Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$55.20
▲ $0.14 (+0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/19 05:20 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$1.61B
Day Range
$53.71 - $55.76
52-Week Range
$13.66 - $72.36
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$49.71
Resistance
$70.91
ANAB 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.
+292.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/27 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 157.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $17.40 vs. price $55.20 (-68.5%)
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
48
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
58
Value
38
Momentum
26
Risk
48
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
43
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 AnaptysBio, Inc. has centered on its financial and strategic focus, particularly its royalty-based collaborations with major pharmaceutical partners. Key themes include the company’s upcoming presentation at the H.C. Wainwright Global Investment Conference, where its CFO will discuss its financial outlook tied to Jemperli (with GSK) and imsidolimab (with Vanda). Analysts have maintained bullish ratings, with price targets ranging from $70 to $95, while speculation persists about GSK’s potential acquisition interest. The shift toward a royalty-driven model, tied to escalating sales of Jemperli, has also been highlighted as a major driver of investor attention.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about AnaptysBio, Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 4 of the last 11 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
28
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
45
Fundamentals
43
Technical
26
Valuation
38
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.
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-4%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+14
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests traders are **overconfident** in ANAB’s momentum despite a 225% premium to DCF, while **herding** dominates as the stock underperforms peers marginally. The **euphoric** valuation gap (narrative-reality gap of 13) may reflect overoptimism, though **anchoring** near resistance could cap upside. The absence of panic or loss aversion signals confidence, not distress. The key question: *Will traders justify the valuation gap with new catalysts, or will herding shift to profit-taking?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:11 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"TD Cowen analyst Joseph Thome maintains AnaptysBio with a Buy and lowers the price target from $75 to $70."
"AnaptysBio stock shifts to a lean royalty company tied to GSK’s Jemperli. Jemperli royalties escalate with sales."
"GSK Eyes AnaptysBio (ANAB) Acquisition to Secure Drug Control"
📈 10D 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
Benjamin Graham — 25/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Walter Bagehot's documented focus on liquidity, the model estimates ANAB would be seen as extremely resilient, while Peter Lynch's growth‑oriented criteria lead to a strong bullish view that the price has not yet caught up with growth. Mid‑range scores from Samuel Nelson, Philip Fisher, Edgar Smith, Charles Mackay and Jack Schwager reflect more mixed assessments – Nelson flags a favorable cycle position, Fisher praises company quality, but Smith and Mackay see only modest long‑term appeal and emerging crowd excitement. Lower scores from Morgan Housel, Benjamin Graham (both defensive and enterprising), Howard Marks, Gerald Loeb, the efficient‑market view, Jesse Livermore, Thorstein Veblen and others indicate concerns about valuation, risk, trend and the danger of growth pursued for its own sake. Taken together, the model estimates that while liquidity‑ and growth‑focused investors view ANAB positively, a majority of value‑ and risk‑averse frameworks would remain cautious or advise against a position.
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)
🟢 93
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 75
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 62
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 52
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 44
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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)
🟡 40
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 25
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
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 a downtrend (1 bullish · 8 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.
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
20.4%
Net Margin
-5.6%
EBITDA Margin
20.7%
ROE
-35.6%
ROA
-3.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.46
Cash
$238.20M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
9.07
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$55.20
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$17.40
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-68.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $24.51M | $22.49M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $29.26M | $24.63M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $33.29M | $25.70M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $35.99M | $25.50M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $36.89M | $23.98M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$19.61M
Terminal Value
$581.72M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$378.08M
Enterprise Value
$500.37M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$500.37M
*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
$1.29
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.29
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 6 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 11 articles.
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
ChartMill · 19.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 17.8.2026
Zacks · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 14.7.2026
AnaptysBio, Inc. (ANAB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
ANAB currently scores 48/100 (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, ANAB's estimated fair value is $17.40, which is 68.5% below the current price of $55.20. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ANAB's technical score is 26/100, which currently reads as bearish — 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): 157.0%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 91.0%; Free cash flow growth: 114.5%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $17.40 vs. price $55.20 (-68.5%); Net margin: -5.6% (negative); ATR: 4.3% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ANAB.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schmid John P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 6,030 | -6,030 | — |
| RENTON HOLLINGS | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 6,030 | -6,030 | — |
| Orwin John A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 6,030 | +6,030 | — |
| Schmid John P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 6,030 | +6,030 | — |
| Orwin John A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 6,030 | -6,030 | — |
| RENTON HOLLINGS | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 6,030 | +6,030 | — |
| RENTON HOLLINGS | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 10,995 | +6,030 | — |
| RENTON HOLLINGS | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 0 | -6,030 | — |
| Orwin John A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 16,695 | +6,030 | — |
| Orwin John A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 0 | -6,030 | — |
| Schmid John P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 37,652 | +6,030 | — |
| Schmid John P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.6.2026 | 0 | -6,030 | — |
| Hughes Owen | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.5.2026 | 11,250 | +11,250 | — |
| Murphy Christopher M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.5.2026 | 25,765 | +25,765 | — |
| Hughes Owen | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.5.2026 | 11,250 | +11,250 | — |
| Murphy Christopher M. | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.5.2026 | 25,765 | +25,765 | — |
| GRAY SUSANNAH | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 11,250 | +11,250 | — |
| GRAY SUSANNAH | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 11,250 | +11,250 | — |
| ANAPTYSBIO, INC | Other Transaction | 20.4.2026 | 100 | -100 | — |
| Faga Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 133,400 | +133,400 | — |
| Faga Daniel | Disposition to the Company | 20.4.2026 | 133,400 | -133,400 | — |
| Faga Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 305,500 | +305,500 | — |
| Faga Daniel | Disposition to the Company | 20.4.2026 | 305,500 | -305,500 | — |
| Faga Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 379,620 | +379,620 | — |
| Faga Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.4.2026 | 9,200 | +9,200 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
5,412,436 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,401,866 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 60.9% 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