Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$7.16
▲ $0.06 (+0.8%)
Market data updated: 10/01 01:20 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$32.90M
Day Range
$7.14 - $7.24
52-Week Range
$5.58 - $8.45
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$6.91
Resistance
$8.45
UG is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-8.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/27 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
🟡 Mixed
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: 7.31
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $5.49 vs. price $7.16 (-23.4%)
Fair Value
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
47
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
26
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
37
Risk
48
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
76
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 United-Guardian, Inc. has centered on its strong financial performance, particularly in the second quarter of 2026, where earnings per share rose 14.29% year-over-year to $0.16, alongside a 9.5% sales increase to $3.108 million. The company highlighted booming demand for cosmetic ingredients and its Renacidin product line. Additionally, United-Guardian declared a cash dividend in July and outperformed industry benchmarks over the past six months, reinforcing investor confidence.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about United-Guardian, Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 3 of the last 7 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
14
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
33
Fundamentals
76
Technical
37
Valuation
38
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-1%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+25
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior at 58 suggests traders are fixating on the 2.1% proximity to support, likely using it as a mental reference for entry/exit decisions. The narrative gap (+23) and confirmation bias (30) imply investors may be selectively interpreting weak fundamentals (revenue/margins) through a pre-existing optimistic lens. Herding (40) is present but muted, as the stock’s underperformance relative to peers (-1.1% vs. -0.3%) suggests selective positioning rather than broad trend-following. The key question is whether traders will hold or adjust positions if support is breached, given the lack of extreme volatility or panic signals. The absence of loss aversion (0) further implies no urgency to cut losses, reinforcing anchoring as the primary driver.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 05:24 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"UG Q2 EPS $0.16 Up From $0.14 YoY, Sales $3.108M Up From $2.838M YoY"
"Strong Cosmetic Ingredient Sales"
"United-Guardian Declares Cash Dividend"
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?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing it as a resilient opportunity while others flag it as risky or overvalued. The highest-scoring approaches—like Walter Bagehot’s liquidity focus and Jack Schwager’s disciplined trading framework—view it as a potential survivor of market stress or a structured bet with favorable odds, emphasizing stability and reward/risk balance. Meanwhile, value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham and the efficient-market proponents dismiss it outright, either because it fails defensive metrics or lacks clear evidence of undervaluation. The middle ground, represented by figures like Jesse Livermore and Charles Mackay, leans cautiously positive—Livermore sees a positive trend, while Mackay rules out crowd-driven mania—but others like Howard Marks and Philip Fisher warn of overpricing or lackluster fundamentals. The contrast highlights a tension between speculative potential and traditional value/quality filters.
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 82
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 74
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 71
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 63
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 56
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 45
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
🟡 41
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 37
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 26
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
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 17
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
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 288 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
48.8%
Operating Margin
21.3%
Net Margin
20.0%
EBITDA Margin
22.3%
ROE
18.7%
ROA
16.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.46
Cash
$1.25M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
7.31
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 28.7.2026 | $0.300 |
| 27.7.2026 | $0.300 |
| 9.2.2026 | $0.250 |
| 8.2.2026 | $0.250 |
| 25.7.2025 | $0.250 |
| 24.7.2025 | $0.250 |
| 10.2.2025 | $0.350 |
| 9.2.2025 | $0.350 |
| 23.7.2024 | $0.350 |
| 22.7.2024 | $0.350 |
| 9.2.2024 | $0.250 |
| 8.2.2024 | $0.250 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$7.16
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$5.49
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-23.4%
🔴 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% | $1.81M | $1.66M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $1.76M | $1.48M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $1.73M | $1.34M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $1.74M | $1.24M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.79M | $1.16M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.91M
Terminal Value
$28.20M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$18.33M
Enterprise Value
$25.21M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$25.21M
*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
$2.44
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 4 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 7 articles.
Zacks · 14.8.2026
Associated Press · 7.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 7.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 16.7.2026
Zacks · 8.7.2026
Zacks · 18.5.2026
United-Guardian, Inc. (UG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
UG currently scores 47/100 (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, UG's estimated fair value is $5.49, which is 23.4% below the current price of $7.16. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
UG's technical score is 37/100, 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: 7.31; Price is above the 200-day average; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $5.49 vs. price $7.16 (-23.4%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: -0.01 (3y annualized return -0.7% / max drawdown 64.6%).
Yes — UG has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 21.1.2026 | 7,480 | -7,480 | — |
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 21.1.2026 | 1,031,546 | -7,480 | — |
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 19.2.2021 | 8,400 | -8,400 | — |
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 5.3.2020 | 8,000 | -8,000 | — |
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 20.5.2019 | 5,600 | -5,600 | — |
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 24.9.2018 | 5,620 | -5,620 | — |
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 1.8.2017 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 5.7.2017 | 6,700 | -6,700 | — |
| GLOBUS KENNETH H | Gift | 9.12.2016 | 5,300 | -5,300 | — |
| VERNICE JOSEPH J | Open Market Sale | 15.8.2016 | 1,400 | +1,400 | $14.76 |
| VERNICE JOSEPH J | Open Market Sale | 15.8.2016 | 3,126 | -3,126 | $14.95 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 100 | -100 | $18.11 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 112 | -112 | $18.10 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 194 | -194 | $18.15 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 2,994 | -2,994 | $18.20 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 200 | -200 | $18.22 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $18.20 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 400 | -400 | $18.25 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 100 | -100 | $18.26 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 100 | -100 | $18.28 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 100 | -100 | $18.06 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 100 | -100 | $18.26 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 100 | -100 | $18.43 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 200 | -200 | $18.37 |
| Parker Betsee | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2015 | 66 | -66 | $18.04 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
19,823 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 16,040 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.7% 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