Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$10.99
▼ $0.29 (-2.6%)
Market data updated: 09/24 05:38 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/24/2026
Market Cap
$5.37B
Day Range
$10.03 - $11.97
52-Week Range
$9.12 - $309.60
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$9.12
Resistance
$21.44
GOSS 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.
-95.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/27 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 138.8% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$9.91 vs. price $10.99 (-190.1%)
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
34
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
11d ago · $10.73
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 3 to 39 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
42
Value
38
Momentum
13
Risk
40
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
42
Institutional
No data available
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 Gossamer Bio, Inc. has centered on its financial and strategic developments. The company announced a $250 million funding round to accelerate the clinical and commercial progress of its lead drug, seralutinib, for treating pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD). Most of the funds are milestone-dependent, with only $25 million expected upfront. Additionally, Gossamer Bio will present at the Cantor Global Healthcare Conference, highlighting its market position within the growing PAH sector, which is projected to expand significantly by 2036.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Gossamer Bio, Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 3 of the last 20 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
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
20
Psychology
53
Fundamentals
42
Technical
13
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.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-20%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
20
Narrative Gap
+20
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant Confirmation Bias (69) reflects a disconnect between GOSS’s positive price action and deteriorating fundamentals (revenue/margin declines), as traders prioritize narrative-driven momentum over reality. The Overconfidence (47) and FOMO (44) signals suggest traders are chasing gains despite weak fundamentals, while the Euphoria (25) score hints at optimism misaligned with valuation. The key question: *Will traders sustain selective optimism, or will deteriorating fundamentals force a reassessment?* The narrative gap (+53) amplifies risk if fundamentals fail to improve.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 08:40 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of seralutinib for PAH and PH-ILD"
"up to $250M of financing, but only $25M is expected upfront. Most proceeds tied to regulatory milestones"
"Gossamer Bio featured alongside United Therapeutics, Merck in PAH market reports"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 7D 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
Charles Mackay — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for GOSS reflects deep methodological contrasts: Graham’s frameworks fail due to insufficient valuation data, while Bagehot’s liquidity focus suggests resilience in a crisis, highlighting a rare strength in a volatile environment. Meanwhile, Marks and Nelson flag overvaluation or stretched cycles, contrasting with Veblen’s critique of speculative growth for its own sake—all pointing to a stock that may appeal to defensive liquidity investors but risks alarming value or growth purists. Fisher and Lynch’s near-zero scores underscore a lack of clear, sustainable growth, while Housel’s zero verdict warns of volatility that could deter patient long-term holders. Schwager’s neutrality and Livermore’s trend aversion further muddle the picture, leaving only Bagehot’s liquidity thesis as a potential outlier in this sea of caution.
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: 15%
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 91
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 90
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 89
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)
🟡 62
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 57
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat 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)
🟡 36
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 25
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)
🔴 17
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 12
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)
🔴 8
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 (0 bullish · 10 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.
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
-352.2%
Net Margin
-351.5%
EBITDA Margin
-352.2%
ROE
138.8%
ROA
-98.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.75
Cash
$37.73M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.64
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$10.99
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$9.91
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-190.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $-162.78M | $-149.34M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-157.69M | $-132.73M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-155.72M | $-120.24M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-156.69M | $-111.01M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-160.61M | $-104.39M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-171.34M
Terminal Value
$-2.53B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.65B
Enterprise Value
$-2.26B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-2.26B
*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
-$0.54
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.54
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 17 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Business Wire · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Business Wire · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Business Wire · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
Pharmaceutical Technology · 24.8.2026
ChartMill · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Associated Press · 21.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 21.8.2026
Gossamer Bio, Inc. (GOSS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 34/100, 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.
GOSS currently scores 34/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, GOSS's estimated fair value is -$9.91, which is 190.1% below the current price of $10.99. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
GOSS's technical score is 13/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 138.8% — strong; Current ratio: 2.64; Current ratio: 2.64.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$9.91 vs. price $10.99 (-190.1%); Operating margin: -352.2% (negative); Net margin: -351.5% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for GOSS.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smith Robert Paul JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 5,800,051 | +5,800,051 | — |
| Hasnain Faheem | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 5,800,051 | +5,800,051 | — |
| Peterson Caryn | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 5,800,051 | +5,800,051 | — |
| Hasnain Faheem | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 166 | +166 | $1,000.00 |
| Giraudo Bryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 5,800,051 | +5,800,051 | — |
| Giraudo Bryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 25 | +25 | $1,000.00 |
| Christian Waage | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 2,900,026 | +2,900,026 | — |
| Hasnain Faheem | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 166 | +166 | $1,000.00 |
| Smith Robert Paul JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 5,800,051 | +5,800,051 | — |
| Peterson Caryn | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 5,800,051 | +5,800,051 | — |
| Christian Waage | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 2,900,026 | +2,900,026 | — |
| Giraudo Bryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 25 | +25 | $1,000.00 |
| Hasnain Faheem | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 5,800,051 | +5,800,051 | — |
| Giraudo Bryan | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2026 | 5,800,051 | +5,800,051 | — |
| Drynan Skye | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Nathan Steven D | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Cox Russell J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Milligan Sandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Quisel John D | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Daniel Thomas O | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Cox Russell J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Daniel Thomas O | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Quisel John D | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Milligan Sandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
| Drynan Skye | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.6.2026 | 115,000 | +115,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
82,633,317 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 94,986,016 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 65.5% 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