Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$26.20
▼ $0.26 (-1.0%)
Market data updated: 10/01 01:21 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$380.92M
Day Range
$25.71 - $26.56
52-Week Range
$13.42 - $26.96
Beta
—
Next Earnings
30.10.2026
Support
$22.09
Resistance
$26.96
TWIN is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+88.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 19/32 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 3820.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $10.04 vs. price $26.20 (-61.7%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (43/100) — 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 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
70
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
73
Quality
63
Value
43
Momentum
85
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
64
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 Twin Disc, Incorporated highlights its record-breaking fourth-quarter performance, driven by robust demand in marine propulsion and land-based transmission sectors. The company reported an 18.3% revenue increase year-over-year, surpassing forecasts, while defense-related projects expanded its backlog. However, analysts noted concerns about narrowing profit margins amid growth. Electrification and defense sectors were key themes in the company’s upward trajectory.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Twin Disc, Incorporated. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 of the last 19 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
58
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
67
Fundamentals
64
Technical
85
Valuation
43
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+15%
Market Narrative
87
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+45
🔀 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
Peter Lynch — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two stark camps: the growth-focused optimists and the cautious or skeptical observers. Peter Lynch and Edgar Lawrence Smith, both drawn to long-term growth potential, see TWIN as a compelling buy—Lynch notes the price hasn’t yet reflected its growth, while Smith calls it a 'hold for a decade' candidate. In contrast, the majority of frameworks—from Benjamin Graham’s value tests to Howard Marks’ risk-valuation warnings—raise red flags, with scores below 60 signaling either weak fundamentals, overvaluation, or market cycle risks. Even Walter Bagehot’s liquidity concerns and Thorstein Veblen’s profit ambiguity suggest uncertainty, while the lowest scorers (Mackay, Marks-cycle, and Nelson) flag speculative or late-cycle behavior. The divide highlights a core tension: growth investors see upside where others detect fragility, with only a handful of methodologies (like Livermore’s trend skepticism) remaining neutral.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 88
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 84
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 64
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 63
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 62
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 61
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 60
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
🟡 51
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 49
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 40
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 27
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 22
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 16
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 12
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 288 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 1 bearish · 2 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
26.9%
Operating Margin
4.7%
Net Margin
7.1%
EBITDA Margin
8.3%
ROE
12.3%
ROA
6.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.92
Cash
—
Total Debt
$29.81M
Current Ratio
2.35
Debt/Equity
0.14
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.8.2026 | $0.050 |
| 18.5.2026 | $0.040 |
| 17.5.2026 | $0.040 |
| 18.2.2026 | $0.040 |
| 17.2.2026 | $0.040 |
| 17.11.2025 | $0.040 |
| 16.11.2025 | $0.040 |
| 18.8.2025 | $0.040 |
| 17.8.2025 | $0.040 |
| 19.5.2025 | $0.040 |
| 18.5.2025 | $0.040 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.040 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$26.20
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$10.04
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-61.7%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
11.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.3% | $10.22M | $9.38M |
| 2 | 9.1% | $11.15M | $9.39M |
| 3 | 6.9% | $11.92M | $9.21M |
| 4 | 4.7% | $12.49M | $8.84M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $12.80M | $8.32M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$9.19M
Terminal Value
$201.81M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$131.16M
Enterprise Value
$176.30M
Net Debt
$29.81M
Equity Value
$146.49M
*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
$15.06
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$13.90
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 4 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 19 articles.
MarketBeat · 29.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 27.8.2026
Motley Fool · 21.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 20.8.2026
Moby · 20.8.2026
MarketBeat · 20.8.2026
Yahoo · 20.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 20.8.2026
Yahoo · 20.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.8.2026
Associated Press · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.8.2026
Yahoo · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 7.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
Twin Disc, Incorporated (TWIN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 70/100, 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.
TWIN currently scores 70/100 (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, TWIN's estimated fair value is $10.04, which is 61.7% below the current price of $26.20. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TWIN'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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 3820.0%; Net income growth: 3984.8%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $10.04 vs. price $26.20 (-61.7%); Calmar: 0.37 (3y annualized return 24.0% / max drawdown 64.9%); Operating margin: 4.7% — weak.
Yes — TWIN 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 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 164,891 | -7,482 | $24.25 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 172,373 | -5,902 | $23.25 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Open Market Sale | 3.9.2026 | 178,275 | -4,302 | $23.00 |
| BATTEN JOHN H | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 520,418 | +18,756 | $24.01 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 192,001 | +38,638 | $24.01 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 173,843 | -18,158 | $24.01 |
| BATTEN JOHN H | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 501,662 | -36,986 | $24.01 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 153,363 | -7,600 | $23.34 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 182,577 | +8,734 | $24.01 |
| BATTEN JOHN H | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 459,955 | -15,479 | $23.34 |
| BATTEN JOHN H | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 538,648 | +78,693 | $24.01 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 7,600 | -7,600 | $23.34 |
| BATTEN JOHN H | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 15,479 | -15,479 | $23.34 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 8,734 | +8,734 | $24.01 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 18,158 | -18,158 | $24.01 |
| BATTEN JOHN H | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 18,756 | +18,756 | $24.01 |
| BATTEN JOHN H | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 78,693 | +78,693 | $24.01 |
| BATTEN JOHN H | Tax Withholding in Shares | 5.8.2026 | 36,986 | -36,986 | $24.01 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 38,638 | +38,638 | $24.01 |
| DOAR MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 357 | +357 | $22.74 |
| Johnson David W | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 179 | +179 | $22.74 |
| Johnson David W | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 75,280 | +179 | $22.74 |
| DOAR MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.8.2026 | 130,363 | +357 | $22.74 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 7,044 | -7,044 | $19.06 |
| Knutson Jeffrey Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 160,922 | -7,044 | $19.06 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
512,032 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 486,225 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
69.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 73.7% 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