Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$22.76
▲ $0.41 (+1.8%)
Market data updated: 09/22 08:10 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/22/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$820.77M
Day Range
$22.28 - $23.00
52-Week Range
$9.70 - $23.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$12.60
Resistance
$23.00
+128.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/32 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
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 2.23
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$17.95 vs. price $22.76 (-178.9%)
Fair Value
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
56
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
34
Quality
42
Value
33
Momentum
85
Risk
48
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
42
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 Manitowoc Company, Inc. has centered on its strategic pivot toward expanding its $1 billion aftermarket business—including service and lifting solutions—to reduce reliance on volatile new-crane demand. Analysts like Barclays and Wells Fargo have raised price targets (to $16 and $12, respectively) while maintaining an "Underweight" rating, citing concerns over overbought stock momentum. The company’s Q2 earnings call and participation in investor conferences (e.g., Midwest IDEAS) highlighted its long-term growth focus amid shifting market dynamics.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Manitowoc Company, Inc. (The). News trend score: 98. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
62
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
79
Fundamentals
42
Technical
85
Valuation
33
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+74%
Market Narrative
78
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+42
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme anchoring (92) at a key resistance level suggests traders are fixating on this near-term target, ignoring broader valuation gaps. The narrative-reality gap (41) hints at detached optimism, while euphoria (68) and overconfidence (31) align with detached price momentum versus fundamentals. FOMO (58) may amplify buying near resistance, but the dominant anchoring could cap upside. The key question: will traders break resistance or double down on the anchor?
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:36 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""Manitowoc is continuing to shift its business toward aftermarket products, service and lifting solutions""
""Record Orders and Raised Guidance""
""raises the price target from $10 to $12" / "raises the price target from $11 to $16""
""Crane Demand Builds""
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 — 74/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s scores reveal a stark divide between methodologies that tolerate moderate risk or ambiguity and those demanding strict, long-term fundamentals or market psychology discipline. Investors like Jesse Livermore (64) and the Efficient Market proponents (61) see it as a neutral or borderline case—neither a clear buy nor a definitive sell, with Livermore’s caution rooted in trend ambiguity and Malkiel/Bogle’s skepticism stemming from weak evidence for active outperformance. Meanwhile, value-oriented approaches like Graham’s (53–54) and Bagehot’s liquidity focus (50) find it only *adequately* priced or structured, lacking the deep discounts or robust liquidity that would justify deeper engagement. At the other end, the most stringent frameworks—from Marks’ risk-valuation caution (25) and Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price test (20) to Nelson’s overbought cycle flag (0)—reject it outright, viewing it as either too volatile, late-cycle, or lacking the stability or quality that would align with their principles. The contrast underscores how even a moderately priced stock can be dismissed by those prioritizing psychological or cyclical risks over relative valuation.
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 74
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
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)
🟡 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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 52
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 52
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 50
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 47
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 30
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 28
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)
🔴 23
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 19
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 14
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 10
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 0
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 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (10 bullish · 2 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 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
18.1%
Operating Margin
2.4%
Net Margin
0.3%
EBITDA Margin
5.1%
ROE
1.0%
ROA
0.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.20
Cash
$77.30M
Total Debt
$478.90M
Current Ratio
2.23
Debt/Equity
0.69
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$22.76
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$17.95
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-178.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
3.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.4% | $-15.82M | $-14.52M |
| 2 | 3.2% | $-16.33M | $-13.74M |
| 3 | 3.0% | $-16.81M | $-12.98M |
| 4 | 2.7% | $-17.27M | $-12.23M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-17.70M | $-11.51M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-15.30M
Terminal Value
$-279.15M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-181.43M
Enterprise Value
$-246.41M
Net Debt
$401.60M
Equity Value
$-648.01M
*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
$19.26
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$13.59
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 10 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Fintel · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
MarketBeat · 27.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 26.8.2026
Business Wire · 19.8.2026
Motley Fool · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
MarketBeat · 8.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 7.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.8.2026
ChartMill · 7.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
Moby · 7.8.2026
ChartMill · 6.8.2026
Business Wire · 6.8.2026
Benzinga · 6.8.2026
Benzinga · 6.8.2026
Manitowoc Company, Inc. (The) (MTW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
MTW currently scores 56/100 (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, MTW's estimated fair value is -$17.95, which is 178.9% below the current price of $22.76. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MTW's technical score is 85/100, 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: 2.23; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$17.95 vs. price $22.76 (-178.9%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.27 (3y annualized return 15.9% / max drawdown 58.5%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MTW.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KRUEGER KENNETH W | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 9,000 | -9,000 | $11.80 |
| KRUEGER KENNETH W | Open Market Sale | 19.5.2026 | 162,672 | -9,000 | $11.80 |
| BELEC ANNE E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
| Gwillim Ryan M | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
| Regan Brian P | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 33,631 | +33,631 | — |
| Wood Randy A | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
| Peterson Jennifer L | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 23,011 | +23,011 | — |
| Rourke Mark B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
| KRUEGER KENNETH W | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
| Myers Charles David | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
| Ravenscroft Aaron H. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 148,684 | +148,684 | — |
| Palmer Ryan M | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 4,426 | +4,426 | — |
| Malone Robert W | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
| Davis Amy Rochelle | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
| Middleton Leslie L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 28,321 | +28,321 | — |
| Ravenscroft Aaron H. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 847,280 | +148,684 | — |
| Regan Brian P | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 190,041 | +33,631 | — |
| Middleton Leslie L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 188,556 | +28,321 | — |
| Peterson Jennifer L | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 102,893 | +23,011 | — |
| Palmer Ryan M | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 24,294 | +4,426 | — |
| KRUEGER KENNETH W | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 176,903 | +11,136 | — |
| BELEC ANNE E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 78,332 | +11,136 | — |
| Malone Robert W | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 56,584 | +11,136 | — |
| Myers Charles David | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 100,322 | +11,136 | — |
| Wood Randy A | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 11,136 | +11,136 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,168,827 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,075,886 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
69.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 66.7% 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