Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$85.57
▲ $1.93 (+2.3%)
Market data updated: 09/17 04:03 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$800.92M
Day Range
$84.43 - $86.72
52-Week Range
$50.23 - $100.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
TRNS is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+17.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/30 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.33
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $31.39 vs. price $85.57 (-63.3%)
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
46
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
47
Value
33
Momentum
36
Risk
46
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
51
Institutional
40
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 Transcat, Inc. has centered on its **strategic growth and financial performance**, particularly highlighting a **$12.8 million acquisition of Southeastern Biomedical Associates** to expand its biomedical calibration services. Analysts and earnings calls (Q1 2027) emphasized **strong service growth and solid fundamentals**, while the company’s participation in upcoming investor conferences underscores investor interest. No major controversies or risks were reported.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Transcat, Inc.. News trend score: 92. Reason: 8 of the last 20 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
33
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
51
Technical
36
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-8%
Market Narrative
72
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+35
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant overconfidence (score 45) suggests traders are overestimating TRNS’s fundamentals or growth potential despite diverging price momentum and extreme valuation (+172% DCF). The narrative-reality gap (31 points) further implies a disconnect between market perception and underlying metrics. While euphoria (35) aligns with valuation extremes, the lack of volume (0.66x avg) and neutral RSI (40) temper aggressive buying. The key question remains whether traders will adjust expectations as momentum weakens or if overconfidence persists despite fundamental divergence.
Updated: 09/05/2026, 05:03 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Transcat Acquires Southeastern Biomedical Associates For $12.8 Million"
"Transcat Q1 Earnings Call Highlights: Strong Service Growth and Strategic Investments"
"Transcat to Participate in Jefferies, Lake Street and D.A. Davidson Investor Conferences in September"
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 — 84/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological disagreements about risk, valuation, and market psychology. Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Walter Bagehot’s high scores (91 and 84) suggest a cyclical or liquidity-driven opportunity, with Nelson seeing it as oversold and Bagehot confident in its resilience to stress. In contrast, value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham (31) and Philip Fisher (27) dismiss it outright, citing weak defensive metrics and a lack of quality/growth traits. Meanwhile, behavioral economists like Charles Mackay (61) and Morgan Housel (27) highlight crowd sentiment or volatility risks, while trend-followers like Jesse Livermore (21) and Jack Schwager (31) reject it entirely due to unfavorable momentum or structural setups. The divide underscores whether the stock’s appeal lies in speculative timing (Nelson/Bagehot) or fundamental flaws (Graham/Fisher) that no methodology can reconcile.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 84
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 61
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 57
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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)
🟡 53
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)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 52
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)
🟡 44
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 38
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)
🟡 37
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 31
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 27
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 27
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Based on the last 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 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
32.6%
Operating Margin
4.0%
Net Margin
1.6%
EBITDA Margin
11.9%
ROE
1.8%
ROA
1.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.58
Cash
$4.94M
Total Debt
$99.89M
Current Ratio
2.33
Debt/Equity
0.33
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$85.57
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$31.39
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-63.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
13.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13.0% | $22.10M | $20.27M |
| 2 | 10.4% | $24.39M | $20.53M |
| 3 | 7.8% | $26.28M | $20.30M |
| 4 | 5.1% | $27.63M | $19.57M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $28.32M | $18.41M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$19.55M
Terminal Value
$446.61M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$290.26M
Enterprise Value
$389.34M
Net Debt
$94.94M
Equity Value
$294.40M
*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
$32.05
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.50
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 11 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
MT Newswires · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Business Wire · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Business Wire · 27.8.2026
StockStory · 13.8.2026
Motley Fool · 12.8.2026
Moby · 5.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 5.8.2026
MarketBeat · 5.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.8.2026
Zacks · 4.8.2026
StockStory · 4.8.2026
Business Wire · 4.8.2026
Transcat, Inc. (TRNS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 46/100, 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.
TRNS currently scores 46/100 (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, TRNS's estimated fair value is $31.39, which is 63.3% below the current price of $85.57. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TRNS's technical score is 36/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.33; Current ratio: 2.33; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $31.39 vs. price $85.57 (-63.3%); Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 4.2% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for TRNS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 2 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominach Oksana S. | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 7,312 | -7,312 | $85.60 |
| Dominach Oksana S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | — |
| Dominach Oksana S. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.8.2026 | 2,688 | -2,688 | $97.76 |
| Dominach Oksana S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | $26.27 |
| Gillette Christopher P. | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 504 | -504 | $94.23 |
| Gillette Christopher P. | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 200 | -504 | $94.23 |
| Cairns Craig D. | Open Market Purchase | 6.8.2026 | 1,050 | +1,050 | $93.97 |
| Cairns Craig D. | Open Market Purchase | 6.8.2026 | 1,480 | +1,050 | $93.97 |
| Simmons Royal Thomas Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.6.2026 | 1,508 | +1,508 | — |
| Simmons Royal Thomas Jr. | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.6.2026 | 1,508 | +1,508 | — |
| IRICK JAIME A | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 15,043 | +15,043 | — |
| Haddad Michael Jacques | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 1,382 | +1,382 | — |
| Barbato Thomas L | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 3,925 | +3,925 | — |
| West Michael W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 1,051 | +1,051 | — |
| Barbato Thomas L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.5.2026 | 760 | -760 | $76.45 |
| Conroy Theresa A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 759 | +759 | — |
| Barbato Thomas L | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 1,719 | +1,719 | — |
| West Michael W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 1,807 | +1,807 | — |
| Conroy Theresa A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 1,382 | +1,382 | — |
| West Michael W. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.5.2026 | 465 | -465 | $76.45 |
| Conroy Theresa A. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.5.2026 | 335 | -335 | $76.45 |
| Johnston Kristina L | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 409 | +409 | — |
| IRICK JAIME A | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 15,043 | +15,043 | — |
| Barbato Thomas L | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.5.2026 | 5,409 | +1,719 | — |
| Barbato Thomas L | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.5.2026 | 4,649 | -760 | $76.45 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
490,179 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 517,549 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 66.9% 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