Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$0.49
▲ $0.02 (+3.3%)
Market data updated: 09/27 04:56 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/26/2026
News analyzed: 09/27/2026
Market Cap
$77.30M
Day Range
$0.45 - $0.50
52-Week Range
$0.38 - $2.45
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$0.44
Resistance
$0.85
GUTS 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.
-51.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 2/25 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
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 4.78
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
36
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $0.49
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 10 to 46 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
26
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
13
Risk
40
Sentiment
62
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 Fractyl Health, Inc. has centered on its Revita procedural therapy, a potential treatment for post-GLP-1 weight maintenance, with anticipation of a 2028 launch. The company highlighted Q2 earnings misses—reporting wider-than-expected losses—while emphasizing progress on pivotal trial data and the upcoming virtual commercial strategy event to discuss Revita’s commercialization. Additionally, Fractyl announced a new gene therapy trial (Rejuva) and investor focus on Q4 Revita data. Stock performance and strategic updates dominated discussions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Fractyl Health, Inc.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 3 of the last 13 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
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
34
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
46
Technical
13
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-35%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
34
Narrative Gap
+3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
GUTS exhibits confirmation bias as the dominant psychological state, driven by a narrative-reality disconnect (+17 gap) while revenue declines (-1.0%). Traders appear to selectively validate positive signals despite contradictory fundamentals, consistent with selective attention. The absence of extreme momentum (ROC +1.6%) or volatility (ATR 1.09x) suggests this bias is subtle but persistent. Key uncertainty remains: whether the narrative gap will widen further or if fundamentals will force a reassessment. Mild FOMO (volume 1.54x) and overconfidence (momentum vs. EPS) may amplify this behavior until clear evidence emerges.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 03:20 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Fractyl Health Eyes 2028 Revita Launch for Post-GLP-1 Weight Maintenance"
"Pivotal Data on Track and ..."
"Fractyl Health to Host Virtual Commercial Strategy Day"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 3D 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?
This stock sparks a stark divide between methodologies rooted in defensive fundamentals and those emphasizing market psychology or long-term stability. Bagehot and Mackay’s near-perfect scores suggest a strong balance sheet and absence of speculative frenzy, aligning with their focus on liquidity and crowd behavior. Meanwhile, cycle-based investors like Nelson and Marks see it as favorably positioned, though Marks’ slightly lower score hints at cautious optimism about already high expectations. In contrast, Graham’s strict valuation and defensive criteria, along with Lynch’s growth-at-a-reasonable-price test, reject the stock outright, while Fisher and Housel’s low scores reflect skepticism about its quality and volatility tolerance. The gap between the top-tier liquidity/psychology scores and the bottom-tier growth/defensive verdicts highlights a tension between short-term resilience and long-term structural appeal.
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)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 94
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)
🟢 65
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 65
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 23
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)
🔴 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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 8
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
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 287 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.
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
-1490.3%
ROA
-116.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.86
Cash
$81.54M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.78
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$0.49
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$15.84
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
-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% | $-86.34M | $-79.21M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-83.64M | $-70.40M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-82.60M | $-63.78M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-83.11M | $-58.88M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-85.19M | $-55.37M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-90.89M
Terminal Value
$-1.34B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-873.12M
Enterprise Value
$-1.20B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.20B
*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
$0.12
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.12
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 9 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 13 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
MarketBeat · 1.9.2026
InvestorsHub · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.8.2026
MarketBeat · 14.8.2026
Moby · 12.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.8.2026
MarketBeat · 10.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.7.2026
Fractyl Health, Inc. (GUTS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 36/100, 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.
GUTS currently scores 36/100 (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.
GUTS'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: Current ratio: 4.78; Current ratio: 4.78.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 11.1% of price; Calmar: -0.73 (3y annualized return -71.0% / max drawdown 96.9%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for GUTS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 9 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BRADLEY WILLIAM | Open Market Purchase | 14.9.2026 | 149,138 | +64,516 | $0.62 |
| Royan Ajay | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 23,000 | +23,000 | $0.85 |
| Royan Ajay | Open Market Purchase | 12.6.2026 | 40,901 | +23,000 | $0.85 |
| BRADLEY WILLIAM | Open Market Purchase | 10.6.2026 | 68,493 | +68,493 | $0.73 |
| BRADLEY WILLIAM | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Sheffield Ian | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Sheffield Ian | Open Market Purchase | 10.6.2026 | 35,000 | +35,000 | $0.73 |
| Conaway Samuel | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Barnes Kelly Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Elia Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| MEANWELL CLIVE | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Thompson Christopher Charles | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Royan Ajay | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Rajagopalan Harith | Open Market Purchase | 10.6.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $0.73 |
| BRADLEY WILLIAM | Open Market Purchase | 10.6.2026 | 84,622 | +68,493 | $0.73 |
| BRADLEY WILLIAM | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| MEANWELL CLIVE | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Rajagopalan Harith | Open Market Purchase | 10.6.2026 | 540,557 | +25,000 | $0.73 |
| Sheffield Ian | Open Market Purchase | 10.6.2026 | 35,000 | +35,000 | $0.73 |
| Sheffield Ian | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Barnes Kelly Ann | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Elia Marc | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Thompson Christopher Charles | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Royan Ajay | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
| Conaway Samuel | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.6.2026 | 22,500 | +22,500 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,696,513 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 2,218,965 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.3% 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