Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$24.95
▲ $0.28 (+1.1%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:33 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$24.26 - $25.18
52-Week Range
$20.23 - $38.26
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$22.67
Resistance
$37.78
BEAM 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.
+9.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/27 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
🔴 Bearish
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): 120.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$92.89 vs. price $24.95 (-472.3%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (68/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
39
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 · $25.59
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 0 to 34 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
68
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
19
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
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 Beam Therapeutics Inc. has centered on its strategic expansion and investor interest. The company announced the appointment of Eric Foster as its new Chief Commercial Officer, signaling a focus on scaling its commercial operations as it advances base-editing therapies for hematology and genetic diseases. Additionally, Beam’s leadership will participate in key investor conferences in September, while its stock has seen a sharp 86.5% gain over the past year, though valuation concerns persist. Analysts remain bullish, with one firm reiterating a "Buy" rating, and Beam is frequently highlighted among top gene-editing biotech stocks for long-term potential.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Beam Therapeutics Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 5 vs. 5 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
57
Psychology
63
Fundamentals
30
Technical
19
Valuation
38
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-28%
Market Narrative
33
Fundamental Reality
57
Narrative Gap
-24
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
BEAM’s psychology is dominated by **herding**, as its outsized decline (-11.9%) relative to peers (-1.7%) suggests investors are copying underperformance rather than acting on fundamentals. FOMO signals (momentum, volume, RSI) are present but muted, while overconfidence is minimal. The narrative gap (-8) hints at a disconnect between market perception and reality, but herding remains the dominant behavioral force. The key question: *Is this underperformance structural, or will it correct as peers lag further?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:05 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"HC Wainwright & Co. reiterates Beam Therapeutics (NASDAQ:BEAM) with a Buy and maintains $80 price target."
"CRSP, NTLA, BEAM and EDIT offer distinct gene-editing opportunities, spanning commercial validation, late-stage catalysts and promising early-stage programs."
"Beam Therapeutics has delivered a sharp 86.5% share price gain over the past year, yet the stock screens as expensive on broader valuation checks."
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 11D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 9/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for BEAM reflects a clash between defensive, growth-oriented, and contrarian perspectives. Methodologies like Walter Bagehot’s (100) and Peter Lynch’s (93) see strength in liquidity and undervalued growth potential, suggesting resilience and upside, while Benjamin Graham’s (69) and Howard Marks’ (63) caution stems from mixed valuation metrics and elevated expectations. On the other end, the lowest scores—from Morgan Housel (9) to Jack Schwager (20)—highlight volatility and speculative risks, aligning with contrarian or risk-averse frameworks that would dismiss the stock outright. Even mid-tier approaches like Howard Marks’ *cycle* (72) and Edgar Lawrence Smith’s (63) acknowledge potential but lack the conviction of the top-tier bulls, underscoring how the same data can be interpreted as either a high-quality opportunity or a speculative gamble.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 98
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 93
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 72
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
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)
🟢 72
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 61
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 45
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
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)
🔴 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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 14
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 9
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 8 bearish · 3 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
—
Operating Margin
-274.6%
Net Margin
-57.2%
EBITDA Margin
-258.6%
ROE
-6.5%
ROA
-5.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.81
Cash
$294.94M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
13.09
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$24.95
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$92.89
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-472.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-450.06M | $-412.90M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-537.26M | $-452.20M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-611.13M | $-471.91M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-660.79M | $-468.12M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-677.31M | $-440.20M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-360.05M
Terminal Value
$-10.68B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-6.94B
Enterprise Value
$-9.19B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-9.19B
*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
$12.52
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.52
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 10 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Zacks · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
Beam Therapeutics Inc. (BEAM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 39/100, 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.
BEAM currently scores 39/100 (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, BEAM's estimated fair value is -$92.89, which is 472.3% below the current price of $24.95. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BEAM's technical score is 19/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 120.0%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 82.3%; Net income growth: 78.8%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$92.89 vs. price $24.95 (-472.3%); Operating margin: -274.6% (negative); Net margin: -57.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BEAM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 13 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Simon Amy | Open Market Sale | 27.7.2026 | 16,667 | -16,667 | $25.74 |
| Simon Amy | Open Market Sale | 27.7.2026 | 85,696 | -16,667 | $25.74 |
| Evans John M. | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 23,100 | -23,100 | $34.26 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.6.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | — |
| Simon Amy | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 373 | -373 | $34.73 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.6.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | $1.03 |
| Evans John M. | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 1,900 | -1,900 | $34.84 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.6.2026 | 1,072,205 | +25,000 | $1.03 |
| Evans John M. | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 1,049,105 | -23,100 | $34.26 |
| Evans John M. | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 1,047,205 | -1,900 | $34.84 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 30.6.2026 | 205,804 | -25,000 | — |
| Simon Amy | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 102,363 | -373 | $34.73 |
| Evans John M. | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 13,421 | -13,421 | $35.13 |
| Evans John M. | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 11,579 | -11,579 | $35.91 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.6.2026 | 18,663 | -18,663 | — |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.6.2026 | 18,663 | +18,663 | $0.67 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.6.2026 | 6,337 | +6,337 | $1.03 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.6.2026 | 6,337 | -6,337 | — |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.6.2026 | 1,065,868 | +18,663 | $0.67 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.6.2026 | 1,072,205 | +6,337 | $1.03 |
| Evans John M. | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 1,058,784 | -13,421 | $35.13 |
| Evans John M. | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 1,047,205 | -11,579 | $35.91 |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.6.2026 | 9 | -18,663 | — |
| Evans John M. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 29.6.2026 | 230,804 | -6,337 | — |
| FMR LLC | Open Market Sale | 26.6.2026 | 251,488 | -251,488 | $35.26 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
25,802,667 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 23,498,484 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
76.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.9% 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