Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$16.37
▲ $1.73 (+11.8%)
Market data updated: 09/30 02:56 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$14.33 - $17.28
52-Week Range
$12.52 - $25.93
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.11.2026
Support
$12.52
Resistance
$19.71
-24.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/26 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
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: 138.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $5.38 vs. price $16.37 (-67.1%)
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
58
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
54
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
78
Risk
34
Sentiment
98
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 Perella Weinberg Partners has centered on its financial performance and market positioning, with analysts divided on its outlook. The firm’s Q2 earnings drew attention, highlighting revenue backlog growth and new advisory capabilities, while Goldman Sachs maintained a cautious "Sell" rating with a modest price target increase. Conversely, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods upgraded its rating to "Outperform" with a higher price target, suggesting potential undervaluation. Themes also include broader challenges for smaller M&A advisors and speculation about the firm’s evolving advisory franchise amid shifting market conditions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Perella Weinberg Partners. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 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
51
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
61
Fundamentals
37
Technical
78
Valuation
38
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
88
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+47
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant Confirmation Bias (score 47) suggests investors are selectively interpreting mixed fundamentals—small revenue dip (+36 narrative gap)—to justify optimism. Herding (44) and Overconfidence (45) reinforce this, as peers underperform while valuation remains extreme. The lack of panic or anchoring signals implies no urgent rebalancing pressure, though the narrative gap may blind participants to fundamental risks. The key question: *Will the gap persist despite weak revenue trends?*
Updated: 09/06/2026, 05:33 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Goldman Sachs raises price target to $16"
"Perella Weinberg Partners beat expectations"
"Perella Weinberg Partners stock could be 20% undervalued / valuation still too rich"
"Smaller M&A advisors face a tough road ahead"
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
Peter Lynch — 79/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for PWP reflects a clash between growth-focused and risk-averse methodologies. Peter Lynch’s high score (79) suggests he’d see potential in the stock’s underpriced growth, while the majority of investors—particularly Benjamin Graham (0), Gerald Loeb (21), and Jesse Livermore (17)—flag it as too risky or structurally flawed. Meanwhile, mid-tier signals from Charles Mackay (60) and Edgar Lawrence Smith (58) hint at cautious optimism about market sentiment, contrasting sharply with the outright rejection from Fisher (21) and Morgan Housel (0), who dismiss it as volatile or lacking fundamental quality. The efficient-market and cycle-based thinkers (Malkiel/Bogle, Marks) sit in the middle, neither endorsing nor condemning it, while Livermore’s low score underscores a clear trend-based warning that others ignore.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 79
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 65
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 53
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 50
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 49
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 41
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
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)
🔴 33
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 21
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 17
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 289 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 2 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.
Low 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
6.4%
Net Margin
4.7%
EBITDA Margin
9.2%
ROE
-27.9%
ROA
4.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.55
Cash
$255.91M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 28.8.2026 | $0.070 |
| 1.6.2026 | $0.070 |
| 31.5.2026 | $0.070 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.070 |
| 16.2.2026 | $0.070 |
| 17.11.2025 | $0.070 |
| 16.11.2025 | $0.070 |
| 29.8.2025 | $0.070 |
| 28.8.2025 | $0.070 |
| 14.5.2025 | $0.070 |
| 13.5.2025 | $0.070 |
| 18.2.2025 | $0.070 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$16.37
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$5.38
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-67.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
7.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.9% | $32.87M | $30.16M |
| 2 | 6.5% | $35.02M | $29.47M |
| 3 | 5.2% | $36.83M | $28.44M |
| 4 | 3.8% | $38.25M | $27.10M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $39.20M | $25.48M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$30.48M
Terminal Value
$618.22M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$401.80M
Enterprise Value
$542.46M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$542.46M
*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
-$1.26
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$2.11
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 29.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 29.9.2026
Benzinga · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.9.2026
Yahoo · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 3.9.2026
StockStory · 27.8.2026
StockStory · 10.8.2026
StockStory · 4.8.2026
StockStory · 3.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 3.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 2.8.2026
Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, 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.
PWP currently scores 58/100 (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, PWP's estimated fair value is $5.38, which is 67.1% below the current price of $16.37. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PWP's technical score is 78/100, 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: 138.5%; Net income growth: 154.8%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $5.38 vs. price $16.37 (-67.1%); ATR: 6.0% of price; Calmar: 0.33 (3y annualized return 17.2% / max drawdown 51.7%).
Yes — PWP 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PWP VoteCo Professionals LP | Other Transaction | 1.9.2026 | 18,021,285 | -1,997,030 | $0.02 |
| PWP VoteCo Professionals LP | Other Transaction | 1.9.2026 | 1,997,030 | -1,997,030 | $0.02 |
| STEEL ROBERT K | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.8.2026 | 302,624 | -15,298 | $16.98 |
| STEEL ROBERT K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 0 | -30,000 | — |
| Weinberg Peter A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 0 | -680,336 | — |
| Becker Dietrich | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 0 | -968,964 | — |
| Becker Dietrich | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 1,379,452 | +968,964 | — |
| Gottschalk Alexandra | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 0 | -4,000 | — |
| Gottschalk Alexandra | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 76,492 | +4,000 | — |
| Gottschalk Alexandra | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.8.2026 | 74,866 | -1,626 | $16.98 |
| Weinberg Peter A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 2,635,236 | +680,336 | — |
| STEEL ROBERT K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 317,922 | +30,000 | — |
| Bednar Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 2,030,224 | +968,964 | — |
| Bednar Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 0 | -968,964 | — |
| Gottschalk Alexandra | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.8.2026 | 1,626 | -1,626 | $16.98 |
| Gottschalk Alexandra | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 4,000 | -4,000 | — |
| Becker Dietrich | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 968,964 | +968,964 | — |
| Bednar Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 968,964 | -968,964 | — |
| Weinberg Peter A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 680,336 | -680,336 | — |
| Bednar Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 968,964 | +968,964 | — |
| STEEL ROBERT K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | — |
| Gottschalk Alexandra | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 4,000 | +4,000 | — |
| STEEL ROBERT K | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.8.2026 | 15,298 | -15,298 | $16.98 |
| Weinberg Peter A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 680,336 | +680,336 | — |
| Becker Dietrich | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 31.8.2026 | 968,964 | -968,964 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,860,428 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 8,874,701 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
64.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 52.6% 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