinger Shannon Thyme | Tax Withholding in Shares | 28.8.2026 | 160 | -160 | $142.77 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
39,151,532 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 49,768,882 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
62.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.8% 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