Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$4.81
▼ $0.03 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 10/01 01:39 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$84.13M
Day Range
$4.57 - $4.95
52-Week Range
$1.32 - $20.45
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$1.32
Resistance
$12.40
ZSTK 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.
-72.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/32 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -433.5% (negative)
Fundamental
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
42
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
55
Momentum
49
Risk
34
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
23
Institutional
50
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.
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
10
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
21
Psychology
29
Fundamentals
23
Technical
49
Valuation
55
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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.
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 (3M)
+44%
Market Narrative
43
Fundamental Reality
21
Narrative Gap
+22
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
Charles Mackay — 92/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing it as a cautious buy while others flag it as a high-risk or overvalued proposition. Charles Mackay and Howard Marks (both cycle-focused) rate it highly, suggesting it lacks crowd-driven mania or cycle overextension, implying a disciplined, early-to-mid-cycle opportunity. In contrast, Fisher, Veblen, and Housel dismiss it outright—Fisher because it lacks his signature of quality and growth, Veblen because it appears to prioritize speculative momentum over fundamentals, and Housel due to its volatility, which could deter patient long-term holders. Meanwhile, Graham’s traditional and enterprising investor models sit in the middle, acknowledging some discount but not the deep bargain his strict tests demand, while Schwager and the other Marks variant see it as a disciplined setup with reasonable risk pricing. The divide highlights whether the stock’s valuation or trend aligns with patient, fundamental, or cyclical investing—or if it’s better avoided as a speculative or volatile bet.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 92
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 87
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 71
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 69
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 65
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 55
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
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)
🟡 37
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 33
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)
🔴 33
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 26
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
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)
🔴 25
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 24
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 23
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
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)
🔴 14
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 291 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 6 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.
Medium 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
4.6%
Operating Margin
-433.5%
Net Margin
-335.6%
EBITDA Margin
-431.9%
ROE
-169.7%
ROA
-91.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$43.49
Cash
$5.60M
Total Debt
$53.49M
Current Ratio
1.01
Debt/Equity
0.76
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$4.81
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$98,645.47
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
24.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 24.8% | $-10.99M | $-10.08M |
| 2 | 19.2% | $-13.10M | $-11.02M |
| 3 | 13.6% | $-14.88M | $-11.49M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-16.08M | $-11.39M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-16.49M | $-10.72M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-8.80M
Terminal Value
$-259.99M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-168.97M
Enterprise Value
$-223.68M
Net Debt
$47.89M
Equity Value
$-271.57M
*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
$25,627.32
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$25,627.32
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
ZeroStack Corp. (ZSTK) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, 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.
ZSTK currently scores 42/100 (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.
ZSTK's technical score is 49/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Price is above the 50-day average; RSI 57.1 — healthy positive momentum; +51.6% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -433.5% (negative); Net margin: -335.6% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ZSTK.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 1 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 11 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rong Rudy | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 0 | -1,000 | $7.57 |
| Heinrich Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 500,000 | +500,000 | — |
| Reis-Faria Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 500,000 | +500,000 | — |
| Reis-Faria Daniel | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 20.7.2026 | 0 | -5,954,743 | $25.19 |
| Vaiman Dany | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.7.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| Reis-Faria Daniel | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 20.7.2026 | 5,954,743 | +5,954,743 | $0.00 |
| Heinrich Michael | Open Market Purchase | 20.7.2026 | 4,608,575 | +4,608,575 | $0.75 |
| WOO EDWARD | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 35,000 | +35,000 | — |
| LEVENTHAL MANFRED | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 35,000 | +35,000 | — |
| Zeifman Laurence | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.5.2026 | 28,000 | +28,000 | — |
| Heinrich Michael | Other Transaction | 31.3.2026 | 0 | -4,902,220 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
124,491 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 119,032 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
41.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 39.8% 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