Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$0.83
▼ $0.01 (-1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/27 04:04 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/27/2026
News analyzed: 09/27/2026
Market Cap
$167.88M
Day Range
$0.82 - $0.85
52-Week Range
$0.75 - $1.63
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
Support
$0.75
Resistance
$1.04
LUCD 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.
-20.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/27 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
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: 34.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -1054.8% (negative)
Fundamental
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
45
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
48
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
42
Risk
34
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
23
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 Lucid Diagnostics Inc. has centered on its strategic expansion and financial momentum, particularly around Medicare coverage and commercial wins. The company announced its first Liquid Biopsy Market (LBM) victory with Concert, unlocking access to 10 million covered lives under Medicare, which analysts view as a major growth catalyst. Multiple firms reiterated Buy ratings and maintained a $2.50 price target, highlighting optimism over its EsoGuard test and broader market potential. Q2 earnings calls emphasized a shift toward high-value diagnostics, reinforcing its position in precision oncology.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Lucid Diagnostics Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
12
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
23
Technical
42
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price (3M)
-24%
Market Narrative
57
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+16
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior here suggests LUCD’s slight outperformance today relative to peers may be prompting investors to follow rather than lead. The narrative gap (7-point discrepancy) hints at a disconnect between market expectations and reality, but the lack of extreme sentiment (neutral RSI, moderate sentiment) keeps panic or euphoria muted. Key open questions revolve around whether this herd alignment is a temporary tactical shift or a structural reassessment—especially given the price’s disconnect from EPS growth. The absence of overconfidence or loss aversion signals a cautious, non-emotional stance, but the low FOMO/Panic scores imply no strong conviction either way.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 03:20 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
""Lucid Diagnostics confirmed its first LBM win with Concert, opens up 10M covered lives""
""BTIG reiterates Lucid Diagnostics (LUCD) with a Buy and maintains $2.5 price target""
""Strategic Pivot to High-Value Diagnostics" (GuruFocus headline)"
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 — 82/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with scores ranging from a near-bullish 92 under Samuel Armstrong Nelson—who sees it as oversold and cyclically positioned—to a flat-out bearish 0 from Morgan Housel, who flags it as volatile enough to deter patient investors. The contrast between Nelson’s technical optimism and Housel’s behavioral caution highlights a tension between cyclical timing and risk tolerance. Meanwhile, growth-focused investors like Peter Lynch (75) and Thorstein Veblen (39) see potential in its upward momentum, though Veblen’s lower score suggests he’d question whether the growth is justified. On the other end, defensive investors like Benjamin Graham (9) and Gerald Loeb (22) dismiss it outright, while efficient-market skeptics like Bogle and Malkiel (37) argue the stock lacks a clear edge over passive indexing. The middle ground—where Howard Marks (52) sees mixed potential and Edgar Smith (44) calls it reasonable but not a long-term hold—reflects a stock that’s neither a slam dunk nor a red flag, but rather a cautionary case for those prioritizing safety or trend alignment.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 82
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)
🟢 81
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 75
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 71
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 58
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 52
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 44
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 36
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 33
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 32
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)
🔴 30
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 23
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 22
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 9
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
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 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 5 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.
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
-41.7%
Operating Margin
-1054.8%
Net Margin
-1232.7%
EBITDA Margin
-1036.3%
ROE
-530.4%
ROA
-143.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.69
Cash
—
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.31
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$0.83
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$11.68
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% | $-58.35M | $-53.53M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-69.66M | $-58.63M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-79.24M | $-61.18M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-85.67M | $-60.69M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-87.82M | $-57.07M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-46.68M
Terminal Value
$-1.38B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-900.02M
Enterprise Value
$-1.19B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.19B
*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
$0.11
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.10
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 9 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Motley Fool · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 18.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
MarketBeat · 15.8.2026
Moby · 14.8.2026
PR Newswire · 14.8.2026
Moby · 14.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
MarketBeat · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
Zacks · 13.8.2026
PR Newswire · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 5.8.2026
Yahoo · 5.8.2026
Lucid Diagnostics Inc. (LUCD) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, 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.
LUCD currently scores 45/100 (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.
LUCD's technical score is 42/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: 34.3%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -1054.8% (negative); Net margin: -1232.7% (negative); ATR: 6.8% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LUCD.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matheis Dennis | Open Market Purchase | 20.5.2026 | 245,000 | +245,000 | $1.00 |
| Matheis Dennis | Open Market Purchase | 20.5.2026 | 1,033,443 | +245,000 | $1.00 |
| SOKOLOV JACQUE J | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 123,000 | +123,000 | — |
| Matheis Dennis | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 123,000 | +123,000 | — |
| Lapidus Stanley | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 123,000 | +123,000 | — |
| PALUMBO JOHN R | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 123,000 | +123,000 | — |
| Sparks Ronald M | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 123,000 | +123,000 | — |
| MCGRATH DENNIS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 470,000 | +470,000 | — |
| O'Neil Shaun | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 620,000 | +620,000 | — |
| White Debra | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 123,000 | +123,000 | — |
| Aklog Lishan | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 2,170,000 | +2,170,000 | — |
| Gordon Michael Adam | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 300,000 | +300,000 | — |
| Cox James L | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 123,000 | +123,000 | — |
| PALUMBO JOHN R | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 338,000 | +123,000 | — |
| MCGRATH DENNIS M | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 1,813,569 | +470,000 | — |
| SOKOLOV JACQUE J | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 320,460 | +123,000 | — |
| Aklog Lishan | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 3,636,627 | +2,170,000 | — |
| Sparks Ronald M | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 320,460 | +123,000 | — |
| Cox James L | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 405,120 | +123,000 | — |
| Lapidus Stanley | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 337,392 | +123,000 | — |
| Gordon Michael Adam | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 1,000,000 | +300,000 | — |
| O'Neil Shaun | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 1,446,763 | +620,000 | — |
| White Debra | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 235,800 | +123,000 | — |
| Matheis Dennis | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.2.2026 | 788,443 | +123,000 | — |
| PALUMBO JOHN R | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.10.2025 | 215,000 | +215,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
12,830,303 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 11,890,023 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 71.0% 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