Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$15.06
▼ $0.31 (-2.0%)
Market data updated: 09/18 11:16 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$5.62B
Day Range
$15.02 - $15.37
52-Week Range
$15.02 - $40.48
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$15.09
Resistance
$20.40
AAPG 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.
-60.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/25 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 1.79
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$1.15 vs. price $15.06 (-107.6%)
Fair Value
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
35
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
50
Quality
50
Value
38
Momentum
13
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
35
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 Ascentage Pharma Group International has centered on its **financial performance and investor sentiment**. The company reported **CNY 816.69 million in net losses** for the first half of 2026, alongside modest sales of CNY 302.21 million, prompting speculation that its stock may be undervalued. Analysts, including BTIG, maintained a **Buy rating with a $48 price target**, while the company’s leadership participated in **upcoming investor conferences** to discuss its pipeline and strategy. Stock volatility and earnings call transcripts highlighted ongoing challenges and market expectations for its cancer-focused therapies.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Ascentage Pharma Group International - American Depository. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 4 vs. 4 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
20
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
64
Fundamentals
35
Technical
13
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
33
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-17
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for AAPG suggests a **tug-of-war between mild FOMO and residual panic**, both scoring moderately high (5 and 7, respectively). The elevated volume (1.24x average) and volatility (1.12x ATR) hint at uncertainty, while the neutral RSI (48) and balanced sentiment (50/100) prevent extreme bias. Anchoring (6.9% above support) may subtly influence decisions, but no dominant narrative dominates. The key question: *Will traders act on momentum or retreat further?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:11 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"BTIG analyst Jeet Mukherjee reiterates Ascentage Pharma Group with a Buy and maintains $48 price target"
"reported sales of CNY 302.21 million and a net loss of CNY 816.69 million... H1 Loss Widens, Revenue Rises"
"Ascentage Pharma to Participate in Four Upcoming Investor Conferences"
📈 17D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast between methodologies here reveals a deep divide between those who prioritize fundamental stability and those who focus on market psychology or structural risks. Charles Mackay’s near-perfect score suggests the stock lacks crowd-driven mania, while Howard Marks’ cycle-based approach sees it as mid-cycle—neither overbought nor oversold. However, the majority of investors—from Graham’s defensive criteria to Loeb’s risk aversion—flag the stock as fundamentally weak or volatile, with scores clustering in the low-to-mid range. Meanwhile, Fisher, Lynch, and Housel’s zero scores reflect a lack of actionable data for their growth or behavioral frameworks, while Livermore’s negative trend verdict aligns with the most bearish view. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s perceived stability (per Mackay) outweighs its structural flaws (per Graham or Loeb) or if its volatility and weak fundamentals make it a high-risk bet.
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)
🟢 97
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)
🟢 87
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)
🟡 63
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 50
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 40
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 33
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 29
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 26
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 16
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 9
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 8
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
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: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 0
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: 10%
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 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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
91.5%
Operating Margin
-205.9%
Net Margin
-216.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-93.8%
ROA
-31.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.18
Cash
$122.35M
Total Debt
$121.85M
Current Ratio
1.79
Debt/Equity
1.49
Not enough data to compute signals.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$15.06
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$1.15
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-107.6%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $-20.44M | $-18.75M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-22.10M | $-18.60M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-23.48M | $-18.13M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-24.51M | $-17.37M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-25.13M | $-16.33M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-18.58M
Terminal Value
$-396.20M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-257.50M
Enterprise Value
$-346.69M
Net Debt
$-502.00K
Equity Value
$-346.19M
*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
$3.55
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.37
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 12 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Moby · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.8.2026
MarketBeat · 20.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 20.8.2026
MT Newswires · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 19.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 13.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 5.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 5.8.2026
Yahoo · 5.8.2026
Yahoo · 5.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.8.2026
Ascentage Pharma Group International - American Depository (AAPG) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 35/100, 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.
AAPG currently scores 35/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, AAPG's estimated fair value is -$1.15, which is 107.6% below the current price of $15.06. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
AAPG's technical score is 13/100, 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: 1.79; Gross margin: 91.5% — strong; Current ratio: 1.79.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$1.15 vs. price $15.06 (-107.6%); Operating margin: -205.9% (negative); Net margin: -216.5% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for AAPG.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yang Dajun | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 95,575 | +95,575 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 95,575 | -95,575 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 95,575 | -95,575 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 92,746 | +92,746 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 95,575 | +95,575 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 92,746 | +92,746 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 92,746 | -92,746 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 92,746 | -92,746 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 1,193,569 | +95,575 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 405,280 | +92,746 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 0 | -92,746 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 405,280 | +92,746 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 1,193,569 | +95,575 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.5.2026 | 0 | -95,575 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 103,364 | +103,364 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 103,365 | +103,365 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 214,999 | +214,999 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 95,575 | +95,575 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 92,746 | +92,746 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 298,194 | +298,194 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 214,988 | +214,988 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 103,365 | +103,365 | — |
| Yang Dajun | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 95,575 | +95,575 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 298,194 | +298,194 | — |
| Zhai Yifan | Grant/Award from Employer | 20.5.2026 | 103,364 | +103,364 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
15,260 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 15,739 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
50.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.4% 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