Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$176.89
▼ $1.30 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/19 03:56 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$9.98B
Day Range
$176.29 - $179.10
52-Week Range
$100.99 - $188.73
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$129.00
Resistance
$188.73
RGEN 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.
+42.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 17/31 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 287.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
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
65
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
65
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
76
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
58
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 Repligen Corporation (RGEN) has primarily focused on its financial performance and valuation, highlighting its strong growth metrics—such as accelerating earnings per share (EPS) and revenue—while noting a constructive technical stock setup. Analysts have debated whether the stock is near fair value after a recent rebound, with mixed views on potential upside, particularly given its 42% decline over five years despite recent gains. The broader discussion centers on whether Repligen’s fundamentals justify its current valuation. No direct company-specific developments beyond these financial assessments were prominently featured.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Repligen Corporation. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 of the last 20 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
27
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
39
Fundamentals
58
Technical
76
Valuation
50
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+34%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+18
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for RGEN suggests a detached euphoria, where extreme valuation metrics (+28.3% above 200-day average, -99% DCF mispricing) contrast with neutral technical signals (RSI 54, moderate momentum). This disconnect may reflect overconfidence in narrative potential despite fundamental underperformance. The lack of herding or panic signals implies no immediate collective urgency, though the narrative-reality gap (8-point divergence) hints at potential misalignment. The key question remains whether the stock’s valuation will correct or if investors remain anchored to optimistic expectations despite weak momentum.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:19 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"UBS analyst Dan Leonard maintains Repligen (NASDAQ:RGEN) with a Buy and raises the price target from $195 to $225."
"Repligen Corporation (RGEN) Presents at Wells Fargo 21st Annual Healthcare Conference"
"3 Reasons to Avoid RGEN and 1 Stock to Buy Instead"
📈 11D 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 — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 26/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies here split sharply between bullish and cautious views of RGEN, reflecting stark differences in their core principles. Peter Lynch, Walter Bagehot, and Benjamin Graham’s defensive approach all rate it highly—Lynch sees untapped growth potential, Bagehot highlights its financial resilience, and Graham’s defensive bar is met—suggesting a mix of value, stability, and upside. Meanwhile, Fisher, Housel, and Marks’ late-cycle warning diverge sharply, with Fisher dismissing it outright for lacking his signature quality/growth traits, while Housel and Marks flag volatility and overvaluation risks. The middle ground—Nelson’s cycle optimism, Smith’s lukewarm endorsement, and Schwager’s indecision—shows a stock that’s neither a slam dunk nor a clear pass, with some methodologies seeing fleeting tactical opportunities while others treat it as a speculative gamble.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 79
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 75
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 69
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 61
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 58
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 57
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 50
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 49
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 39
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 33
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 27
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 26
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 · 1 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 uptrend 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
52.3%
Operating Margin
7.5%
Net Margin
6.6%
EBITDA Margin
18.1%
ROE
2.3%
ROA
1.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.87
Cash
$566.02M
Total Debt
$542.21M
Current Ratio
8.37
Debt/Equity
0.26
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$176.89
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$24,286.22
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
-1.5%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -1.5% | $92.52M | $84.88M |
| 2 | -0.5% | $92.07M | $77.50M |
| 3 | 0.5% | $92.55M | $71.46M |
| 4 | 1.5% | $93.94M | $66.55M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $96.29M | $62.58M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$93.90M
Terminal Value
$1.52B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$986.87M
Enterprise Value
$1.35B
Net Debt
$-23.81M
Equity Value
$1.37B
*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
$37,236.42
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$10,706.56
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 9 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Repligen Corporation (RGEN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 65/100, 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.
RGEN currently scores 65/100 (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.
RGEN's technical score is 76/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 287.0%; Net income growth: 291.6%; Debt/equity: 0.26.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.04 (3y annualized return 2.2% / max drawdown 50.6%); Free cash flow growth: -37.3%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RGEN.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loeillot Olivier | Open Market Sale | 4.9.2026 | 3,035 | -3,035 | $165.90 |
| Loeillot Olivier | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.9.2026 | 2,842 | -2,842 | $169.61 |
| Hughes Violetta | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 277 | -277 | $170.02 |
| Loeillot Olivier | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 5,426 | -5,426 | — |
| Loeillot Olivier | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 5,426 | -5,426 | $180.00 |
| Loeillot Olivier | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 5,426 | +5,426 | $141.79 |
| Garland Jason K | Open Market Sale | 16.7.2026 | 530 | -530 | $150.00 |
| Garland Jason K | Open Market Sale | 16.7.2026 | 18,829 | -530 | $150.00 |
| Garland Jason K | Open Market Sale | 25.6.2026 | 733 | -733 | $145.00 |
| Garland Jason K | Open Market Sale | 25.6.2026 | 19,359 | -733 | $145.00 |
| BARTHELEMY NICOLAS | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,239 | +2,239 | — |
| BARTHELEMY NICOLAS | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 995 | +995 | — |
| DAWES KAREN A | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,239 | +2,239 | — |
| DAWES KAREN A | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 995 | +995 | — |
| MUIR GLENN P | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,239 | +2,239 | — |
| MUIR GLENN P | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 995 | +995 | — |
| Pax Margaret | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,239 | +2,239 | — |
| Pax Margaret | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 995 | +995 | — |
| Mhatre Rohin | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,239 | +2,239 | — |
| Mhatre Rohin | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 995 | +995 | — |
| EGLINTON MANNER CARRIE | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,239 | +2,239 | — |
| EGLINTON MANNER CARRIE | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 995 | +995 | — |
| Konstantinov Konstantin | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,239 | +2,239 | — |
| Madaus Martin D | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 995 | +995 | — |
| Madaus Martin D | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 2,239 | +2,239 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,612,877 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 6,132,499 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
70.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 64.5% 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