Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$43.43
▼ $0.12 (-0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/18 07:22 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$62.93B
Day Range
$43.05 - $43.90
52-Week Range
$42.20 - $105.65
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
BSX 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.
-55.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/32 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $53.69 vs. price $43.43 (+23.6%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.10 (3y annualized return -6.3% / max drawdown 60.6%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
71/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
87/100
Analog Quality
+1.1%
Median 40D Outcome
50/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
47%
+5.9% … +11.4%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
53%
-11.4% … -6.5%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 47% (95% CI 25%–70%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -2.3%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
9 occurrence(s) · 22% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.3% | -2.2% … +4.5% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.9% | -4.8% … +3.8% | +0.8% |
| 20D | 47% (25%–70%) | -2.3% | -9.3% … +7.5% | +1.3% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.1% | -12.3% … +11.5% | +2.5% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.2% | -6.7% … +11.8% | +4.2% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-05 | 71/100 | Downtrend | -6.7% | -1.0% |
| 2017-12-11 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +7.9% | +11.9% |
| 2020-11-30 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +7.1% | +17.0% |
| 2026-05-12 | 68/100 | Downtrend | -10.6% | -8.9% |
| 2026-04-08 | 67/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -10.5% | -28.7% |
| 2020-11-05 | 65/100 | Downtrend | -2.3% | +6.4% |
| 2025-12-15 | 65/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +1.7% | -25.0% |
| 2022-05-13 | 64/100 | Downtrend | -8.2% | +5.5% |
| 2019-10-17 | 62/100 | Downtrend | +8.9% | +11.8% |
| 2020-06-25 | 62/100 | Downtrend | +13.9% | +13.8% |
| 2026-06-23 | 61/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -5.8% | -4.5% |
| 2025-10-01 | 60/100 | Downtrend | +4.6% | +0.2% |
| 2019-01-03 | 60/100 | Consolidation | +15.3% | +17.5% |
| 2026-04-28 | 60/100 | Downtrend | -13.7% | -24.3% |
| 2020-03-06 | 58/100 | Downtrend | -17.1% | -0.2% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLV (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
56
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 · $45.92
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -5 to -33 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of August 23, 2026
Then
67
$50.37
Now
56
$43.43
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
79
Quality
63
Value
62
Momentum
13
Risk
54
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
75
Institutional
100
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING BSX...
Recent media coverage of Boston Scientific has centered on the impact of a cyberattack, which has disrupted operations and raised concerns about its ability to meet earnings and sales guidance for 2026. Reports highlight potential declines in net sales and profits, leading to a stock decline and investor caution. The incident has overshadowed broader market trends, with analysts questioning the company’s growth outlook.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Boston Scientific. News trend score: 74. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 7 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
20
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
75
Technical
13
Valuation
62
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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)
-4%
Market Narrative
30
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
-12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant herding behavior suggests investors are aligning with peers’ underperformance, particularly as BSX’s -5.9% decline today outpaced its sector (-2.7%). While panic selling is present, it’s muted by stable volume and volatility, indicating cautious rather than frantic selling. The narrative gap (-25) further implies a disconnect between market sentiment (optimistic) and fundamentals (pessimistic), reinforcing herd-driven conformity. The key question: will this relative underperformance persist, or will a shift in sector leadership break the herd’s momentum?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 11:06 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Boston Scientific ‘unlikely to meet’ earnings guidance after cyberattack. Stock falls."
"Boston Scientific says cyberattack likely to hurt 2026 sales, profit"
"Boston Scientific on road to recovery following cyberattack"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 15D 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
Peter Lynch — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Peter Lynch’s documented growth criteria, the model estimates the stock is a strong growth candidate, a view echoed by Mackay’s lack of crowd mania and Veblen’s alignment of growth with real value creation. Fisher’s emphasis on company quality and Nelson’s favorable cycle position also push the scores into the high‑80s, suggesting solid fundamentals from a quality‑and‑cycle perspective. In contrast, Graham’s defensive metrics and the Enterprising Investor’s looser safety bar flag the stock as insufficiently cheap, while Livermore’s trend‑following rule flags a negative trend, driving their scores well below 50. Meanwhile, the efficient‑market viewpoint and Marks’s cycle‑adjusted risk assessment land in the moderate range, reflecting a mixed case for out‑performing the broader market.
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)
🟢 93
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)
🟢 88
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 81
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 79
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 77
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)
🟢 72
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 67
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 64
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 64
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 58
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 45
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 25
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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 downtrend 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
69.0%
Operating Margin
18.0%
Net Margin
14.4%
EBITDA Margin
24.8%
ROE
11.9%
ROA
6.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.96
Cash
$1.97B
Total Debt
$299.00M
Current Ratio
1.62
Debt/Equity
0.01
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$43.43
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$53.69
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+23.6%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
16.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16.6% | $4.26B | $3.91B |
| 2 | 13.1% | $4.82B | $4.06B |
| 3 | 9.5% | $5.28B | $4.08B |
| 4 | 6.0% | $5.60B | $3.97B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $5.74B | $3.73B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$3.66B
Terminal Value
$90.52B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$58.83B
Enterprise Value
$78.58B
Net Debt
$-1.67B
Equity Value
$80.24B
*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
$16.21
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.71
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 2 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 13.9.2026
Boston Scientific (BSX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, 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.
BSX currently scores 56/100 (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, BSX's estimated fair value is $53.69, which is 23.6% above the current price of $43.43. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
BSX's technical score is 13/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $53.69 vs. price $43.43 (+23.6%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 55.2%; Free cash flow growth: 38.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.10 (3y annualized return -6.3% / max drawdown 60.6%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BSX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 12 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| O'Connor Padraig Andrew | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.9.2026 | 567 | -567 | $48.37 |
| O'Connor Padraig Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 1,171 | +1,171 | — |
| O'Connor Padraig Andrew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 2.9.2026 | 1,171 | -1,171 | — |
| Morano Susan E | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 13,784 | +2,040 | $49.22 |
| Morano Susan E | Open Market Purchase | 25.8.2026 | 2,040 | +2,040 | $49.22 |
| Woodworth Emily | I | 11.8.2026 | 2,930 | +2,930 | $51.19 |
| Woodworth Emily | I | 11.8.2026 | 2,930 | +2,930 | $51.19 |
| Monson Jonathan | I | 10.8.2026 | 9,908 | +9,908 | $50.46 |
| Monson Jonathan | I | 10.8.2026 | 9,908 | +9,908 | $50.46 |
| Habiger David C | Open Market Purchase | 5.8.2026 | 2,100 | +2,100 | $47.59 |
| Habiger David C | Open Market Purchase | 5.8.2026 | 17,160 | +2,100 | $47.59 |
| Habiger David C | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 140 | +140 | $48.59 |
| Habiger David C | Open Market Purchase | 4.8.2026 | 15,060 | +140 | $48.59 |
| Mahoney Michael F | I | 3.8.2026 | 22,119 | +22,119 | $48.43 |
| Mahoney Michael F | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2026 | 186,240 | +186,240 | $48.33 |
| Habiger David C | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2026 | 1,042 | +1,042 | $48.07 |
| Habiger David C | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2026 | 14,920 | +1,042 | $48.07 |
| Mahoney Michael F | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2026 | 1,590,024 | +186,240 | $48.33 |
| Mahoney Michael F | I | 3.8.2026 | 22,119 | +22,119 | $48.43 |
| LUDWIG EDWARD J | Open Market Purchase | 31.7.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $45.48 |
| Fitzgerald Joseph Michael | I | 31.7.2026 | 64,198 | +64,198 | $46.73 |
| LUDWIG EDWARD J | Open Market Purchase | 31.7.2026 | 30,359 | +5,000 | $45.48 |
| Fitzgerald Joseph Michael | I | 31.7.2026 | 64,198 | +64,198 | $46.73 |
| Monson Jonathan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 2,087 | +2,087 | — |
| Monson Jonathan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.7.2026 | 2,087 | -2,087 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
48,173,758 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 22,276,201 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
36.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 42.7% 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