Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$1,217.80
▲ $48.22 (+4.1%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:47 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$59.85B
Day Range
$1,176.21 - $1,221.51
52-Week Range
$833.18 - $1,714.09
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$1,133.83
Resistance
$1,568.21
MPWR is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+32.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/30 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 26.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $294.93 vs. price $1,217.80 (-75.8%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
78/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
+7.3%
Median 40D Outcome
23/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+10.4% … +21.5%
🟡 Base
7%
-0.1% … -0.1%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-18.0% … -7.8%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +9.6%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
6 occurrence(s) · 83% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 67% (42%–85%) | +7.1% | -4.6% … +10.9% | +0.8% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +6.4% | -4.1% … +10.6% | +1.9% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +9.6% | -0.6% … +18.4% | +3.2% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +7.3% | -2.6% … +23.0% | +5.9% |
| 60D | 73% (48%–89%) | +14.5% | +2.6% … +24.7% | +8.8% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-04 | 78/100 | Downtrend | +16.2% | +22.4% |
| 2022-05-02 | 77/100 | High Volatility | +9.6% | +12.0% |
| 2018-10-26 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +12.8% | +16.1% |
| 2025-06-13 | 77/100 | Consolidation | +6.6% | +27.1% |
| 2025-07-31 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +20.7% | +51.1% |
| 2022-02-08 | 76/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +3.1% | +11.4% |
| 2022-07-08 | 75/100 | High Volatility | +34.6% | -4.7% |
| 2023-10-04 | 75/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -0.1% | +38.0% |
| 2023-10-31 | 75/100 | Downtrend | +25.1% | +40.3% |
| 2022-10-05 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -16.3% | -11.6% |
| 2022-09-20 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -23.2% | -3.8% |
| 2022-01-14 | 73/100 | Consolidation | -1.1% | -8.5% |
| 2023-05-24 | 72/100 | High Volatility | +21.7% | +20.0% |
| 2023-04-28 | 71/100 | Consolidation | +12.8% | +14.5% |
| 2023-08-28 | 71/100 | Consolidation | -10.0% | +9.0% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLK (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
54
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
63
Value
33
Momentum
26
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
80
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING MPWR...
Recent media coverage of Monolithic Power Systems highlights its strong financial performance and growth trajectory, driven primarily by surging demand for its power-management components—critical for AI and data center infrastructure. The company reported a **48% year-over-year revenue jump** in Q2 2026, fueled by its role in enabling AI chips and expanding into broader solutions. Analysts anticipate continued momentum, with bullish ratings (e.g., StoneX’s $1,800 price target) and comparisons to broader semiconductor and AI-driven growth trends. The focus remains on its transition from chip supplier to a full solutions provider amid industry-wide AI and data center investments.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Monolithic Power Systems. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
80
Technical
26
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-22%
Market Narrative
76
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+34
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Overconfidence** (45) stems from a stark disconnect between MPWR’s valuation (+317% above DCF) and its weak momentum (-5.9% ROC vs. EPS growth). This suggests traders may be overestimating fundamentals or ignoring recent underperformance. **Anchoring** (44) and **Loss Aversion** (41) further imply traders are reluctant to sell near support (2.8% above), possibly due to fear of locking in losses. The **narrative gap** (28) widens this disconnect, as positive sentiment (98/100) doesn’t align with technical weakness. The key question: *Will traders adjust expectations when momentum fails to recover, or will anchoring keep them anchored to the high valuation?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 02:43 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Monolithic Power Systems reported second-quarter revenue of $980.6 million, up 47.6% from a year earlier and 21.9% sequentially. The pace puts its AI opportunity into reported results."
"MACOM Technology, Monolithic Power and Semtech benefit from AI demand, semiconductor recovery and rising earnings estimates despite macro risks."
"This is a year of concentrated hyper-growth for Monolithic Power Systems."
"A number of stocks fell... after surging crude oil prices and a jump in benchmark Treasury yields stoked renewed concerns over inflation."
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 23/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for MPWR reflects a clash between cyclical bullishness and defensive caution. Methodologies like Walter Bagehot’s liquidity focus and Samuel Nelson’s cycle analysis—both scoring near-perfect—see it as a resilient, oversold opportunity, while the ‘buy-and-hold’ purists (Edgar Smith) echo that sentiment with high confidence. Conversely, Fisher’s quality bar and Marks’ risk-valuation lens flag it as merely ‘solid’ or risky, while the most bearish frameworks—Graham’s defensive criteria, Livermore’s trend rule, and Housel’s volatility aversion—dismiss it outright, scoring it among the lowest. Even the efficient-market camp (Malkiel/Bogle) dismisses it as overpriced relative to passive benchmarks, highlighting a tension between growth potential and valuation discipline.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 94
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 69
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 67
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)
🟢 66
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 63
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 59
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 56
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 56
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 34
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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)
🔴 30
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)
🔴 23
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 7 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 downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High 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
55.2%
Operating Margin
26.1%
Net Margin
22.3%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
17.6%
ROA
14.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$12.94
Cash
$1.10B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
5.91
Debt/Equity
0.00
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 30.6.2026 | $2.000 |
| 29.6.2026 | $2.000 |
| 31.3.2026 | $2.000 |
| 30.3.2026 | $2.000 |
| 31.12.2025 | $1.560 |
| 30.12.2025 | $1.560 |
| 30.9.2025 | $1.560 |
| 29.9.2025 | $1.560 |
| 30.6.2025 | $1.560 |
| 29.6.2025 | $1.560 |
| 31.3.2025 | $1.560 |
| 30.3.2025 | $1.560 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1,217.80
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$294.93
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-75.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
16.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16.4% | $775.29M | $711.27M |
| 2 | 12.9% | $875.36M | $736.77M |
| 3 | 9.4% | $957.98M | $739.73M |
| 4 | 6.0% | $1.02B | $719.16M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.04B | $676.28M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$666.19M
Terminal Value
$16.41B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$10.66B
Enterprise Value
$14.25B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$14.25B
*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
$72.50
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$72.32
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 4 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Barchart · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Monolithic Power Systems (MPWR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
MPWR currently scores 54/100 (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, MPWR's estimated fair value is $294.93, which is 75.8% below the current price of $1,217.80. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MPWR's technical score is 26/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 26.4%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Debt/equity: 0.00.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $294.93 vs. price $1,217.80 (-75.8%); ATR: 4.2% of price; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -60.6%.
Yes — MPWR 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 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tseng Saria | Gift | 31.8.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| Tseng Saria | Gift | 31.8.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | — |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Other Transaction | 24.8.2026 | 7,089 | -5 | — |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 7,094 | -32 | $1,297.72 |
| CHANG KUO WEI HERBERT | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 50 | -50 | $1,281.57 |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Other Transaction | 24.8.2026 | 5 | -5 | — |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 32 | -32 | $1,297.72 |
| CHANG KUO WEI HERBERT | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 515 | -50 | $1,281.57 |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 6 | -6 | $1,413.64 |
| CHANG KUO WEI HERBERT | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 50 | -50 | $1,420.00 |
| CHANG KUO WEI HERBERT | Open Market Sale | 11.8.2026 | 565 | -50 | $1,420.00 |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 105 | -105 | $1,344.27 |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Open Market Sale | 5.8.2026 | 7,132 | -105 | $1,344.27 |
| Sciammas Maurice | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Sciammas Maurice | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | — |
| Sciammas Maurice | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 126,644 | -25,000 | — |
| Sciammas Maurice | Gift | 4.8.2026 | 36,062 | +25,000 | — |
| Sciammas Maurice | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 30 | -30 | $1,343.94 |
| Sciammas Maurice | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 1,119 | -30 | $1,343.94 |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.7.2026 | 1,359 | +1,359 | — |
| DEAN ROBERT W II | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.7.2026 | 7,237 | +1,359 | — |
| Sciammas Maurice | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 409 | -409 | $1,323.93 |
| Sciammas Maurice | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 1,460 | -1,460 | $1,339.59 |
| Sciammas Maurice | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 776 | -776 | $1,334.59 |
| Sciammas Maurice | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 464 | -464 | $1,329.30 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,998,007 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,122,311 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
50.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.3% 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