Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$0.77
▲ $0.04 (+5.5%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:23 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$302.29M
Day Range
$0.70 - $0.77
52-Week Range
$0.63 - $1.72
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$0.63
Resistance
$0.97
LAB is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-45.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/29 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 61.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$2.93 vs. price $0.77 (-480.4%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (68/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (43/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
50
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
68
Quality
42
Value
43
Momentum
60
Risk
40
Sentiment
56
Fundamental
35
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 Standard BioTools Inc. has centered on its **pending merger with Treeline Biosciences**, including the sale of its mass cytometry business to facilitate the deal. Financial reports revealed **missed earnings estimates** for Q2 2026, with losses widening despite a slight improvement over prior quarters. The merger, an all-stock transaction, was announced in June 2026, with regulatory filings and Illumina’s involvement in contingent payments noted. Analysts and investors are closely tracking the integration progress amid ongoing restructuring.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Standard BioTools Inc.. News trend score: 56. Reason: 2 of the last 11 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
43
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
35
Technical
60
Valuation
43
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-7%
Market Narrative
68
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+32
🔀 Weak-Conviction Rally
Price is moving, but not accompanied by a matching rise in news attention/sentiment.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** state (score 42) reflects a market still grappling with recent steep declines (-23.6% in three months), where traders hesitate to crystallize losses despite elevated volume. **Confirmation Bias** (score 20) suggests investors selectively favor narratives over fundamentals, ignoring stagnant revenue and modest margin gains. The **Overconfidence** signal (7) hints at a disconnect between price momentum and earnings growth, while **FOMO** and **Panic Selling** remain muted due to neutral RSI and low volatility. The key question is whether the narrative gap (15) will persist or if fundamentals begin to justify the current price action.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 06:36 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Standard BioTools Q2 EPS $(0.07) Misses $(0.03) Estimate"
"Standard BioTools, Treeline Biosciences to Merge in All-Stock Deal"
"Standard BioTools Sells Mass Cytometry Business Amid Pending Merger With Treeline Biosciences"
📈 16D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between value and growth-oriented methodologies. Benjamin Graham and his Enterprising Investor variant both rate it near-perfectly, seeing it as a deep statistical bargain or defensive hold, while Walter Bagehot and Charles Mackay confirm its resilience to systemic risk and absence of speculative frenzy. In contrast, growth-focused thinkers like Philip Fisher and Edgar Lawrence Smith dismiss it outright, with Fisher citing a lack of quality/growth traits and Smith flagging instability—reflecting their insistence on long-term fundamentals. Meanwhile, cyclical investors like Howard Marks and Samuel Nelson see it as favorably positioned, though less aggressively than value purists, while trend-followers like Jesse Livermore and Gerald Loeb reject it entirely, prioritizing momentum or risk aversion. The efficient-market camp and Morgan Housel sit in the middle, acknowledging it’s holdable but not a slam-dunk, while Jack Schwager’s disciplined approach still finds merit in its risk-reward balance—highlighting how even similar frameworks can clash on execution.
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
🟢 93
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)
🟢 75
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
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)
🟢 67
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 54
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 37
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 32
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 8
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 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 · 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.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low 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
49.9%
Operating Margin
-129.2%
Net Margin
-87.8%
EBITDA Margin
-118.3%
ROE
-17.7%
ROA
-13.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.20
Cash
$120.86M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.19
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$0.77
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$2.93
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-480.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-4.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -4.0% | $-79.32M | $-72.77M |
| 2 | -2.4% | $-77.41M | $-65.16M |
| 3 | -0.8% | $-76.82M | $-59.32M |
| 4 | 0.9% | $-77.49M | $-54.90M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-79.43M | $-51.62M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-82.65M
Terminal Value
$-1.25B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-814.04M
Enterprise Value
$-1.12B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.12B
*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
$1.11
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.11
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 8 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 11 articles.
Associated Press · 5.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 5.8.2026
Benzinga · 5.8.2026
MT Newswires · 28.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 28.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.7.2026
BioPharma Dive · 9.6.2026
MT Newswires · 8.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.6.2026
MT Newswires · 8.6.2026
Standard BioTools Inc. (LAB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
LAB currently scores 50/100 (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, LAB's estimated fair value is -$2.93, which is 480.4% below the current price of $0.77. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LAB's technical score is 60/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 61.5%; Free cash flow growth: 45.6%; Net income growth: 46.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$2.93 vs. price $0.77 (-480.4%); Operating margin: -129.2% (negative); Net margin: -87.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LAB.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Hanjoon Alex | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 2,534,859 | -28,195 | $0.67 |
| Mackay Sean | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 1,480,823 | -25,729 | $0.67 |
| Egholm Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 6,137,704 | -97,627 | $0.67 |
| Kim Hanjoon Alex | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 28,195 | -28,195 | $0.67 |
| Mackay Sean | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 25,729 | -25,729 | $0.67 |
| Egholm Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.8.2026 | 97,627 | -97,627 | $0.67 |
| Egholm Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 362,625 | -362,625 | $0.87 |
| Egholm Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.8.2026 | 6,235,331 | -362,625 | $0.87 |
| Kim Hanjoon Alex | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.7.2026 | 202,476 | -202,476 | $0.90 |
| Kim Hanjoon Alex | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.7.2026 | 2,563,054 | -202,476 | $0.90 |
| Mackay Sean | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.6.2026 | 500,000 | +500,000 | — |
| Mackay Sean | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.6.2026 | 1,506,552 | +500,000 | — |
| HIBBS KATHY L | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 175,923 | +175,923 | — |
| HIBBS KATHY L | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 99,116 | +99,116 | — |
| ELOI FENEL M | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 175,923 | +175,923 | — |
| ELOI FENEL M | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 99,116 | +99,116 | — |
| Casdin Eli | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 175,923 | +175,923 | — |
| Cox Troy | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 99,116 | +99,116 | — |
| Casdin Eli | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 99,116 | +99,116 | — |
| Cox Troy | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 175,923 | +175,923 | — |
| Witney Frank | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 175,923 | +175,923 | — |
| Witney Frank | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 99,116 | +99,116 | — |
| Carey Thomas D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 263,884 | +263,884 | — |
| Carey Thomas D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 99,116 | +99,116 | — |
| HIBBS KATHY L | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.6.2026 | 236,836 | +99,116 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,979,028 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,694,489 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
41.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 48.8% 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