Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$35.80
▼ $0.33 (-0.9%)
Market data updated: 09/28 09:05 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/27/2026
News analyzed: 09/28/2026
Market Cap
$25.86B
Day Range
$35.52 - $36.19
52-Week Range
$14.86 - $42.50
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$32.47
Resistance
$42.50
ROIV 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.
+139.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/27 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 18.37
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$14.44 vs. price $35.80 (-140.3%)
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
40
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
9d ago · $39.77
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 65)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
17d ago · $40.39
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 67)
What happened after
17d ago · $40.39
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 22 to 60 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
23
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
30
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 Roivant Sciences has centered on two major developments: the FDA approval of Lisraya, the first oral treatment for dermatomyositis, which Roivant commercialized alongside Priovant Therapeutics at a high list price of $35,000 per month, highlighting its potential in a rare disease market. Additionally, the company’s mosliciguat candidate achieved positive Phase 2 trial results for pulmonary hypertension associated with interstitial lung disease (PH-ILD), demonstrating clinically meaningful improvements, driving a 16% stock surge and investor attention.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Roivant Sciences Ltd. - Common. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 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
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
19
Psychology
44
Fundamentals
30
Technical
23
Valuation
38
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
+5%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
19
Narrative Gap
+34
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant Confirmation Bias (score 48) reflects a disconnect between ROIV’s deteriorating fundamentals—declining revenue and collapsing margins—and the extreme positive narrative (gap +37). Investors appear to selectively prioritize bullish headlines over deteriorating operational reality, a classic symptom of narrative-driven confirmation. The lack of herding or anchoring suggests this bias is self-reinforced rather than externally driven. The key open question is whether the narrative gap will widen further or if fundamentals force a re-evaluation, potentially exposing the bias to reversal. The neutral RSI (46) and modest volatility (0.99x ATR) imply no immediate panic, but the speculative volume (1.70x avg) hints at a fragile equilibrium.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:21 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Roivant announced positive Phase 2 trial results for mosliciguat, demonstrating improved walk distance and reduced cardiac strain in PH-ILD"
"FDA approves Roivant’s LISRAYA for adult dermatomyositis, offering a once-daily targeted therapy"
"Roivant Sciences Ltd. and Priovant Therapeutics have moved quickly to commercialize Lisraya following its FDA approval"
"Roivant surged 16% on positive PH-ILD trial data"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Peter Lynch — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of each methodology, the model estimates that the very high liquidity rating from Walter Bagehot and the favorable cycle position from Samuel Armstrong Nelson drive the most optimistic views, while the lower scores from Graham, Marks, and the efficient‑market proponents reflect concerns about valuation, risk, and the lack of a clear edge. Moderate scores from Mackay, Loeb, and Schwager suggest some emerging market enthusiasm but also signal only modest risk‑adjusted upside. The sharply negative assessments from Smith, Fisher, and Lynch highlight that the stock fails to meet their stricter quality, stability, and growth‑at‑reasonable‑price criteria, pulling the overall consensus toward caution. Consequently, the divergence arises from each investor’s differing emphasis on liquidity, cycle timing, crowd sentiment, and intrinsic safety margins.
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)
🟢 87
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)
🟡 57
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 52
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 45
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 38
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 38
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 36
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 35
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 34
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)
🔴 33
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
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 16
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
Based on the last 286 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
-6235.7%
Net Margin
-3629.2%
EBITDA Margin
-6195.2%
ROE
-6.6%
ROA
-5.3%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.43
Cash
$1.42B
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
18.37
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$35.80
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$14.44
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-140.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
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% | $-720.63M | $-661.13M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-698.11M | $-587.59M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-689.38M | $-532.33M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-693.69M | $-491.43M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-711.03M | $-462.12M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-758.56M
Terminal Value
$-11.21B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-7.29B
Enterprise Value
$-10.02B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-10.02B
*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
$6.52
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.52
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Benzinga · 23.9.2026
Benzinga · 23.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 13.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Pharmaceutical Technology · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Roivant Sciences Ltd. - Common (ROIV) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 40/100, 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.
ROIV currently scores 40/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, ROIV's estimated fair value is -$14.44, which is 140.3% below the current price of $35.80. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ROIV's technical score is 23/100, 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: 18.37; Price is above the 200-day average; Free cash flow growth: 10.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$14.44 vs. price $35.80 (-140.3%); Operating margin: -6235.7% (negative); Net margin: -3629.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ROIV.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pulik Richard | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.9.2026 | 269,681 | -2,129 | $39.77 |
| Humes Jennifer | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.9.2026 | 106,419 | -3,880 | $39.77 |
| MOMTAZEE JAMES C | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 10,531 | +10,531 | — |
| Oren Ilan | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 123,680 | +5,054 | — |
| MOMTAZEE JAMES C | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 111,959 | +5,054 | — |
| Epperly Melissa B, | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 10,531 | +10,531 | — |
| Gold Daniel Allen | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 8,965,815 | +5,054 | — |
| Epperly Melissa B, | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 14,954 | +5,054 | — |
| Oren Ilan | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 10,531 | +10,531 | — |
| Gold Daniel Allen | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 10,531 | +10,531 | — |
| MANCHESTER KEITH S | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 10,531 | +10,531 | — |
| Fitzgerald Meghan | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 41,162 | +5,054 | — |
| Fitzgerald Meghan | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 10,531 | +10,531 | — |
| MANCHESTER KEITH S | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.9.2026 | 1,753,457 | +5,054 | — |
| Fitzgerald Meghan | Open Market Sale | 15.9.2026 | 36,108 | -400 | $40.45 |
| Epperly Melissa B, | Open Market Sale | 15.9.2026 | 10,500 | -4,338 | $39.65 |
| Fitzgerald Meghan | Open Market Sale | 15.9.2026 | 36,508 | -4,712 | $39.68 |
| Epperly Melissa B, | Open Market Sale | 15.9.2026 | 9,900 | -600 | $40.38 |
| Gold Daniel Allen | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 8,960,761 | -5,133 | $40.94 |
| Oren Ilan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 118,626 | -2,378 | $40.94 |
| Epperly Melissa B, | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 14,838 | -2,179 | $40.94 |
| MOMTAZEE JAMES C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 106,905 | -2,905 | $40.94 |
| Fitzgerald Meghan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.9.2026 | 41,220 | -1,743 | $40.94 |
| Fitzgerald Meghan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 62,963 | +20,000 | $8.80 |
| Fitzgerald Meghan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 18,578 | -20,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
36,181,548 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 33,522,300 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 50.4% 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