Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$3.79
▼ $0.02 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/25 08:15 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/25/2026
News analyzed: 09/25/2026
Market Cap
$288.79M
Day Range
$3.75 - $3.82
52-Week Range
$2.83 - $15.74
Beta
—
Next Earnings
27.10.2026
Support
$3.45
Resistance
$3.94
FULC 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.
-48.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/25 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
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.04 (3y annualized return -3.4% / max drawdown 79.1%)
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.
🗓️ 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
44
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
26
Quality
58
Value
55
Momentum
37
Risk
48
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
46
Institutional
100
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 Fulcrum Therapeutics has centered on its all-stock merger with Slate Medicines, transforming the company into a migraine-focused biotech firm. The deal, backed by a $245 million private placement, allocates 95% of the combined company to Slate shareholders and new investors, with legacy Fulcrum stakeholders receiving a smaller stake. Additionally, Slate’s migraine treatment candidate, SLTE-1009, is now entering Phase 1 clinical trials, aiming to evaluate safety by mid-2027.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 2 of the last 18 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
7
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
40
Fundamentals
46
Technical
37
Valuation
55
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Price (3M)
-0%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
FULC’s psychology is dominated by anchoring, where traders fixate on the 2.3% resistance gap, likely using it as a mental reference for entry or exit. Overconfidence (12) and confirmation bias (8) suggest some investors cherry-pick bullish signals despite weak fundamentals (e.g., revenue decline). The absence of panic or herding signals implies no broad panic or herd-driven moves, but the narrative gap (+6) hints at selective attention to positive narratives. The key question is whether traders will hold or adjust positions as the stock approaches resistance, given the disconnect between price momentum and earnings growth.
Updated: 09/05/2026, 08:52 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Fulcrum Therapeutics and Slate Medicines merge in an all-stock deal to develop migraine drugs"
"Phase 1 single-and multiple-ascending dose is being conducted... evaluating SLTE-1009, the company’s subcutaneous antibody candidate for migraine treatment"
"Legacy Slate holders would own approximately 55.9% of the combined company, PIPE investors 39.1%"
"Combined company to operate as Slate Medicines and focus on advancing Slate’s portfolio of next-generation migraine therapeutics"
📈 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides historical methodologies sharply, with value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham—both defensive and enterprising—unanimously rating it as a top candidate, scoring 100 and praising its statistical discounts and liquidity resilience. Meanwhile, credit-focused thinkers like Walter Bagehot also see it as a bulwark against financial stress, reinforcing its defensive appeal. However, growth and quality-focused strategists like Philip Fisher and Peter Lynch dismiss it outright, scoring just 27 and 20 respectively, arguing it lacks the signature traits of sustained earnings power or reasonable growth. Even cycle-aware investors like Howard Marks (73) and Samuel Nelson (45) are divided: Marks sees reasonable risk pricing, while Nelson’s mid-cycle neutrality suggests no clear edge. The extremes—from Livermore’s 13 (negative trend) to Veblen’s 39 (growth for growth’s sake)—highlight how the stock’s volatility and lack of Fisherian quality create friction between contrarian value hunters and patient, quality-driven investors.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 98
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)
🟢 82
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 64
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)
🟡 39
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 34
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 30
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 30
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
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)
🔴 27
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 25
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 bearish · 3 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.
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
-21.5%
ROA
-20.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.18
Cash
$197.53M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
27.40
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$3.79
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$24,317.43
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-75.47M | $-69.24M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-90.10M | $-75.83M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-102.49M | $-79.14M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-110.81M | $-78.50M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-113.58M | $-73.82M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-60.38M
Terminal Value
$-1.79B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.16B
Enterprise Value
$-1.54B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.54B
*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
$5,508.64
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$5,508.64
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 15 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 18 articles.
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Exec Edge · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 25.8.2026
Pharmaceutical Technology · 18.8.2026
Exec Edge · 17.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
MarketBeat · 17.8.2026
MT Newswires · 17.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 17.8.2026
BioPharma Dive · 17.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.8.2026
Yahoo · 5.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 31.7.2026
Simply Wall St. · 27.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.6.2026
Zacks · 5.6.2026
Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. (FULC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 44/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
FULC currently scores 44/100 (Weak) 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.
FULC's technical score is 37/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 27.40; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.04 (3y annualized return -3.4% / max drawdown 79.1%); Return on equity (ROE): -21.5% (negative); Revenue growth (last year): -100.0%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for FULC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 12 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 17.7.2026 | 50,945 | +50,945 | $3.52 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 17.7.2026 | 7,080,945 | +50,945 | $3.52 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 16.7.2026 | 116,671 | +116,671 | $3.56 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 16.7.2026 | 7,030,000 | +116,671 | $3.56 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 15.7.2026 | 107,377 | +107,377 | $3.56 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 15.7.2026 | 6,913,329 | +107,377 | $3.56 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 75,952 | +75,952 | $3.58 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 53,651 | +53,651 | $3.56 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 6,730,000 | +53,651 | $3.56 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 6,805,952 | +75,952 | $3.58 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 13.7.2026 | 12,966 | +12,966 | $3.54 |
| TANG KEVIN | Open Market Purchase | 13.7.2026 | 6,676,349 | +12,966 | $3.54 |
| Dorton Katina | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| Gould Robert J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| Hill Colin | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| Ezekowitz Alan | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| Haviland Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| Banks Sonja | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| King Rachel K. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| GERAGHTY JAMES A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| GERAGHTY JAMES A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| Gould Robert J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| King Rachel K. | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| Dorton Katina | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
| Haviland Kate | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 32,000 | +32,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,194,912 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 7,016,163 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 51.9% 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