Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NYSE
$42.26
▲ $0.10 (+0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/15 05:03 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/15/2026
News analyzed: 09/15/2026
Market Cap
$1.40B
Day Range
$42.05 - $42.32
52-Week Range
$35.78 - $54.63
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+16.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/18 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -23.8%
Growth
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.
Barclays (BAR) exhibits a **moderate overall score of 52**, reflecting a mixed but cautiously optimistic outlook driven by a few key strengths balanced against notable weaknesses. On the positive side, the stock demonstrates **technical resilience** with a price above its 50-day average and a relatively healthy RSI (52.6), signaling short-term positive momentum. Valuation appears attractive with a low P/E ratio of 6.1, suggesting undervaluation relative to earnings. Additionally, the company’s **strong return on assets (18.5%)** underscores operational efficiency, while recent news coverage—though mixed—includes positive signals around gold demand and central bank activity, which could benefit BAR’s financials. However, the score is dragged down by **severe growth concerns**, with EPS and net income declining sharply (-23.8% and -21.8%, respectively), indicating underlying profitability challenges. Technical indicators like the negative MACD histogram and the price sitting below the 200-day average and SAR point further reinforce a downtrend, while volatility metrics (ATR: 1.9%) highlight potential risk. The interplay between these factors results in a **balanced but cautious assessment**, where strengths in valuation and fundamentals are offset by structural growth and momentum headwinds.
The stock shows mixed technical signals: it sits above the 50-day average (suggesting short-term bullishness) but below the 200-day average and SAR point, with a negative MACD histogram indicating falling momentum. The RSI (52.6) remains neutral-positive.
This duality—short-term strength versus long-term weakness—creates uncertainty about whether the stock can sustain upward momentum or revert to downtrend pressures.
Barclays demonstrates strong operational efficiency with an ROA of 18.5%, but this is partially offset by declining profitability metrics (e.g., net income growth at -21.8%).
While asset utilization is robust, earnings declines raise questions about sustainability and long-term profitability.
The company faces severe growth challenges, with EPS and net income contracting by -23.8% and -21.8%, respectively, over the observed period.
Negative growth trends signal potential headwinds for future earnings and investor confidence.
The P/E ratio of 6.1 is significantly below industry averages, suggesting the stock is undervalued relative to earnings.
A low P/E could attract value investors, but it may also reflect broader concerns about future profitability.
News sentiment is mixed, with positive coverage on gold demand and central bank activity (e.g., elevated energy prices, central bank gold purchases) counterbalanced by negative commentary on macroeconomic risks (e.g., de-dollarization, geopolitical tensions).
The mixed narrative introduces volatility but also highlights potential tailwinds for BAR’s financial sector exposure.
The stock exhibits moderate volatility (ATR: 1.9%) and a Calmar ratio of 1.21, indicating a high reward-to-risk profile historically (31.9% annualized return vs. 26.3% max drawdown).
While volatility is manageable, the drawdown risk underscores the need for caution in a volatile macro environment.
StockIQ conclusion
Barclays (BAR) presents a **moderate investment profile**, where strengths in valuation, operational efficiency, and selective positive news are tempered by **structural growth challenges and technical weaknesses**. The stock’s undervaluation (P/E: 6.1) and strong ROA (18.5%) offer potential upside for value investors, but declining earnings and persistent downtrend signals create significant hurdles. Risk is moderated by controlled volatility, though macroeconomic and sector-specific uncertainties remain. The score reflects a **cautious outlook**, where improvements in earnings or technical momentum could meaningfully shift the narrative.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
48
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
38
Quality
No data available
Value
55
Momentum
31
Risk
58
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
54
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 on **GraniteShares Gold Trust** (GLD) has been limited, as the provided sources focus primarily on broader market trends rather than the company itself. The headlines instead highlight gold’s recent **10% rally**, driven by geopolitical tensions—particularly Middle East escalation—rising energy prices, and central bank gold accumulation (e.g., Dutch central bank transfers, net central bank buying of 23 tonnes in July). While not explicitly about GraniteShares, these factors suggest heightened demand for gold-backed products like GLD amid inflation concerns, currency volatility, and perceived safe-haven demand. No direct company-specific news was found.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about GraniteShares Gold Trust. News trend score: 74. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 6 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
18
Fundamentals
54
Technical
31
Valuation
55
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+1%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for BAR suggests a neutral-to-cautious stance, with no dominant psychological state emerging. Mild FOMO and panic selling signals coexist, but neither is overwhelming—evidenced by modest volume (0.99x) and neutral RSI (53). The narrative gap (-3) hints at slight underestimation of reality, possibly reflecting cautious optimism. The key open question is whether the slight volatility uptick (1.09x ATR) will escalate or stabilize, given the lack of extreme sentiment or momentum extremes.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 05:26 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"Oil prices remain elevated... amid a pickup in hostilities between the US and Iran (6)"
"Central banks continued their gold accumulation in July with net buying reported at 23t (5)"
"Gold just rallied by over 10%... after falling into correction territory earlier this year (1)"
"GLD faces short-term headwinds from rising U.S. bond yields (7)"
📈 10D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 14/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a stark divide between fundamentalists and behavioral analysts, with Grahamite investors like Benjamin Graham and Philip Fisher unable to form a clear verdict due to insufficient data, scoring near-perfect but with caveats. Meanwhile, cyclical and patient-holding methodologies—such as those of Howard Marks, Morgan Housel, and Samuel Nelson—see potential, with Marks noting balanced risk and Housel praising its quiet compounding qualities, while Nelson spots a favorable cycle position. On the other end, trend-followers like Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager reject it outright, with Livermore’s negative trend signal and Schwager’s wizards dismissing it as lacking a disciplined setup. The efficient-market camp and dividend-focused investors like Smith and Lynch also struggle, either seeing no clear edge or lacking the necessary data, highlighting how this stock’s ambiguous fundamentals and market context create both opportunities for patient, principle-driven investors and red flags for those prioritizing trend or data-driven precision.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 86
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 71
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 65
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 64
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 57
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
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%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 36
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 14
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 0
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 274 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 9 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
—
ROA
18.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
$7.13
Cash
—
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 4 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
GraniteShares Gold Trust (BAR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
BAR currently scores 48/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
BAR's technical score is 31/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; ATR: 1.9% of price; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -23.8%; Net income growth: -21.8%; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BAR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
223,258 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 131,926 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.3% 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