Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$1.37
▼ $0.01 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 05:35 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$425.84M
Day Range
$1.34 - $1.40
52-Week Range
$1.07 - $2.73
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$1.07
Resistance
$1.64
PACB is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
+7.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/27 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 46.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$7.45 vs. price $1.37 (-644.0%)
Fair Value
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
45
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
48
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
51
Risk
40
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
32
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 **Pacific Biosciences (PACB)** has centered on its **Q2 earnings performance**, where the company faced challenges with **slower-than-expected instrument demand** and a **transition delay for its SPRQ-Nx system**, prompting a **revision of its 2026 revenue outlook**. The stock has seen volatility, dropping **20.5% over six months**, while management will discuss strategies at the **Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference** to address clinical adoption hurdles and investor concerns.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
15
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
34
Psychology
43
Fundamentals
32
Technical
51
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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 sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-2%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
34
Narrative Gap
+26
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior suggests traders are aligning with peers rather than independent analysis, as PACB lagged its sector today. Overconfidence (17) and FOMO (16) indicate momentum-driven participation, though euphoria remains muted by the stock’s underperformance relative to its 200-day baseline. The 27-point narrative gap—where sentiment (61) exceeds objective metrics (34)—highlights a disconnect between perception and fundamentals. The key question is whether this herding reflects a temporary repositioning or a broader trend, given the lack of extreme volatility or panic signals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:04 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"weaker instrument demand and a slower SPRQ-Nx transition raised the stakes for clinical adoption"
"PacBio cut its 2026 revenue outlook"
"PacBio (PACB) reported earnings 30 days ago. What's next for the stock?"
📈 8D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between defensive, cyclical, and growth-oriented methodologies. On one end, **Walter Bagehot** and **Charles Mackay** see it as a resilient, non-speculative opportunity—Bagehot’s near-perfect liquidity score suggests it could weather financial stress, while Mackay’s high score implies no crowd-driven frenzy. Meanwhile, **Howard Marks (Market Cycle)** and **Samuel Armstrong Nelson** lean bullish, viewing it as undervalued in a favorable market phase, though Marks’ lower score hints at cautious optimism. Conversely, the **Graham camp** (both Defensive and Enterprising Investor) and **Loeb** dismiss it outright—Graham’s low scores flag structural weaknesses, while Loeb’s warning signals excessive risk. At the other extreme, **Peter Lynch** and **Thorstein Veblen** reject it entirely, with Lynch’s low score suggesting it lacks his signature growth-at-a-reasonable-price traits, and Veblen’s critique implying it’s a speculative play rather than a stable, value-driven investment. The divide underscores whether the stock’s cyclical or liquidity advantages outweigh its perceived overvaluation or growth deficiencies.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 81
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 62
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)
🟡 61
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
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 43
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)
🟡 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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 37
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)
🟡 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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 31
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 23
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 22
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 12
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 4 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.
Low 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
28.6%
Operating Margin
-346.2%
Net Margin
-341.5%
EBITDA Margin
-346.2%
ROE
-10214.5%
ROA
-69.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.82
Cash
$63.71M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
5.15
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.37
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$7.45
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-644.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
12.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.3% | $-127.97M | $-117.40M |
| 2 | 9.9% | $-140.60M | $-118.34M |
| 3 | 7.4% | $-151.02M | $-116.62M |
| 4 | 5.0% | $-158.51M | $-112.29M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-162.47M | $-105.59M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-113.92M
Terminal Value
$-2.56B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.67B
Enterprise Value
$-2.24B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-2.24B
*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
$0.02
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$1.09
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 11 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
StockStory · 26.8.2026
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PACB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, 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.
PACB currently scores 45/100 (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, PACB's estimated fair value is -$7.45, which is 644.0% below the current price of $1.37. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
PACB's technical score is 51/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 46.3%; Current ratio: 5.15; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$7.45 vs. price $1.37 (-644.0%); Operating margin: -346.2% (negative); Net margin: -341.5% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for PACB.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Van Oene Mark | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 26,911 | -26,911 | $1.13 |
| Van Oene Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 2,732,764 | +489,130 | — |
| Van Oene Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 1,967,888 | +1,967,888 | — |
| Van Oene Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 1,967,888 | +1,967,888 | — |
| Van Oene Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.8.2026 | 489,130 | +489,130 | — |
| MOHR MARSHALL | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| Smith Christopher M | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| LIVINGSTON RANDALL S | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| Valantine Hannah | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| Ericson William W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| Gibson Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 74,497 | +74,497 | — |
| ORDONEZ KATHY | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| MILLIGAN JOHN F | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| MILLIGAN JOHN F | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| ORDONEZ KATHY | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| LIVINGSTON RANDALL S | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| MOHR MARSHALL | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| Ericson William W. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| Valantine Hannah | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| Smith Christopher M | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 223,492 | +223,492 | — |
| Gibson Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.6.2026 | 74,497 | +74,497 | — |
| Gibson Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.4.2026 | 57,473 | +57,473 | — |
| Gibson Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.4.2026 | 77,842 | +77,842 | — |
| Gibson Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.4.2026 | 111,386 | +57,473 | — |
| Gibson Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.4.2026 | 77,842 | +77,842 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
49,578,770 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 49,004,841 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.6% 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