Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$21.81
▼ $0.16 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/15 02:09 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/15/2026
News analyzed: 09/15/2026
Market Cap
$6.14B
Day Range
$21.70 - $22.52
52-Week Range
$10.65 - $24.43
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
MMED 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.
+18.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/25 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
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 1.92
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$31.97 vs. price $21.81 (-246.6%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
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
53
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
37
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
74
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
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 MiniMed Group, Inc. has focused on its strong start to fiscal 2027, with outperformance in revenue estimates and accelerated growth in the U.S. and internationally. Key themes include progress on next-generation diabetes management products, successful trial completions, and regulatory advancements with the FDA and CE Mark. Analysts have raised price targets and maintained bullish ratings, citing recurring revenue strength, new sensor technology, and an improved algorithm as drivers of investor confidence.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about MiniMed Group, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
37
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
35
Technical
74
Valuation
38
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+49%
Market Narrative
79
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+43
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for MMED suggests a dominant **FOMO-driven rally**, reinforced by extreme momentum, elevated volume, and euphoric sentiment. The **narrative-reality gap** (46 points) implies traders are detached from fundamentals, while overconfidence in price action over EPS growth hints at speculative overreach. The key question is whether this momentum remains self-sustaining or if euphoria will eventually correct. Anchoring remains weak, suggesting no near-term price level is acting as a psychological barrier. The absence of panic selling despite volatility suggests traders are still chasing gains rather than fleeing.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:58 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Morgan Stanley analyst raises price target to $21"
"MiniMed reported a strong start to fiscal 2027"
"advancements with both FDA and CE Mark processes"
"trial completions that support its device pipeline"
📈 6D 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 — 68/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two stark camps: the technical and momentum-driven approaches, which see opportunity, versus the fundamental and risk-averse frameworks, which raise significant red flags. Jesse Livermore’s near-perfect score and Jack Schwager’s disciplined setup both highlight the stock’s price action and reward/risk dynamics, suggesting it fits a trend-following or structured entry play. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s mixed verdict and his enterprising investor variant’s lower score reflect skepticism about valuation depth, while Walter Bagehot’s lukewarm liquidity assessment adds another layer of caution. On the opposite end, the lowest scores—from Morgan Housel’s volatility concerns to Charles Mackay’s crowd-delusion warning—align with a narrative of speculative overreach, contrasting sharply with the more opportunistic takes from Livermore and Schwager. The divide underscores whether the stock’s momentum or technical setup justifies risk, or if its valuation and market positioning make it a speculative gamble.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 68
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 61
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 55
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 53
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 49
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 48
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 41
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 40
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 38
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 32
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 24
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)
🔴 22
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
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 132 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 1 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 uptrend 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
54.2%
Operating Margin
-6.1%
Net Margin
-10.7%
EBITDA Margin
-1.1%
ROE
-9.2%
ROA
-7.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.30
Cash
$298.00M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.92
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$21.81
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$31.97
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-246.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
12.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.1% | $-470.86M | $-431.98M |
| 2 | 9.7% | $-516.56M | $-434.78M |
| 3 | 7.3% | $-554.29M | $-428.02M |
| 4 | 4.9% | $-581.47M | $-411.93M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-596.00M | $-387.36M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-420.00M
Terminal Value
$-9.40B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-6.11B
Enterprise Value
$-8.20B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-8.20B
*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
$14.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$4.86
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
PR Newswire · 14.9.2026
PR Newswire · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Motley Fool · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Motley Fool · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
MiniMed Group, Inc. (MMED) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, 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.
MMED currently scores 53/100 (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, MMED's estimated fair value is -$31.97, which is 246.6% below the current price of $21.81. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
MMED's technical score is 74/100, 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: Current ratio: 1.92; Price is above the 50-day average; RSI 58.5 — healthy positive momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$31.97 vs. price $21.81 (-246.6%); Operating margin: -6.1% (negative); Net margin: -10.7% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MMED.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dallara Que | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 31,350 | -31,350 | $18.15 |
| Wills Courtney Nelson | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 1,762 | -1,762 | $18.15 |
| Dianaty Ali | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 8,012 | -8,012 | $18.15 |
| Dallara Que | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 884,749 | -31,350 | $18.15 |
| Wills Courtney Nelson | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 136,384 | -1,762 | $18.15 |
| Dianaty Ali | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 315,158 | -8,012 | $18.15 |
| Spooner Chad | Tax Withholding in Shares | 28.7.2026 | 23,301 | -23,301 | $17.67 |
| Chandrasena Gillian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 28.7.2026 | 2,099 | -2,099 | $17.67 |
| Spooner Chad | Tax Withholding in Shares | 28.7.2026 | 362,707 | -23,301 | $17.67 |
| Chandrasena Gillian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 28.7.2026 | 172,745 | -2,099 | $17.67 |
| Chandrasena Gillian | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 14,705 | +14,705 | — |
| Wills Courtney Nelson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 60,730 | +60,730 | — |
| Gyurci John | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 24,244 | +24,244 | — |
| Spooner Chad | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 94,550 | +94,550 | — |
| Spooner Chad | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 22,057 | +22,057 | — |
| Wills Courtney Nelson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 22,057 | +22,057 | — |
| Chandrasena Gillian | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 29,483 | +29,483 | — |
| Dianaty Ali | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 94,550 | +94,550 | — |
| Dallara Que | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 297,618 | +297,618 | — |
| Dianaty Ali | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 36,762 | +36,762 | — |
| Dallara Que | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 916,099 | +297,618 | — |
| Gyurci John | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 39,941 | +24,244 | — |
| Wills Courtney Nelson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 116,089 | +60,730 | — |
| Wills Courtney Nelson | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 138,146 | +22,057 | — |
| Spooner Chad | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 363,951 | +94,550 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,060,409 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 6,026,212 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
63.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 53.6% 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