Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$9.84
▼ $0.12 (-1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/19 08:52 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$9.73 - $10.00
52-Week Range
$7.95 - $18.99
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.10.2026
Support
$9.03
Resistance
$12.77
-48.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/29 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $41.47 vs. price $9.84 (+321.4%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.2% of price
Risk
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
41
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
48
Quality
50
Value
57
Momentum
19
Risk
20
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
37
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 Blue Owl Capital Inc. has centered on its ambitious plans to launch a **$6.5 billion data center real estate investment trust (REIT)**, marking a strategic shift toward public tech financing and infrastructure investments. Analysts and investors are closely examining whether the company’s stock is fairly valued amid these developments, with some suggesting the move could be a game-changer. The focus also includes Wall Street’s reaction to the potential REIT and its broader expansion into tech-focused financing.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Blue Owl Capital Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 6 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
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
37
Technical
19
Valuation
57
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+3%
Market Narrative
27
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
-11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a **narrative-reality gap** (1-point difference) where valuation (+14% above 200-day avg) appears detached from fundamentals (-73% DCF discount). Euphoria’s high score (16) reflects this misalignment, as investors may overlook intrinsic undervaluation. The lack of dominant state implies indecision, with FOMO and panic selling competing signals. Key question: Will traders prioritize technical momentum or fundamental mispricing? The absence of extreme volatility (0.98x ATR) hints at cautious positioning rather than panic-driven selling.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:03 AM
👥 What the crowd believes
""Blue Owl Plans **$6.5B seed for Data Center REIT**" (CRE Daily #1)"
""IREN climbs 4% on **$2.4B Blue Owl-led GPU financing**" (24/7 Wall St. #11)"
""Blue Owl Capital (OWL) **Stock Fair Value edges higher** after Q2 analyst revisions" (Simply Wall St. #5)"
📈 12D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 99/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for OWL reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors assess stocks. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests he sees a cyclical opportunity near an oversold trough, while Charles Mackay’s moderate approval implies no obvious speculative frenzy—yet neither fully endorses it. In contrast, the majority of methodologies—from Jesse Livermore’s indecision to Peter Lynch’s outright rejection—flag either a lack of clear trends, weak fundamentals, or excessive risk, particularly among the more conservative voices like Gerald M. Loeb and Benjamin Graham, who see structural flaws. Even Howard Marks, who acknowledges a solid business, questions whether expectations are already baked into the price, while Morgan Housel and the efficient-market camp dismiss it as a speculative gamble over passive indexing. The contrast between Nelson’s cyclical optimism and the near-universal caution of others underscores whether OWL is a tactical bet or a speculative trap.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 92
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)
🟢 70
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 59
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 46
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 45
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 37
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)
🔴 31
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 25
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 20
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 19
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 10
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 9
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 5
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 statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 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 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
15.9%
Net Margin
2.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
3.6%
ROA
0.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.12
Cash
$194.51M
Total Debt
$3.32B
Current Ratio
0.75
Debt/Equity
1.51
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 13.8.2026 | $0.230 |
| 13.5.2026 | $0.230 |
| 12.5.2026 | $0.230 |
| 20.2.2026 | $0.225 |
| 19.2.2026 | $0.225 |
| 10.11.2025 | $0.225 |
| 9.11.2025 | $0.225 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.225 |
| 13.8.2025 | $0.225 |
| 14.5.2025 | $0.225 |
| 13.5.2025 | $0.225 |
| 19.2.2025 | $0.180 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$9.84
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$41.47
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+321.4%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $1.50B | $1.37B |
| 2 | 19.4% | $1.79B | $1.50B |
| 3 | 13.8% | $2.03B | $1.57B |
| 4 | 8.1% | $2.20B | $1.56B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.25B | $1.47B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.20B
Terminal Value
$35.55B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$23.10B
Enterprise Value
$30.58B
Net Debt
$3.13B
Equity Value
$27.45B
*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
$1.42
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$3.59
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 11 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 12.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
CRE Daily · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 6.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 6.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Blue Owl Capital Inc. (OWL) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 41/100, 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.
OWL currently scores 41/100 (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, OWL's estimated fair value is $41.47, which is 321.4% above the current price of $9.84. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
OWL'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: Estimated fair value: $41.47 vs. price $9.84 (+321.4%); Free cash flow growth: 28.1%; +1.3% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.2% of price; Current ratio: 0.75; Calmar: -0.12 (3y annualized return -8.2% / max drawdown 69.2%).
Yes — OWL has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dyal Capital SLP LP | Other Transaction | 1.9.2026 | 500,000 | -500,000 | — |
| Dyal Capital SLP LP | Other Transaction | 1.9.2026 | 500,000 | -500,000 | — |
| LIPSCHULTZ MARC S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 736,464 | +736,464 | — |
| Zahr Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 736,464 | +736,464 | — |
| Packer Craig | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 681,229 | +681,229 | — |
| Ostrover Douglas I | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 736,464 | +736,464 | — |
| LIPSCHULTZ MARC S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 736,464 | +736,464 | — |
| Packer Craig | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 681,229 | +681,229 | — |
| Ostrover Douglas I | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 736,464 | +736,464 | — |
| Zahr Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 736,464 | +736,464 | — |
| Rees Michael Douglass | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 1,007,678 | +1,007,678 | — |
| Rees Michael Douglass | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 1,007,678 | +1,007,678 | — |
| Ostrover Douglas I | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 7,655,333 | +736,464 | — |
| Packer Craig | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 6,416,974 | +681,229 | — |
| LIPSCHULTZ MARC S | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 7,655,333 | +736,464 | — |
| Zahr Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 11,093,922 | +736,464 | — |
| Rees Michael Douglass | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.8.2026 | 7,673,906 | +1,007,678 | — |
| Dyal Capital SLP LP | Other Transaction | 1.6.2026 | 1,150,000 | -1,150,000 | — |
| Dyal Capital SLP LP | Other Transaction | 1.6.2026 | 1,150,000 | -1,150,000 | — |
| Dyal Capital SLP LP | Other Transaction | 1.6.2026 | 132,264,357 | -1,150,000 | — |
| Rees Michael Douglass | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 1,072,523 | +1,072,523 | — |
| Packer Craig | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 729,716 | +729,716 | — |
| Ostrover Douglas I | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 788,882 | +788,882 | — |
| Holz Claudia A | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 20,429 | +20,429 | — |
| Zahr Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.5.2026 | 788,882 | +788,882 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
98,062,915 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 115,230,251 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
41.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 33.3% 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