Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$56.87
▲ $0.40 (+0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 05:55 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$8.71B
Day Range
$56.18 - $57.73
52-Week Range
$26.76 - $59.30
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$45.37
Resistance
$58.97
TGTX 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.
+74.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 26/32 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 87.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$4.98 vs. price $56.87 (-108.8%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), 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.
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
as of 09/10/202676
This Week
73
7D Ago
↑ +3
Improving
Technical
94
7D Ago: 83
↑ +11
Fundamental
83
7D Ago: 83
→ 0
Growth
82
7D Ago: 82
→ 0
Valuation
38
7D Ago: 38
→ 0
News
92
7D Ago: 86
↑ +6
Quality
63
7D Ago: 63
→ 0
Risk
54
7D Ago: 54
→ 0
Biggest Improvements
📊 Score History
76
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $56.87
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 5 to 30 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
16d ago · $56.71
Evidence: המניה במגמת עלייה ברורה ללא טווח מסחר מוגדר בטווח הזמן שנבדק.
What happened after
16d ago · $56.71
Evidence: 9 bullish / 3 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
76 / 100
🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 26, 2026
Then
77
$55.42
Now
76
$56.87
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
82
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
94
Risk
54
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
83
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 TG Therapeutics, Inc. has centered on its stock performance and upcoming corporate events. The company’s shares have seen notable gains—up 15.1% since its last earnings report—sparking speculation about future momentum. Analysts have dismissed concerns over competition from Novartis’ remibrutinib, while TG Therapeutics is preparing to participate in the **Cantor Global Healthcare Conference** on September 9, 2026, with CEO Michael S. Weiss leading a fireside chat. Additionally, the stock was highlighted as an IBD *Stock of the Day*, nearing a potential breakout.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about TG Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 9 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
44
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
44
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
83
Technical
94
Valuation
38
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 is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+7%
Market Narrative
63
Fundamental Reality
44
Narrative Gap
+19
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests **herding** dominates as TGTX’s underperformance relative to peers (-1.7% vs. -2.5%) aligns with traders following sector trends rather than independent analysis. FOMO and euphoria coexist due to strong momentum (+8.3% ROC), elevated sentiment (86/100), and a 22.9% premium above the 200-day average, indicating speculative enthusiasm. However, the **narrative-reality gap (24 points)**—where optimism (68) exceeds tangible fundamentals (44)—highlights potential detachment from intrinsic value. The key question is whether traders will sustain herding behavior or pivot if momentum stalls or sentiment shifts. Overconfidence is absent, but anchoring near resistance (4.4% away) may limit aggressive buying.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 12:51 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"HC Wainwright & Co. reiterates TG Therapeutics (NASDAQ:TGTX) with a Buy and maintains $78 price target"
"TG Therapeutics (TGTX) reported earnings 30 days ago... Up 15.1% Since Last Earnings Report"
"TG Therapeutics is Wednesday's IBD Stock Of The Day... eyes breakout after topping early buy point"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 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
Peter Lynch — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies that prioritize qualitative growth and those anchored in valuation or cyclical caution. Peter Lynch, Walter Bagehot, and Philip Fisher—all of whom emphasize company fundamentals, resilience, and long-term potential—unanimously rate it near-perfectly, seeing it as a high-quality, liquid, and undervalued growth candidate. Meanwhile, the more conservative or cyclically sensitive frameworks, like Howard Marks (Market Cycle), Samuel Nelson, and even Benjamin Graham’s Enterprising Investor standard, flag it as overbought or statistically expensive, suggesting it may be priced for perfection or late in its cycle. The middle ground—where methodologies like Jesse Livermore or Edgar Smith see positive trends but lack the extreme conviction of the top scorers—reflects a nuanced tension between optimism about growth and skepticism about whether the market has already priced it accordingly.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 96
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 96
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 95
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
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)
🟢 70
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 62
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)
🟡 57
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 56
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 53
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 39
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 34
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 34
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 30
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)
🔴 17
Cycle looks stretched toward 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)
🔴 12
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
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (11 bullish · 0 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.
A trading range after an advance, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of a distribution phase.
Low confidence
$45.37
Range Bottom
$58.97
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
83.7%
Operating Margin
20.0%
Net Margin
72.6%
EBITDA Margin
20.0%
ROE
69.0%
ROA
42.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.10
Cash
$79.15M
Total Debt
$245.65M
Current Ratio
4.10
Debt/Equity
0.38
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$56.87
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$4.98
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-108.8%
🔴 Appears expensive 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% | $-31.23M | $-28.65M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-37.28M | $-31.38M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-42.41M | $-32.75M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-45.86M | $-32.49M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-47.00M | $-30.55M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-24.99M
Terminal Value
$-741.19M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-481.73M
Enterprise Value
$-637.54M
Net Debt
$166.50M
Equity Value
$-804.04M
*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
$4.01
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.01
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 9 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
MarketBeat · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Zacks · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
TG Therapeutics, Inc. (TGTX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 76/100, rated "Strong". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
TGTX currently scores 76/100 (Strong) 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, TGTX's estimated fair value is -$4.98, which is 108.8% below the current price of $56.87. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TGTX's technical score is 94/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 87.3%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 1746.7%; Free cash flow growth: 38.4%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$4.98 vs. price $56.87 (-108.8%); ATR: 4.1% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for TGTX.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charney Laurence N | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 450 | -450 | — |
| Charney Laurence N | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | — |
| Charney Laurence N | Gift | 6.8.2026 | 5,100 | -5,100 | — |
| Charney Laurence N | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| Echelard Yann | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| Hoberman Kenneth | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| Lonial Sagar | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| HUME DANIEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| Charney Laurence N | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| Echelard Yann | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| Hoberman Kenneth | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| HUME DANIEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| Lonial Sagar | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 8,325 | +8,325 | — |
| Charney Laurence N | Gift | 29.1.2026 | 13,197 | -13,197 | — |
| Charney Laurence N | Gift | 29.1.2026 | 179,690 | -13,197 | — |
| Charney Laurence N | Gift | 28.1.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | — |
| Charney Laurence N | Gift | 28.1.2026 | 192,887 | -30,000 | — |
| Power Sean A | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.1.2026 | 90,000 | +90,000 | — |
| WEISS MICHAEL S | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.1.2026 | 622,000 | +622,000 | — |
| Power Sean A | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.1.2026 | 798,111 | +90,000 | — |
| WEISS MICHAEL S | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.1.2026 | 9,778,086 | +622,000 | — |
| Echelard Yann | Open Market Sale | 24.11.2025 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $32.57 |
| Echelard Yann | Open Market Sale | 24.11.2025 | 223,816 | -5,000 | $32.57 |
| WEISS MICHAEL S | Gift | 5.11.2025 | 803,717 | -803,717 | — |
| WEISS MICHAEL S | Gift | 5.11.2025 | 3,865,126 | -3,865,126 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
30,128,901 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 29,317,926 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 56.7% 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