Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$3.26
▼ $0.15 (-4.4%)
Market data updated: 09/20 12:00 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$84.55M
Day Range
$3.19 - $3.68
52-Week Range
$2.96 - $12.99
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.11.2026
Support
$2.95
Resistance
$5.82
NTHI 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.
-73.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 1/26 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 355.0% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -145637.5% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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
36
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
Not enough data yet to generate this synthesis.
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
42
Value
50
Momentum
9
Risk
26
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
28
Institutional
100
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.
Everyone's writing about NeOnc Technologies Holdings, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 17 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
39
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
20
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
28
Technical
9
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-38%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
20
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
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 — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Nelson's documented principles, the model estimates a favorable cycle position, and similarly Marks‑cycle and Schwager’s frameworks see an early‑to‑mid cycle and a disciplined risk‑reward setup, resulting in relatively high scores. Based on Veblen's documented principles, the model estimates mixed signals about growth translating to profit, and Marks’s broader view flags high expectations, while the efficient‑market view finds only weak evidence for out‑performing an index, producing mid‑range scores. Based on Livermore's documented principles, the model estimates a negative trend that runs counter to his core rule, and Smith, Loeb, Fisher, Lynch, and Graham all estimate insufficient stability, quality, or valuation data, leading to very low scores. Overall, the divergence stems from each methodology’s emphasis—cycle‑sensitivity and disciplined setups versus growth quality, risk exposure, and market‑efficiency considerations.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 92
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)
🟢 79
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 78
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
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)
🟡 45
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 22
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
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 13
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)
🔴 9
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
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
🔴 0
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 270 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 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
-145637.5%
Net Margin
-155404.4%
EBITDA Margin
-145637.5%
ROE
355.0%
ROA
-2200.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$3.20
Cash
$58.73K
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.07
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
-$0.90
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.90
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 4 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 17 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Yahoo · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
NeOnc Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NTHI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 36/100, 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.
NTHI currently scores 36/100 (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.
NTHI's technical score is 9/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 355.0% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -145637.5% (negative); Net margin: -155404.4% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for NTHI.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 14 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 18 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHOMALI NASIM | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.7.2026 | 50,160 | +50,000 | — |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 1.5.2026 | 3,072,000 | +10,000 | $4.16 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 28.4.2026 | 3,062,000 | +10,000 | $4.52 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 23.4.2026 | 3,052,000 | +10,000 | $4.90 |
| Neman-Ebrahim Yousha | Open Market Purchase | 23.4.2026 | 134,760 | +500 | $4.88 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 10.4.2026 | 3,042,000 | +10,000 | $4.90 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 9.4.2026 | 3,032,000 | +5,000 | $5.19 |
| SUH, DAVID JR. | Open Market Purchase | 9.4.2026 | 111,866 | +200 | $5.00 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 8.4.2026 | 3,027,000 | +10,000 | $5.61 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 6.4.2026 | 3,017,000 | +5,000 | $6.32 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 2.4.2026 | 3,012,000 | +20,000 | $6.09 |
| SUH, DAVID JR. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.3.2026 | 111,666 | +111,666 | — |
| SUH, DAVID JR. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.3.2026 | 58,334 | +58,334 | — |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 24.11.2025 | 2,992,000 | +6,000 | $6.51 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 21.11.2025 | 2,986,000 | +4,000 | $6.50 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Open Market Purchase | 21.11.2025 | 2,982,000 | +20,000 | $5.98 |
| Neman-Ebrahim Yousha | Open Market Purchase | 20.11.2025 | 134,260 | +1,100 | $6.69 |
| Heshmatpour Amir F | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.11.2025 | 2,962,000 | +1,200,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
471,450 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 617,954 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
69.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.8% 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