Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$7.98
▲ $0.07 (+0.9%)
Market data updated: 09/20 12:21 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$821.16M
Day Range
$7.80 - $8.09
52-Week Range
$2.62 - $8.64
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$5.76
Resistance
$8.64
ACHV 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.
+178.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/22 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
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 4.39
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$21.17 vs. price $7.98 (-365.3%)
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
49
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
38
Quality
No data available
Value
38
Momentum
70
Risk
40
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
46
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 Achieve Life Sciences has centered on its financial and strategic developments, particularly around its smoking cessation drug, cytisinicline, which Morgan Stanley projects could unlock a $760 million market opportunity. The company secured an ATM sale agreement for up to $150 million in common stock and granted new hire incentives. Analysts, including Morgan Stanley, initiated coverage with an Overweight rating and a $13 price target, despite the company reporting larger-than-expected losses in Q2 2026. Stock performance and upcoming regulatory resubmissions also drew attention.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Achieve Life Sciences, Inc. - Common. News trend score: 44. Reason: 2 of the last 16 articles are negative, versus 1 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
27
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
31
Fundamentals
46
Technical
70
Valuation
38
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+65%
Market Narrative
38
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-12
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a paradox: detached euphoria (score 31) persists despite weak momentum (-2.2% ROC) and modest valuation divergence (+43% above 200-day avg.). This disconnect may stem from narrative-driven optimism outweighing technical signals, as evidenced by the -11 gap favoring narrative over reality. The absence of panic or herding implies cautious, selective participation rather than herd-driven volatility. The key question remains: *Will fundamentals justify the valuation gap, or will reality reassert itself?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:45 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Morgan Stanley initiates coverage on Achieve Life Sciences with an Overweight rating and announces Price Target of $13"
"Achieve Life Sciences Stock Has Nearly Tripled in the Last Year. Now It Just Needs to Turn a Profit"
"Achieve Life Sciences reported quarterly losses of $(0.80) per share which missed the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.16) by 400 percent"
"Achieve Life Sciences' Cytisinicline to unlock $760 million market opportunity in Smoking Cessation, Morgan Stanley Says"
📈 6D 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
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between defensive caution and opportunistic signals. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights its liquidity resilience, suggesting it could weather financial stress, while Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s mid-range score hints at a cyclical rebound potential. In contrast, the majority of methodologies—from Graham’s defensive criteria to Malkiel/Bogle’s efficient-market skepticism—flag red flags, either due to perceived overvaluation, weak fundamentals, or excessive risk. Even those leaning neutral (like Marks or Schwager) acknowledge ambiguity, while Lynch, Housel, and Veblen outright dismiss it as volatile or lacking growth substance. The divide underscores whether ACHV’s liquidity or cyclical positioning justifies its risks—or if its speculative traits make it a gamble rather than a core holding.
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)
🟡 57
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)
🟡 53
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 50
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 41
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 36
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 13
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 0
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 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 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
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-254.0%
ROA
-130.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.25
Cash
$20.93M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.39
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$7.98
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$21.17
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-365.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $-54.41M | $-49.92M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-58.84M | $-49.52M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-62.51M | $-48.27M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-65.25M | $-46.22M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-66.88M | $-43.47M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-49.47M
Terminal Value
$-1.05B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-685.44M
Enterprise Value
$-922.85M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-922.85M
*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
$0.49
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.45
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 1 positive, 13 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 16 articles.
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
Zacks Small Cap Research · 18.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
Barchart · 12.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 31.7.2026
MarketBeat · 10.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 29.6.2026
MT Newswires · 22.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.6.2026
Achieve Life Sciences, Inc. - Common (ACHV) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ACHV currently scores 49/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). 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, ACHV's estimated fair value is -$21.17, which is 365.3% below the current price of $7.98. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ACHV's technical score is 70/100, 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: Current ratio: 4.39; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$21.17 vs. price $7.98 (-365.3%); ATR: 5.1% of price; Calmar: 0.33 (3y annualized return 22.0% / max drawdown 66.2%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ACHV.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stewart Richard Alistair | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 20,626 | -20,626 | $8.49 |
| Farrow Jeffrey S | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Farrow Jeffrey S | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Martin Christopher Nathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Stewart Richard Alistair | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Waldman Reid Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Martin Christopher Nathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Phelan Nancy R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Stewart Richard Alistair | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Sellig Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Waldman Reid Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Phelan Nancy R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Royston Aaron | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Royston Aaron | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Sellig Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Farrow Jeffrey S | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Stewart Richard Alistair | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Farrow Jeffrey S | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Stewart Richard Alistair | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Royston Aaron | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Royston Aaron | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Phelan Nancy R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Sellig Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 25,000 | +25,000 | — |
| Phelan Nancy R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
| Sellig Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.7.2026 | 16,700 | +16,700 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
16,447,645 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,273,408 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 35.5% 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