Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$12.94
▲ $0.39 (+3.1%)
Market data updated: 09/22 04:08 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/22/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$809.81M
Day Range
$12.51 - $13.09
52-Week Range
$5.28 - $17.25
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$11.37
Resistance
$16.12
DSGN 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.
+103.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/23 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 17.14
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$17.75 vs. price $12.94 (-237.2%)
Fair Value
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
39
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
32
Quality
No data available
Value
38
Momentum
22
Risk
48
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
46
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 of Design Therapeutics, Inc. has centered on its clinical-stage pipeline and financial performance, particularly around its RESTORE-FA program for Friedreich’s ataxia, which showed early positive results with a 6.4-point improvement in functional scores. The company reported a narrowing net loss in Q2 2026, beating analyst EPS estimates, while also preparing to present at the Cantor Fitzgerald Global Healthcare Conference. Analysts have noted the biotech’s pivotal trial data as a key focus, alongside broader market attention on its stock movements.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Design Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 6 of the last 19 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
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
69
Fundamentals
46
Technical
22
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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 rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-6%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
DSGN’s psychology score (23) reflects detached euphoria—valuation metrics (17% above 200-day avg) suggest investors overlook weak momentum (-5.0% ROC) and neutral sentiment (74/100). The narrative gap (-2) hints at a slight disconnect between optimism and fundamentals, but no panic or herding dominates. The key question: *Is this detachment sustainable, or will fundamentals eventually reassert?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:43 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"a clinical-stage biotech sitting on pivotal pipeline data have all landed on analysts' radars"
"Design Therapeutics Q2 Net Loss Narrows"
"Design Therapeutics Announces Initiation of Patient Dosing in Phase 1 Multiple Ascending Dose Trial"
"Design Therapeutics (NASDAQ:DSGN) reported quarterly losses of $(0.32) per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate"
📈 4D 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
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast between Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score and the overwhelmingly cautious or neutral verdicts of the other methodologies highlights a fundamental divide in how these investors evaluate risk and opportunity. Bagehot’s model, focused on liquidity and resilience during crises, sees this stock as a potential survivor of a credit squeeze, while the majority—including Graham, Marks, and Livermore—flag it as either overvalued, late-cycle, or lacking clear defensive traits. Fisher, Lynch, and Housel’s zero scores reflect a lack of fundamental or growth data to justify a long-term hold, whereas Veblen’s skepticism suggests the stock may be driven more by speculative momentum than sustainable value. The middle-ground approaches (like Nelson’s mid-cycle neutrality or Schwager’s indecision) further dilute confidence, leaving only Bagehot’s liquidity-centric optimism as a notable outlier.
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 90
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)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 54
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 51
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 43
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)
🔴 33
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
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)
🔴 33
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
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: 20%
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 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 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-32.8%
ROA
-30.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.22
Cash
$16.86M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
17.14
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$12.94
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$17.75
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-237.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $-60.01M | $-55.05M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-64.88M | $-54.61M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-68.94M | $-53.23M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-71.95M | $-50.97M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-73.75M | $-47.93M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-54.55M
Terminal Value
$-1.16B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-755.87M
Enterprise Value
$-1.02B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.02B
*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
$3.71
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.71
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 11 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 19 articles.
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 3.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.7.2026
PR Newswire · 6.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 30.6.2026
Zacks · 9.6.2026
PR Newswire · 8.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 28.5.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 18.5.2026
InvestorsHub · 18.5.2026
MT Newswires · 18.5.2026
GlobeNewswire · 18.5.2026
GlobeNewswire · 17.5.2026
Design Therapeutics, Inc. (DSGN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 39/100, rated "Weak" (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.
DSGN currently scores 39/100 (Weak) 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, DSGN's estimated fair value is -$17.75, which is 237.2% below the current price of $12.94. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
DSGN's technical score is 22/100, 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: Current ratio: 17.14; Price is above the 200-day average; Current ratio: 17.14.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$17.75 vs. price $12.94 (-237.2%); ATR: 5.5% of price; Return on equity (ROE): -32.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for DSGN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schmid John P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Gover Justin D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| George Simeon | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| LAPPE RODNEY W | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Berger Heather A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Shapiro David | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Schmid John P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Shapiro David | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| LAPPE RODNEY W | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| George Simeon | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Berger Heather A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Gover Justin D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| Shapiro David | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | — |
| Shapiro David | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 60,000 | +60,000 | — |
| Shapiro David | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 60,000 | +60,000 | — |
| Shapiro David | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 7,500 | +7,500 | — |
| Storgard Chris | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| Shah Pratik | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 750,000 | +750,000 | — |
| Burgess Julie | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 150,000 | +150,000 | — |
| Jeffries Sean | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 375,000 | +375,000 | — |
| Gover Justin D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 45,000 | +45,000 | — |
| Shah Pratik | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 750,000 | +750,000 | — |
| Storgard Chris | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| Gover Justin D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 45,000 | +45,000 | — |
| Jeffries Sean | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.1.2026 | 375,000 | +375,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,542,463 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,952,223 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
70.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 60.7% 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