Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$27.86
▼ $0.40 (-1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/23 12:20 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/23/2026
Market Cap
$1.73B
Day Range
$27.61 - $28.45
52-Week Range
$12.04 - $31.44
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$25.00
Resistance
$31.44
GHRS 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.
+109.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/24 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.00
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$13.35 vs. price $27.86 (-147.9%)
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
55
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
55
Value
38
Momentum
65
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
50
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 GH Research PLC has centered on its strong analyst support and bullish outlook in the mental health and psychedelic drug sectors. Multiple Wall Street firms, including Guggenheim, Cantor Fitzgerald, and Needham, have raised their price targets to between $39 and $40, maintaining positive ratings. The company’s Q2 2026 financial results showed improved earnings per share, beating estimates, while broader industry trends highlight its potential in developing breakthrough treatments for depression and anxiety. Analysts also note GH Research’s position in the evolving psychedelic drug market as a key growth driver.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about GH Research PLC. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 of the last 19 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
42
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
52
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
50
Technical
65
Valuation
38
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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)
+18%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
52
Narrative Gap
+12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a dominant herding tendency, as GHRS's -2.8% move tightly tracks its peer group's -2.9% drop. Evidence indicates an active social proof bias, with price action following broader group trends despite strong news sentiment of 100/100. Meanwhile, a narrative gap of 5 points shows narrative sentiment at 57 slightly exceeding reality at 52. The key open question is whether individual price catalysts will emerge to decouple GHRS from its peer average behavior.
Updated: 09/15/2026, 04:40 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Guggenheim analyst Eddie Hickman maintains GH Research with a Buy and raises the price target from $34 to $40."
"Helus Pharma's psychedelic pipeline targets MDD & GAD with HLP003 psilocin and HLP004 DMT."
"Wells Fargo thinks next wave of depression drugs could create new winners."
"GH Research reported quarterly losses of $(0.23) per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.30)."
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
Peter Lynch — 29/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for GHRS reflects deep methodological contrasts between risk-averse and opportunistic investors. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights the stock’s liquidity resilience, aligning with his focus on financial stability during crises, while Samuel Nelson’s moderate score suggests a cyclical bullishness—perhaps seeing it as a contrarian rebound. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s mixed verdict and his Enterprising Investor counterpart’s lower score reveal tension between strict margin-of-safety principles and a more flexible, speculative tolerance. On the other end, Fisher’s zero score and Veblen’s low rating underscore a clash between fundamental rigor and skepticism toward speculative growth trends, while Livermore’s negative trend signal and Marks’ late-cycle caution reflect a consensus that the stock may be overvalued or overbought. The range from 100 to 0 underscores how GHRS straddles both defensive and speculative traits, making it either a Bagehot-style safe haven or a Fisherian red flag depending on the framework.
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 60
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 58
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 54
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 51
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 41
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 34
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 29
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 3 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$25.00
Range Bottom
$31.44
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
-17.3%
ROA
-16.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.79
Cash
$246.25M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
34.13
Debt/Equity
0.00
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$27.86
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$13.35
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-147.9%
🔴 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% | $-48.04M | $-44.07M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-51.94M | $-43.72M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-55.19M | $-42.62M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-57.60M | $-40.81M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-59.04M | $-38.38M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-43.67M
Terminal Value
$-931.09M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-605.14M
Enterprise Value
$-814.74M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-814.74M
*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
$4.51
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 9 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 19 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
PR Newswire · 25.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
Benzinga · 6.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 6.8.2026
Benzinga · 6.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 2.8.2026
Stocktwits · 27.7.2026
MT Newswires · 27.7.2026
Benzinga · 27.7.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 16.7.2026
Investing.com · 16.7.2026
InvestorsHub · 16.7.2026
WSJ · 14.7.2026
Proactive · 13.7.2026
Zacks · 2.7.2026
GH Research PLC (GHRS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 55/100, 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.
GHRS currently scores 55/100 (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, GHRS's estimated fair value is -$13.35, which is 147.9% below the current price of $27.86. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
GHRS's technical score is 65/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.00; Current ratio: 34.13; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$13.35 vs. price $27.86 (-147.9%); ATR: 4.3% of price; Return on equity (ROE): -17.3% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for GHRS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 8 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forer Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 2,202 | +2,202 | — |
| Hanley Dermot John | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 2,202 | +2,202 | — |
| Moore Duncan | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 2,202 | +2,202 | — |
| Forer Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Forer Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 2,202 | +2,202 | — |
| Moore Duncan | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 2,202 | +2,202 | — |
| Forer Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Hanley Dermot John | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.8.2026 | 2,202 | +2,202 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,081,748 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,529,977 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.7% 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