Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$7.78
▼ $0.09 (-1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 11:19 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$2.79B
Day Range
$7.70 - $8.04
52-Week Range
$2.99 - $8.04
Beta
—
Next Earnings
11.11.2026
Support
$4.81
Resistance
$8.04
PGEN 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.
+104.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/31 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 146.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$5.67 vs. price $7.78 (-172.9%)
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
56
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
40
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
85
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
26
Institutional
0
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 Precigen, Inc. has primarily centered on its flagship product, **Papzimeos**, with analysts examining its valuation and market potential. Notably, an SEC filing revealed an insider sold shares worth over $1.37 million, raising speculation about investor sentiment. While broader biotech developments—such as competitor advancements—were mentioned, Precigen’s focus remains under scrutiny for its reliance on Papzimeos. The limited coverage suggests a focus on strategic positioning rather than major new developments.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Precigen, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 16 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
60
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
58
Psychology
66
Fundamentals
26
Technical
85
Valuation
38
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price (3M)
+61%
Market Narrative
80
Fundamental Reality
58
Narrative Gap
+22
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
PGEN’s market behavior suggests **euphoria** as the dominant state, driven by extreme valuation (+44.1% above 200-day average) and overwhelmingly positive sentiment (86/100), despite weak momentum (-0.8% ROC). The narrative-reality alignment (gap: 0) reinforces confidence, while herding (score: 26) hints at relative outperformance in a struggling sector. Overconfidence (score: 3) may stem from disconnecting price performance from EPS growth. The key question: *Is the premium justified by future catalysts, or is euphoria masking unsustainable valuation?*
Updated: 09/04/2026, 07:45 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Precigen insider sold shares worth $1,376,400 (article 3) and $375,000 (article 11) according to SEC filings"
"Precigen draws attention to Papzimeos (article 4) and its risk profile relies heavily on it (article 5)"
"Strong Q2 signals growth and validates AdenoVerse platform (article 12)"
📈 4D 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
Jesse Livermore — 70/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a stark divide among historical methodologies, with scores ranging from a cautious 69—where Walter Bagehot sees *adequate but not exceptional* liquidity—to a resounding 0, where Morgan Housel flags it as volatile enough to unsettle even the most patient investors. The middle ground is equally fractured: while Burton Malkiel and John Bogle’s efficient-market approach dismisses it as a weak pick, Jesse Livermore’s trend-following model and Philip Fisher’s quality-focused criteria both reject it outright. Meanwhile, defensive investors like Benjamin Graham and Gerald M. Loeb see it as too risky or structurally flawed, while Howard Marks’ cycle analysis and Thorstein Veblen’s behavioral lens warn of late-stage or speculative traits. Even the more flexible Enterprising Investor (Graham) and mid-cycle models like Nelson’s fall short, leaving only Bagehot’s liquidity focus as a faintly positive outlier.
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 70
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 69
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 56
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 48
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
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
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 40
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 32
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)
🔴 30
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 27
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 17
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 17
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 5
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 1 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 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
—
Operating Margin
-1141.1%
Net Margin
-2588.2%
EBITDA Margin
-1108.1%
ROE
-1198.6%
ROA
-161.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.37
Cash
$30.23M
Total Debt
$93.17M
Current Ratio
3.09
Debt/Equity
4.46
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$7.78
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$5.67
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-172.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
11.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.0% | $-99.68M | $-91.45M |
| 2 | 8.9% | $-108.51M | $-91.33M |
| 3 | 6.7% | $-115.81M | $-89.43M |
| 4 | 4.6% | $-121.16M | $-85.83M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-124.19M | $-80.72M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-89.83M
Terminal Value
$-1.96B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.27B
Enterprise Value
$-1.71B
Net Debt
$62.94M
Equity Value
$-1.77B
*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
$0.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.01
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 16 positive, 2 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Precigen, Inc. (PGEN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
PGEN currently scores 56/100 (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, PGEN's estimated fair value is -$5.67, which is 172.9% below the current price of $7.78. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PGEN's technical score is 85/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 146.7%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 3.09.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$5.67 vs. price $7.78 (-172.9%); Operating margin: -1141.1% (negative); Net margin: -2588.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for PGEN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KINDLER JEFFREY B | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 185,000 | -185,000 | $7.44 |
| KINDLER JEFFREY B | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 17,100 | -185,000 | $7.44 |
| Shah Rutul R | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 468,865 | -15,342 | $7.50 |
| Shah Rutul R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 73,304 | -15,342 | — |
| Shah Rutul R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 484,207 | +15,342 | $2.33 |
| Tennant Phil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 120,834 | -79,166 | — |
| Tennant Phil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 221,158 | +79,166 | $1.61 |
| Tennant Phil | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 141,992 | -79,166 | $7.50 |
| Shah Rutul R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 15,342 | -15,342 | — |
| Shah Rutul R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 15,342 | +15,342 | $2.33 |
| Tennant Phil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 79,166 | -79,166 | — |
| Shah Rutul R | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 15,342 | -15,342 | $7.50 |
| Tennant Phil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.8.2026 | 79,166 | +79,166 | $1.61 |
| Tennant Phil | Open Market Sale | 25.8.2026 | 79,166 | -79,166 | $7.50 |
| Sabzevari Helen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 3,789,705 | +20,833 | — |
| Shah Rutul R | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.8.2026 | 468,865 | -3,647 | $7.20 |
| Thomasian Harry Jr. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 261,826 | +7,291 | — |
| Sabzevari Helen | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.8.2026 | 3,779,521 | -10,184 | $7.20 |
| Tennant Phil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 144,577 | +5,208 | — |
| Sabzevari Helen | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 229,167 | -20,833 | — |
| Thomasian Harry Jr. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 80,209 | -7,291 | — |
| Shah Rutul R | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 57,292 | -7,500 | — |
| Lehr Donald P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 57,292 | -5,208 | — |
| Lehr Donald P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 760,669 | +5,208 | — |
| Tennant Phil | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.8.2026 | 57,292 | -5,208 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
42,180,337 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 42,044,362 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 34.9% 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