Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$5.01
▼ $0.06 (-1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:33 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$991.22M
Day Range
$4.98 - $5.06
52-Week Range
$3.50 - $5.45
Beta
—
Next Earnings
11.11.2026
Support
$4.25
Resistance
$5.45
ABUS 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.
+13.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 15/30 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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 128.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$3.20 vs. price $5.01 (-163.9%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), 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
58
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
82
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
54
Risk
62
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
34
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Arbutus Biopharma Corporation has centered on its $230 million share buyback plan, announced on August 21, 2026. The company launched a modified "Dutch Auction" tender offer to repurchase up to $230 million in shares at a price range of $5.00 to $5.75 per share, which led to a 10.3% premarket jump in its stock price. The move reflects a strategic financial initiative amid broader healthcare sector gains.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. News trend score: 98. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
21
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
59
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
34
Technical
54
Valuation
38
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
62
Fundamental Reality
59
Narrative Gap
+3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
ABUS’s psychology is dominated by **FOMO**, reinforced by strong momentum, elevated sentiment, and near-overbought conditions. The **euphoria** score (39) suggests traders may be overestimating upside potential, while **overconfidence** (20) hints at detached valuation from fundamentals. The **narrative gap** (14-point divergence) implies traders are more optimistic than data supports. The key question: *Will traders exit before momentum stalls or RSI corrects?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:43 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Arbutus Biopharma Corporation announced the commencement of a modified ‘Dutch Auction’ tender offer to purchase for cancellation up to US$230 million in value of its common shares"
"Healthcare stocks were higher Friday afternoon, with the NYSE Healthcare Index rising 1.4%"
📈 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 30/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between bullish, neutral, and bearish views of ABUS, reflecting starkly different priorities. Walter Bagehot and Peter Lynch’s near-perfect scores highlight the stock’s perceived strength in liquidity and growth potential, suggesting it meets their criteria for resilience and undervaluation. Meanwhile, Fisher, Smith, and Loeb’s mid-range scores frame it as a high-quality, long-term hold—aligning with their focus on fundamentals and capital preservation. However, the divide deepens with Graham, Marks, and the efficient-market camp, which flag mixed or weak signals, questioning whether the stock’s valuation justifies its risk or if it’s already priced for growth. On the other end, Veblen, Nelson, and Marks’ cycle analysis paint a cautionary picture, warning of speculative overreach or late-cycle risks, while Schwager and Mackay’s low scores imply a lack of clear edge or red flags of crowd behavior.
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 94
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)
🟢 86
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 82
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 75
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 73
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 60
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 60
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 54
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 45
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 37
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 32
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 6 bearish · 0 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 uptrend 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
-271.0%
Net Margin
-237.9%
EBITDA Margin
-271.0%
ROE
-43.7%
ROA
-35.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.17
Cash
$18.01M
Total Debt
$0
Current Ratio
15.73
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$5.01
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$3.20
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-163.9%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.9% | $-40.79M | $-37.42M |
| 2 | 2.8% | $-41.93M | $-35.29M |
| 3 | 2.7% | $-43.07M | $-33.26M |
| 4 | 2.6% | $-44.19M | $-31.30M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-45.29M | $-29.44M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-39.64M
Terminal Value
$-714.23M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-464.20M
Enterprise Value
$-630.92M
Net Debt
$-18.01M
Equity Value
$-612.91M
*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
$0.40
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.40
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 12 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 13.9.2026
The Wall Street Journal · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 24.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 24.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
ChartMill · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
Stocktwits · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
MT Newswires · 21.8.2026
Yahoo · 21.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation (ABUS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, 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.
ABUS currently scores 58/100 (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, ABUS's estimated fair value is -$3.20, which is 163.9% below the current price of $5.01. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ABUS's technical score is 54/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 128.2%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 55.3%; Free cash flow growth: 39.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$3.20 vs. price $5.01 (-163.9%); Operating margin: -271.0% (negative); Net margin: -237.9% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ABUS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beardsley Robert A | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.6.2026 | 78,800 | +78,800 | — |
| Sawhney Roger | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.6.2026 | 78,800 | +78,800 | — |
| Beardsley Robert A | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.6.2026 | 78,800 | +78,800 | — |
| Sawhney Roger | Grant/Award from Employer | 8.6.2026 | 78,800 | +78,800 | — |
| Androski Lindsay | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.2.2026 | 28,000 | +28,000 | — |
| Androski Lindsay | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.2.2026 | 71,700 | +71,700 | — |
| Nguyen Tuan | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.2.2026 | 188,400 | +188,400 | — |
| Nguyen Tuan | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.2.2026 | 73,500 | +73,500 | — |
| Androski Lindsay | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.2.2026 | 28,000 | +28,000 | — |
| Androski Lindsay | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.2.2026 | 71,700 | +71,700 | — |
| Nguyen Tuan | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.2.2026 | 73,500 | +73,500 | — |
| Nguyen Tuan | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.2.2026 | 188,400 | +188,400 | — |
| Sawhney Roger | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2025 | 157,600 | +157,600 | — |
| Nguyen Tuan | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2025 | 750,000 | +750,000 | — |
| Androski Lindsay | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.3.2025 | 310,422 | +310,422 | — |
| Beardsley Robert A | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.3.2025 | 157,600 | +157,600 | — |
| Hasija Anuj | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.3.2025 | 157,600 | +157,600 | — |
| HASTINGS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.2.2025 | 365,800 | +365,800 | — |
| Sims Karen | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.2.2025 | 200,300 | +200,300 | — |
| Sims Karen | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.2.2025 | 49,300 | +49,300 | — |
| HASTINGS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.2.2025 | 90,100 | +90,100 | — |
| McElhaugh Michael J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.2.2025 | 718,800 | +718,800 | — |
| McElhaugh Michael J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.2.2025 | 177,000 | +177,000 | — |
| Naftzger J. Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.2.2025 | 220,300 | +220,300 | — |
| Naftzger J. Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.2.2025 | 54,300 | +54,300 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
18,916,119 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 20,236,241 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
50.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 52.3% 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