Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$568.27
▲ $0.82 (+0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 11:28 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$20.99B
Day Range
$560.24 - $572.04
52-Week Range
$502.00 - $808.16
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$543.39
Resistance
$770.18
+10.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/30 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
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: 22.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $265.07 vs. price $568.27 (-53.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (33/100) — 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
🌱 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
56
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
33
Momentum
32
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
65
Institutional
14
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 Curtiss-Wright Corporation has centered on its stock performance and valuation debates, with a notable 20% decline since its last earnings report. The company raised its 2026 guidance due to improved margins and secured around $40 million in new U.S. Army defense contracts, yet investors remain concerned about its premium valuation relative to cash flow and earnings. Analysts debate whether the stock’s strong past returns justify its current price.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Curtiss-Wright Corporation. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 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
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
65
Technical
32
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-26%
Market Narrative
75
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for CW suggests a dominant **loss aversion** bias, likely due to the pronounced 3-month decline (-20.3%) and subdued trading volume (0.86x average). Overconfidence (score 45) may persist among investors anchored to the stock’s extreme valuation premium (+116% vs. DCF), despite weak momentum. The narrative gap (8 points) hints at a disconnect between investor perceptions and fundamentals. The key question remains whether traders will hold or exit positions as the stock hovers near support, potentially triggering further defensive behavior.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:51 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Despite the raised 2026 guidance and the new U.S. Army contracts, Curtiss-Wright’s 1 month share price return is down 24.27%"
"Curtiss-Wright stock has delivered very strong gains over the past five years, yet several valuation checks now suggest investors are paying a premium for that track record."
"What a brutal six months it’s been for Curtiss-Wright. The stock has dropped 20.2%."
"Piper Sandler Initiates Curtiss-Wright (CW) at Neutral"
📈 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
Jack Schwager — 83/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 18/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on their documented principles, the model estimates that cycle‑focused investors such as Nelson, Smith and Marks‑cycle assign high scores (84‑80) and view the stock as favorably positioned in an early‑to‑mid cycle, whereas Graham’s defensive criteria yield very low scores (18‑20) indicating it is not statistically cheap enough. Growth‑oriented thinkers like Veblen and Fisher give mid‑range scores (70 and 56), reflecting solid but not exceptional quality. Momentum and crowd‑sentiment measures from Mackay and Schwager are positive, producing scores in the mid‑60s to high‑70s. Efficient‑market advocates including Malkiel & Bogle, Lynch and Marks (general) rate the stock around the mid‑40s, suggesting mixed or adequately priced expectations. The divergence therefore stems from the differing emphasis each methodology places on cycle timing, intrinsic valuation and market efficiency.
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 83
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 82
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 72
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 70
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 65
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 56
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 48
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 46
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 46
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
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
🔴 20
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 18
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 (2 bullish · 7 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 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
37.2%
Operating Margin
18.1%
Net Margin
13.8%
EBITDA Margin
21.7%
ROE
19.1%
ROA
9.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
$12.94
Cash
$371.35M
Total Debt
$957.88M
Current Ratio
1.44
Debt/Equity
0.38
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.6.2026 | $0.260 |
| 14.6.2026 | $0.260 |
| 26.3.2026 | $0.240 |
| 25.3.2026 | $0.240 |
| 28.11.2025 | $0.240 |
| 27.11.2025 | $0.240 |
| 26.9.2025 | $0.240 |
| 25.9.2025 | $0.240 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.240 |
| 15.6.2025 | $0.240 |
| 27.3.2025 | $0.210 |
| 26.3.2025 | $0.210 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$568.27
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$265.07
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-53.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
11.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.0% | $614.72M | $563.96M |
| 2 | 8.9% | $669.36M | $563.39M |
| 3 | 6.8% | $714.60M | $551.80M |
| 4 | 4.6% | $747.69M | $529.68M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $766.38M | $498.09M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$553.71M
Terminal Value
$12.09B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$7.85B
Enterprise Value
$10.56B
Net Debt
$586.54M
Equity Value
$9.97B
*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
$67.33
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$8.20
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 3 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Fintel · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Trefis · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
CW currently scores 56/100 (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, CW's estimated fair value is $265.07, which is 53.4% below the current price of $568.27. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CW's technical score is 32/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 22.0%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.38.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $265.07 vs. price $568.27 (-53.4%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — CW 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 — 2 purchases and 12 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wyche Larry D | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 1,414 | -100 | $596.74 |
| Wyche Larry D | Open Market Sale | 28.8.2026 | 100 | -100 | $596.74 |
| Watts John C | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 1,035 | -1,035 | $619.46 |
| Watts John C | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 2,736 | -1,035 | $619.46 |
| Lyash Jeffrey J. | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 209.38 | +209.38 | $711.62 |
| Lyash Jeffrey J. | Open Market Purchase | 10.8.2026 | 257 | +209 | $711.62 |
| Bamford Lynn M | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 17 | +17 | $634.88 |
| Farkas K Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 21 | +21 | $634.88 |
| Rayment Kevin | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 26 | +26 | $634.88 |
| Watts John C | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 9 | +9 | $634.88 |
| McDonald George P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 25 | +25 | $634.88 |
| Farkas K Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 4,274 | +21 | $634.88 |
| Rayment Kevin | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 31,519 | +26 | $634.88 |
| Bamford Lynn M | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 45,651 | +17 | $634.88 |
| Watts John C | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 3,771 | +9 | $634.88 |
| McDonald George P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 4,235 | +25 | $634.88 |
| Watts John C | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 200 | -200 | $770.56 |
| Watts John C | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 3,762 | -200 | $770.56 |
| Bamford Lynn M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $758.20 |
| Bamford Lynn M | Open Market Sale | 12.6.2026 | 45,634 | -2,500 | $758.20 |
| Bamford Lynn M | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $721.72 |
| Ogilby Gary A | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 399 | -399 | $721.95 |
| Ogilby Gary A | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 2,172 | -399 | $721.95 |
| Bamford Lynn M | Open Market Sale | 9.6.2026 | 48,134 | -2,500 | $721.72 |
| Wallace Peter C | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.6.2026 | 221 | +221 | $719.99 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
792,472 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 716,323 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
58.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.1% 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