Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$7.88
▲ $0.04 (+0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/20 05:07 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$7.50 - $7.98
52-Week Range
$5.37 - $17.58
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$6.47
Resistance
$9.81
DNA 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.
-31.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 14/28 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 46.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$42.58 vs. price $7.88 (-640.3%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (68/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (43/100) — 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
53
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
1d ago · $7.88
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 7 to 32 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
1d ago · $7.88
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 3 to 52 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
42
Value
43
Momentum
68
Risk
40
Sentiment
74
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 Ginkgo Bioworks has centered on **analyst downgrades and skepticism** about its business trajectory, particularly its shift toward autonomous lab infrastructure and AI-driven solutions. Analysts like Mark Massaro (BTIG) and Brendan Smith (TD Cowen) have lowered price targets and downgraded the stock to *Sell* or *Hold*, questioning whether the company has proven product-market fit. While Q2 earnings were reported, the focus remains on **uncertainty over profitability and market validation** amid broader industry comparisons. No major positive developments were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
44
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
30
Technical
68
Valuation
43
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-14%
Market Narrative
70
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+32
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests investors are displaying pronounced loss aversion, as evidenced by a 12.6% three‑month price drop and subdued trading volume. At the same time, a moderate confirmation bias appears, with a narrative gap of +11 despite modest revenue decline and improving margins. Other emotional drivers such as FOMO, panic selling, and euphoria are relatively muted. A key open question is whether forthcoming earnings or news updates will alter the prevailing risk‑averse stance and shift the narrative gap perception.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:28 AM
👥 What the crowd believes
"TD Cowen downgrades Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings (DNA) from Buy to Hold and lowers the price target from $12 to $9"
"Ginkgo Bioworks has pivoted to autonomous lab infrastructure in an attempt to capitalize on emerging AI tailwinds. [...] Still No Proof Of Product-Market Fit"
"Ginkgo Bioworks has pivoted to autonomous lab infrastructure"
"Ginkgo Datapoints, Tangible Scientific, and Inductive Bio Launch ADME-One™: a High-Throughput ADME Platform"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 14D 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: the value and defensive investors overwhelmingly favor it, while the growth, trend-following, and efficiency-based approaches largely dismiss it. Benjamin Graham and Walter Bagehot both rate it as an ideal defensive or liquidity-rich holding, while the Enterprising Investor variant sees it as a deep statistical bargain. Even Howard Marks (Market Cycle) and Samuel Armstrong Nelson lean positive, suggesting it aligns with favorable macro conditions. In contrast, Fisher, Livermore, and Smith reject it outright—Fisher for lacking quality/growth, Livermore for moving against the trend, and Smith for instability. The divide stems from whether the stock’s fundamentals (price-to-value ratios, liquidity, or cycle positioning) justify its appeal to traditionalists or if its price already embeds growth expectations that make it a speculative gamble for growth-oriented or trend-following investors.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
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
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 87
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 67
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 58
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 54
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 36
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
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)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 33
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 17
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 10
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 an uptrend (8 bullish · 3 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
—
Operating Margin
-185.3%
Net Margin
-183.8%
EBITDA Margin
-150.6%
ROE
-61.5%
ROA
-27.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$5.64
Cash
$167.20M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.92
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$7.88
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$42.58
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-640.3%
🔴 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% | $-169.79M | $-155.77M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-164.48M | $-138.44M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-162.43M | $-125.42M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-163.44M | $-115.79M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-167.53M | $-108.88M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-178.72M
Terminal Value
$-2.64B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.72B
Enterprise Value
$-2.36B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-2.36B
*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
$9.17
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$8.14
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 8 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Fintel · 16.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Business Wire · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 19.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 11.8.2026
Fintel · 8.8.2026
MarketBeat · 8.8.2026
Benzinga · 7.8.2026
Moby · 7.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
PR Newswire · 26.5.2026
Insider Monkey · 22.5.2026
Ginkgo Bioworks Holdings, Inc. (DNA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, 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.
DNA currently scores 53/100 (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, DNA's estimated fair value is -$42.58, which is 640.3% below the current price of $7.88. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
DNA's technical score is 68/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 46.5%; Free cash flow growth: 53.2%; Net income growth: 42.8%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$42.58 vs. price $7.88 (-640.3%); Operating margin: -185.3% (negative); Net margin: -183.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for DNA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coen Steven P. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 51,851 | -330 | $6.98 |
| Coen Steven P. | Open Market Sale | 24.8.2026 | 330 | -330 | $6.98 |
| Coen Steven P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 52,181 | +156 | — |
| Coen Steven P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 5,296 | -587 | — |
| Coen Steven P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 52,025 | +587 | — |
| Coen Steven P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 2,975 | -156 | — |
| Coen Steven P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 587 | +587 | — |
| Coen Steven P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 156 | -156 | — |
| Coen Steven P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 156 | +156 | — |
| Coen Steven P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 587 | -587 | — |
| Shetty Reshma P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 117,135 | +117,135 | — |
| Kelly Jason R | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 74,258 | +74,258 | — |
| Shetty Reshma P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 39,038 | +39,038 | — |
| Canton Barry | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 35,736 | +35,736 | — |
| Kelly Jason R | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 309,467 | +309,467 | — |
| Canton Barry | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 127,423 | +127,423 | — |
| Shetty Reshma P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 35,736 | +35,736 | — |
| Shetty Reshma P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 127,423 | +127,423 | — |
| Canton Barry | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 39,038 | +39,038 | — |
| Canton Barry | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 117,135 | +117,135 | — |
| Kelly Jason R | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 74,258 | +74,258 | — |
| Kelly Jason R | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 309,467 | +309,467 | — |
| Shetty Reshma P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 39,038 | +39,038 | — |
| Shetty Reshma P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 127,423 | +127,423 | — |
| Shetty Reshma P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 35,736 | +35,736 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,865,017 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,317,028 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 64.6% 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