Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$2.30
▲ $0.20 (+9.5%)
Market data updated: 09/20 05:50 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$183.27M
Day Range
$2.15 - $2.38
52-Week Range
$1.75 - $6.89
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
Support
$1.75
Resistance
$2.42
CNTN 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.
-13.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/23 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
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 6.8% of price
Risk
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
53
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 · $2.30
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 2 to 27 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
52
Quality
No data available
Value
55
Momentum
63
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
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 **Canton Strategic Holdings, Inc.** has centered on its strategic shift from biotech to blockchain, particularly its focus on **Canton Coin** and the **Canton Network**. Key developments include the **sale of its biotech subsidiary, Gravitas Life Sciences**, in July 2026, the **launch of a locking service** for network infrastructure, and **growth in transaction activity and institutional adoption** of the Canton Network. The company also highlighted a **DTCC tokenization pilot** and governance updates, alongside routine corporate actions like its **2026 Annual Meeting**.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Canton Strategic Holdings, Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 2 vs. 2 out of the last 9 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
23
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
43
Fundamentals
46
Technical
63
Valuation
55
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.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-31%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-5
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **Loss Aversion** (score 60) reflects a defensive stance after a steep 3-month decline, where investors hesitate to lock in further losses despite modest volume. FOMO is nearly absent (score 9), as weak momentum and neutral sentiment suggest no urgency to chase gains. The narrative gap (-5) hints at a slight disconnect between investor perceptions and reality, but the data does not indicate extreme behavioral extremes. The key question is whether the recent outperformance relative to peers signals a shift in sentiment or merely a temporary rebound—without further catalysts, loss aversion may persist.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:04 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"pivots from biotech to a blockchain treasury focused on Canton Coin and Super Validators"
"broader institutional participation and significant governance changes during the second quarter"
"sale of its biotech research and development arm, Gravitas Life Sciences, LLC"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 14D 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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two stark camps: the value and defensive investors see it as a rare opportunity, while cyclical and speculative-minded strategists view it with caution. Benjamin Graham’s defensive and enterprising frameworks both score perfectly, praising its liquidity and statistical discount, suggesting it fits his criteria for a resilient, undervalued asset. Conversely, Howard Marks and Samuel Nelson flag concerns about market timing and overbought conditions, while Morgan Housel’s near-zero score highlights volatility that could deter patient, long-term holders. Meanwhile, Fisher, Livermore, and Schwager lack clear conviction due to insufficient data or ambiguous trends, while Veblen’s low score hints at speculative growth chasing—contrasting sharply with the liquidity-driven confidence of Bagehot and the Graham variants.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 100
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
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
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 91
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟢 88
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 72
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
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%
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 34
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 23
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 22
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 19
Cycle looks stretched toward 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)
🔴 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
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 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (7 bullish · 4 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.
Low 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
-9.0%
ROA
-6.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.12
Cash
$17.03M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
5.29
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$12.42
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.42
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 9 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
PR Newswire · 23.7.2026
Yahoo · 23.7.2026
MarketBeat · 22.7.2026
Yahoo · 22.7.2026
MarketBeat · 13.7.2026
Yahoo · 13.7.2026
PR Newswire · 23.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 15.5.2026
Canton Strategic Holdings, Inc. (CNTN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, 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.
CNTN currently scores 53/100 (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.
CNTN's technical score is 63/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 88.1%; Current ratio: 5.29.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 6.8% of price; Calmar: -0.71 (3y annualized return -70.1% / max drawdown 99.0%); Return on equity (ROE): -9.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CNTN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 12,500 | -12,500 | $3.47 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 26.5.2026 | 134,175 | -12,500 | $3.47 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | $3.41 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 12,851 | -12,851 | $3.44 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | $3.41 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $3.40 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $3.45 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 15,000 | -15,000 | $3.40 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $3.45 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 224,526 | -10,000 | $3.45 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 214,526 | -10,000 | $3.45 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 199,526 | -15,000 | $3.40 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 184,526 | -15,000 | $3.41 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 169,526 | -15,000 | $3.41 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 159,526 | -10,000 | $3.40 |
| Stetz Gary S. | Open Market Sale | 22.5.2026 | 146,675 | -12,851 | $3.44 |
| Rickel Nancy Davis | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Liddy James Gordon | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Appajosyula Sireesh | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Kahler Thomas Clay | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 17,500 | +17,500 | — |
| Stetz Gary S. | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 32,500 | +32,500 | — |
| LoPriore Vincent S | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 90,000 | +90,000 | — |
| Gravitas Capital LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 90,000 | +90,000 | — |
| Parikh Sanam | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.11.2025 | 5,000 | +5,000 | — |
| Appajosyula Sireesh | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.8.2025 | 90,000 | +90,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,583,510 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 8,497,571 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 68.1% 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