Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · CBOE
$66.10
▼ $0.10 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/17 05:19 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$13.05B
Day Range
$65.19 - $66.53
52-Week Range
$50.48 - $110.25
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
-35.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/15 factors positiveRisk: High
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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.37 (3y annualized return 19.6% / max drawdown 53.4%)
Risk
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.
FBTC’s **MODERATE** investor score of **54** reflects a divergence between its strong technical performance and significant fundamental and growth weaknesses. The stock demonstrates robust short-term momentum, with the price exceeding both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a positive MACD histogram, and an RSI of 67.0—indicating healthy upward momentum. However, the overbought %K reading (88.4) suggests potential for a near-term pullback, while declining volume despite the price advance raises concerns about sustained buying interest. Fundamentally, the company’s negative return on equity (-9.0%) and return on assets (-9.0%) highlight deep operational inefficiencies, and the catastrophic net income decline (-122.8%) underscores severe growth challenges. Valuation remains neutral, but the mixed news sentiment—dominated by negative Bitcoin ETF flows and macroeconomic headwinds—adds to uncertainty. Risk metrics, including a historically volatile Calmar ratio (0.41) and a 53.4% max drawdown, further emphasize the stock’s high-risk profile despite its recent outperformance relative to the index (+29.8% over three months).
The stock exhibits strong short-term momentum, with prices above both 50-day and 200-day averages, a positive MACD histogram, and an RSI of 67.0—all signaling upward momentum. However, the %K reading of 88.4 indicates overbought conditions, and declining volume despite price gains suggests weakening institutional support.
Technical strength is critical for short-term traders, but overbought conditions and declining volume could signal an impending reversal or consolidation.
The company’s return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA) are both negative (-9.0%), indicating severe financial inefficiency, while net income growth plummeted by -122.8%—a clear sign of operational decline.
Negative profitability metrics raise concerns about long-term sustainability and the ability to generate returns for shareholders.
Net income growth has collapsed by -122.8%, signaling a severe contraction in profitability and operational performance, which could limit future expansion or recovery.
Sustained growth requires consistent profitability, and this extreme decline suggests structural challenges ahead.
No explicit valuation metrics (e.g., P/E, EV/EBITDA) are provided, but the lack of evidence implies either neutral or unclear relative valuation compared to peers or historical standards.
Without clear valuation benchmarks, investors must rely on other factors to assess fair pricing.
Recent news is mixed, with negative sentiment dominating (e.g., Bitcoin ETF outflows, macroeconomic headwinds) alongside neutral/positive mentions of ETF flows and asset allocation strategies, creating ambiguity around future catalysts.
Negative news can dampen investor sentiment, while positive developments may provide temporary support or clarity.
The stock exhibits high volatility, with a Calmar ratio of 0.41 (indicating poor risk-adjusted returns) and a 53.4% max drawdown over three years, alongside an ATR of 2.9% of price—all signaling significant downside risk.
High volatility and drawdowns suggest the stock is prone to sharp corrections, which could erode investor confidence.
StockIQ conclusion
FBTC’s **MODERATE** score reflects a stock with compelling short-term technical strength but severe fundamental and growth challenges. While the price’s resilience above key moving averages and positive momentum indicators suggest potential for continued gains, declining volume, negative profitability metrics, and extreme volatility highlight significant risks. The mixed news environment—dominated by Bitcoin ETF outflows and macroeconomic headwinds—adds ambiguity, making it a speculative play rather than a low-risk investment. Investors should monitor operational improvements, sector catalysts, and volume trends to assess whether the stock’s current momentum can overcome its structural weaknesses.
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
46
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
1d ago · $66.37
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 6 to -21 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
44
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
62
Risk
42
Sentiment
14
Fundamental
42
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 the **Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC)** highlights its performance tied to broader Bitcoin ETF trends. Key themes include strong investor inflows—reaching over $700 million in a single day—driven by Bitcoin’s price recovery above $80,000 and spot ETF demand. Regulatory focus on the **CLARITY Act** is noted as a potential catalyst, though Bitcoin’s decentralized nature reduces reliance on delays. The fund benefits from institutional interest amid ETF-driven market momentum, alongside broader discussions on Bitcoin’s bullish outlook and Treasury yield impacts.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund. News trend score: 14. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 3 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
18
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
22
Fundamentals
42
Technical
62
Valuation
50
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+21%
Market Narrative
27
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-23
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
FBTC’s psychology is dominated by **anchoring**, as the stock’s proximity (2.6%) to resistance likely constrains trading activity. FOMO (44) and euphoria (21) coexist but are muted by neutral sentiment and moderate volume. The narrative gap (6) suggests a slight disconnect between investor perceptions and market reality, possibly amplifying hesitation. The key question: *Will traders break the resistance anchor, or will the 2.6% gap act as a psychological barrier?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 11:50 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""Bitcoin ETFs logged $1.9 billion in weekly inflows... IBIT, FBTC, ARKB, are back in focus""
""Quantitative trading giant Jane Street revealed over $1 billion in Bitcoin exchange-traded fund holdings""
""Bitcoin's rebound may be running on ETF flows, not leverage""
""FBTC's prospects hinge on the CLARITY Act's progress""
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 6D 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
Charles Mackay — 89/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 32/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a stark divide among methodologies, with some seeing clear upside while others flag significant risks or insufficient data. Jesse Livermore’s high score reflects his focus on price action trends, suggesting the stock aligns with his documented pattern of bullish momentum. Similarly, Howard Marks’ cycle-based approach leans positive, viewing it as early-to-mid cycle rather than overextended, though his broader valuation caution dampens enthusiasm. Meanwhile, Charles Mackay’s crowd psychology signals growing excitement, hinting at potential speculative fervor. Conversely, methodologies like Benjamin Graham’s, Philip Fisher’s, and Peter Lynch’s all return neutral scores due to lack of concrete fundamentals or valuation data, leaving their models unable to form a definitive opinion. On the cautious side, Veblen and Nelson’s low scores warn of speculative excess or overbought conditions, while efficient-market theorists dismiss it as unconvincing relative to broader indices. The debate thus hinges on whether the stock’s price action or speculative momentum outweighs fundamental uncertainty or cyclical risks.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 89
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 76
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 68
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 52
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)
🟡 50
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: 0%
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%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
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: 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%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
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: 0%
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 45
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 43
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 42
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 32
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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
Based on the last 277 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (6 bullish · 4 bearish · 0 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
-9.0%
ROA
-9.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$0
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
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)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 8 neutral, 9 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
etf.com · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 21.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 18.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, 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.
FBTC currently scores 46/100 (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.
FBTC's technical score is 62/100, 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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; RSI 53.8 — healthy positive momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.37 (3y annualized return 19.6% / max drawdown 53.4%); Return on equity (ROE): -9.0% (negative); Net income growth: -122.8%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FBTC.
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.
1,510,751 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,436,553 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.4% 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