Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$16.89
▲ $0.12 (+0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/20 01:48 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$627.36M
Day Range
$16.15 - $17.87
52-Week Range
$8.72 - $27.41
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$13.99
Resistance
$22.33
CBIO 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.
+30.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/22 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 6.56
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -1407.5% (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
39
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $16.89
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 27 to -1 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
14d ago · $20.88
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 36 to 77 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
42
Value
50
Momentum
23
Risk
40
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
30
Institutional
22
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 Crescent Biopharma, Inc. has centered on its financial and investor activities, highlighting its recent public offering that raised $143.7 million in July 2026. The company also reported improved Q2 2026 earnings, with narrower losses per share than expected, alongside analyst upgrades like Wedbush’s "Outperform" rating. Crescent is scheduled to participate in investor conferences in September, emphasizing its focus on advancing cancer therapies. No major clinical trial results or product approvals were mentioned.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Crescent Biopharma, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 4 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
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
48
Psychology
31
Fundamentals
30
Technical
23
Valuation
50
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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)
-5%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
48
Narrative Gap
-1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant FOMO-driven rally, with euphoria as a secondary but notable bias. The narrative gap (27) indicates traders may be overestimating fundamentals relative to technical momentum. Key open question: Will the overbought RSI (71) and extreme Bollinger %B (1.20) trigger profit-taking, or will momentum sustain? The 6.9% distance from resistance may anchor buyers despite elevated sentiment.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 01:12 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Wedbush analyst Robert Driscoll reiterates Crescent Biopharma with an 'Outperform' and maintains $27 price target."
"quarterly losses of $(0.74) per share beat the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.79) by 6.33 percent"
"Crescent Biopharma closes $143.7 million public offering"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 6D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for CBIO reflects deep methodological contrasts. Benjamin Graham and Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect scores highlight their focus on liquidity and balance-sheet fundamentals—Graham’s verdict hinges on insufficient data, while Bagehot’s confidence stems from strong liquidity. In contrast, Fisher, Nelson, and Housel’s low scores reveal their skepticism toward speculative or volatile patterns, with Fisher dismissing it for lacking quality/growth and Housel flagging volatility as a behavioral red flag. Meanwhile, Livermore’s positive trend score contrasts sharply with Marks’ caution, as the latter balances business strength against potentially inflated expectations. The middle-ground methodologies (Schwager, Mackay, Smith) suggest ambiguity—Schwager sees no clear edge, while Mackay and Smith detect instability or crowd-driven behavior, underscoring how different frameworks weigh risk, momentum, and structural stability.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 88
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 66
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 49
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
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)
🟡 48
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 39
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 30
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: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 29
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)
🔴 18
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 9
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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?
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 · 9 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 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
—
Operating Margin
-1407.5%
Net Margin
-1419.6%
EBITDA Margin
-1407.5%
ROE
-75.8%
ROA
-64.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$213.19M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
6.56
Debt/Equity
—
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 13.1.2023 | $24.000 |
| 12.1.2023 | $24.000 |
| 21.9.2022 | $143.000 |
| 20.9.2022 | $143.000 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 16 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.8.2026
Associated Press · 30.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 30.7.2026
Benzinga · 30.7.2026
MT Newswires · 16.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 16.7.2026
MT Newswires · 15.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.7.2026
MT Newswires · 14.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 14.7.2026
Benzinga · 14.7.2026
Crescent Biopharma, Inc. (CBIO) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 39/100, 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.
CBIO currently scores 39/100 (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.
CBIO's technical score is 23/100, 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: Current ratio: 6.56; Price is above the 200-day average; Current ratio: 6.56.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -1407.5% (negative); Net margin: -1419.6% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
Yes — CBIO has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 4 purchases and 14 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairmount Funds Management LLC | Open Market Purchase | 16.7.2026 | 525,897 | +525,897 | $14.50 |
| Fairmount Funds Management LLC | Open Market Purchase | 16.7.2026 | 853,450 | +853,450 | $14.50 |
| Fairmount Funds Management LLC | Open Market Purchase | 16.7.2026 | 3,601,316 | +853,450 | $14.50 |
| Fairmount Funds Management LLC | Open Market Purchase | 16.7.2026 | 2,294,037 | +525,897 | $14.50 |
| McNeill Jonathan | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 20,549 | -20,549 | $17.99 |
| Lynch Ryan | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 465 | -465 | $17.99 |
| Pinkas Jan | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 1,288 | -1,288 | $17.99 |
| Im Ellie Eunkyung | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 1,219 | -1,219 | $17.99 |
| Scalzo Richard William | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 1,112 | -1,112 | $17.99 |
| Bispham Barbara Harlin | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 1,218 | -1,218 | $17.99 |
| Brumm Joshua T | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 42,305 | -42,305 | $17.99 |
| Brumm Joshua T | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 281,212 | -42,305 | $17.99 |
| McNeill Jonathan | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 139,158 | -20,549 | $17.99 |
| Im Ellie Eunkyung | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 22,069 | -1,219 | $17.99 |
| Bispham Barbara Harlin | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 19,330 | -1,218 | $17.99 |
| Scalzo Richard William | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 20,298 | -1,112 | $17.99 |
| Pinkas Jan | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 22,239 | -1,288 | $17.99 |
| Lynch Ryan | Open Market Sale | 22.6.2026 | 13,871 | -465 | $17.99 |
| Moran Susan | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 11,050 | +11,050 | — |
| Fairmount Funds Management LLC | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 11,050 | +11,050 | — |
| Violin Jonathan | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 11,050 | +11,050 | — |
| Lubner David Charles | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 11,050 | +11,050 | — |
| Balcom Alexandra | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 11,050 | +11,050 | — |
| Fairmount Healthcare Fund II L.P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 11,050 | +11,050 | — |
| Moran Susan | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 11,050 | +11,050 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,172,374 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,465,334 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.3% 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