Great Elm Group Inc (GEG)
NASDAQFinancialsAsset ManagementSnapshot 2026-09-04
$2.22+0.91%
Close 2026-09-04 · 1-day change
NASDAQFinancialsAsset ManagementSnapshot 2026-09-04
QuarterlyIQ Insights · GEG
Price, fair value, and the multiples that frame it on the same time axis. Scroll over the price chart to zoom.
Daily closes. Earnings/event dots inline.
A consensus fair price across 3 valuation methods, at three horizons. As of 2026-09-04. Estimates are diagnostics, not price targets. Short-horizon estimates are close to coin-flips, so confidence is a method-agreement read, not a prediction.
Today's peer multiple on trailing earnings, with no growth credited. This is the headline read.
Adds projected growth, so it leans optimistic by design. Read it as upside context, not a base case.
We take the 12-month fair value above and grade our own number — how the market prices this name versus what we'd justify, and where the two diverge.
At $2.22 GEG trades at 2.5× p/s, below its 3.2× p/s peer median. Our $2.93 fair value sits well above the price. We hold it with medium confidence: its earnings are too depressed to value on P/E (we anchor on sales instead) and quality doesn't explain valuation multiples in this sub-industry, so the peer comparison is a weak guide. Not investment advice.
One valuation read at a 12-month horizon, plus how price compares to peers and the company's own history.
The price sits about 24% below a flat-multiple fair value, while the trailing trend implies about 43% growth — below our forecast. This describes what's priced in, not a forecast of the move.
TTM earnings are negative, so the read leans on sales- and cash-flow-based methods rather than P/E. This is a data condition, not a forward call.
Score 100 = cheapest in the cohort, 0 = richest. Bars are filled left-to-right based on the peer-relative score (or PEG/self-history where shown).
Each method's implied share price per horizon. Provisional rows use a projected (historical-CAGR) growth input rather than analyst or management guidance.
| Method | Horizon | Est. price | Multiple | Per-share input | EPS source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer P/B | 12M | $2.56 | 1.9 | 1.33 | TTM | high |
| Peer P/FCF | 12M | $5.04 | 13.5 | 0.37 | TTM | high |
| Peer P/S | 12M | $2.93 | 3.2 | 0.90 | TTM | high |
| Peer P/B | 3Y | $1.53 | 1.9 | 0.79 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |
A “consensus-then vs. actual-now” overlay is on the way — what our valuation estimate said on a past date versus where the price actually landed.
Not investment advice. Scores describe historical and current data; they are not forecasts of future returns. Consult a licensed advisor before making investment decisions.
A long-thesis check that carries the widest uncertainty of the three horizons.
Bottom 25% on quality vs scored peers
Direction of the business behind the multiple. Bands are backend reads; trailing-12-month basis.
TTM earnings are negative. P/E-based methods drop out and the estimate leans on sales- and cash-flow-based methods. A data condition, not a forward call.
Only weak execution quality — not the full expensive x weak x turbulent stack. Regime (Mania) does not concentrate fragility.
For similar setups historically (n=20,154): about 33% saw a 20%+ drawdown, and roughly 76% of those did not recover within the year. These are historical base rates for the cohort, not a forecast of this stock.
Looks cheaper than most peers in the same business.
Self-history needs ~20 months of data.
Trailing four: 2025-Q3, 2026-Q1, 2026-Q2, 2026-Q3
Direction of the business behind the multiple. Bands are backend reads; trailing-12-month basis.
| Peer P/FCF | 3Y | $7.66 | 13.5 | 0.57 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |
| Peer P/S | 3Y | $2.01 | 3.2 | 0.62 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |
| Peer P/B | 5Y | $1.08 | 1.9 | 0.56 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |
| Peer P/FCF | 5Y | $10.13 | 13.5 | 0.75 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |
| Peer P/S | 5Y | $1.57 | 3.2 | 0.48 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |