Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · OTC
$0.00
▲ $0.00 (+25.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:28 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$617.03K
Day Range
$0.00 - $0.00
52-Week Range
$0.00 - $0.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.11.2026
Support
$0.00
Resistance
$0.00
-52.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/27 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: -1.89
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -35.0% (negative)
Fundamental
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
36
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
2d ago · $0.00
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 14 to 63 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
2d ago · $0.00
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 0 to 25 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
5d ago · $0.00
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 29 to -5 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
7d ago · $0.00
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -5 to 29 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
7d ago · $0.00
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 6 to 32 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
32
Quality
55
Value
50
Momentum
9
Risk
32
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
47
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.
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
53
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
39
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
47
Technical
9
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-47%
Market Narrative
33
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
-6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **Loss Aversion** (85) reflects a deep reluctance to accept further declines, amplified by a 26.7% drop over three months. Negative momentum and subdued volume (0.53x average) suggest traders are holding rather than acting, consistent with defensive positioning. The **narrative gap** (-5) hints at a slight disconnect between market sentiment and fundamentals, though no extreme bias dominates. The key question: Will traders exit to lock in losses, or will they double down on holdings? Overconfidence (9) is a minor counterbalance, but the primary tension remains between holding and selling.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:17 PM
What could change this?
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 14D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of each methodology, the model estimates that cycle‑aware investors such as Howard Marks score the stock very highly (94 and 73) because they see it as early‑to‑mid cycle and reasonably priced, while crowd‑sentiment analysts like Charles Mackay also give a solid rating (82) due to a lack of mania. In contrast, growth‑oriented frameworks such as Peter Lynch, Philip Fisher and Graham’s enterprising version assign near‑zero scores, flagging the company for missing growth‑at‑reasonable‑price or quality criteria. More risk‑focused lenses – Loeb, Bagehot, and Veblen – rate the stock low (33, 31, 22) because of perceived capital‑risk and liquidity concerns. Meanwhile, balanced value and market‑efficiency approaches (Graham, Smith, Malkiel & Bogle) sit in the middle (50‑35), reflecting mixed evidence on intrinsic value versus index‑replication merit. These divergent outcomes stem from each investor’s distinct emphasis on cycle timing, crowd behavior, risk, liquidity, and growth quality.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 100
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 100
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
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)
🟢 94
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 35
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 33
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 31
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 25
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 22
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 0
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 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 downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Medium 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
53.3%
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
-35.0%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
16.9%
ROA
-22.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.00
Cash
$108.80K
Total Debt
$15.21M
Current Ratio
0.17
Debt/Equity
-1.89
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
-$0.01
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.01
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
Target Group Inc. (CBDY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 36/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CBDY currently scores 36/100 (Weak) 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.
CBDY's technical score is 9/100, 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: Debt/equity: -1.89; Gross margin: 53.3% — strong; Debt/equity: -1.89.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -35.0% (negative); ATR: 9.6% of price; Current ratio: 0.17.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CBDY.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schindermann Rubin | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.6.2019 | 3,000,000 | +3,000,000 | $0.09 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.5.2019 | 3,600,000 | +3,600,000 | $0.05 |
| Starr Sasha | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.4.2019 | 8,234,850 | +8,234,850 | $0.02 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Open Market Sale | 15.3.2019 | 13,000 | -13,000 | $0.12 |
| Starr Sasha | Disposition to the Company | 22.2.2019 | 500,000 | -500,000 | — |
| Starr Sasha | Disposition to the Company | 22.2.2019 | 500,000 | -500,000 | — |
| Schindermann Rubin | Open Market Sale | 21.2.2019 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $0.11 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Open Market Sale | 15.2.2019 | 50,000 | -50,000 | $0.10 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Open Market Sale | 25.1.2019 | 6,165 | -6,165 | $0.10 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Open Market Sale | 22.1.2019 | 20,000 | -20,000 | $0.10 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Open Market Sale | 14.1.2019 | 23,835 | -23,835 | $0.10 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.3.2018 | 1,764,706 | +1,764,706 | $0.02 |
| Starr Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.3.2018 | 1,764,706 | +1,764,706 | $0.02 |
| Starr Sasha | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.3.2018 | 1,764,706 | +1,764,706 | $0.02 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.3.2018 | 1,764,706 | +1,764,706 | $0.02 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.2.2018 | 1,000,000 | +1,000,000 | $0.01 |
| Starr Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.2.2018 | 1,000,000 | +1,000,000 | $0.01 |
| Starr Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.12.2017 | 1,000,000 | +1,000,000 | $0.02 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.12.2017 | 1,000,000 | +1,000,000 | $0.02 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.11.2017 | 4,000,000 | +4,000,000 | $0.01 |
| Starr Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.11.2017 | 4,000,000 | +4,000,000 | $0.01 |
| Starr Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.9.2017 | 1,400,000,000 | +1,400,000,000 | $0.00 |
| Schindermann Rubin | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.9.2017 | 1,400,000,000 | +1,400,000,000 | $0.00 |
| Starr Sasha | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.12.2016 | 500,000 | +500,000 | — |
| Starr Sasha | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.12.2016 | 500,000 | +500,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
200,156 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 230,099 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
13.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 76.1% 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