Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$0.89
▼ $0.14 (-13.6%)
Market data updated: 09/18 10:58 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$68.45M
Day Range
$0.89 - $1.02
52-Week Range
$0.89 - $5.63
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$0.93
Resistance
$3.84
ACH 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.
-80.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/32 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
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 238.8% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -39.8% (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
37
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
34
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
22
Risk
32
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
42
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 Accendra Health, Inc. has focused on **significant analyst downgrades and downward price target revisions**, with Citigroup and UBS both cutting their targets from $4.50 to $1.50 while maintaining a neutral rating. The company has also **abandoned an equity issuance plan** and announced a **CEO succession timeline for September**, alongside raising $45 million from non-core asset sales to adjust its capital strategy amid challenging market conditions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Accendra Health, Inc.. News trend score: 44. Reason: 5 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 4 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
85
Fundamentals
42
Technical
22
Valuation
50
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
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)
-68%
Market Narrative
30
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
-8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant *Loss Aversion* (100) suggests investors are clinging to shares despite severe underperformance, as evidenced by the 59.9% three-month drop and subdued trading volume. The absence of *FOMO* or *Euphoria* (scores of 0) further confirms a risk-off mindset, while *Panic Selling* (40) and *Herding* (40) hint at cautious liquidation rather than panic. The key question is whether the narrative gap (-5) reflects lingering optimism or a delayed reckoning—until volume or sentiment shifts, the bias to hold losses may persist. The open question: Will volume spike if a catalyst emerges, or will the stock remain trapped in a low-liquidity, loss-averse equilibrium?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:21 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"UBS analyst lowers price target from $4.5 to $1.5"
"CEO succession process advances; CEO succession timeline set for September"
"Nets $45M from non-core asset sales"
"Citigroup downgrades Accendra Health to Neutral"
📈 13D 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
Philip Fisher — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for ACH reflects deep philosophical divides between methodologies. The highest-scoring investors—Charles Mackay, Howard Marks (Market Cycle), and Samuel Armstrong Nelson—focus on macro trends and crowd psychology, all concluding the stock isn’t in a speculative bubble or late-cycle trap. Meanwhile, Jack Schwager and Howard Marks (general) see it as a disciplined, risk-priced opportunity, while Benjamin Graham and Edgar Lawrence Smith flag fundamental inconsistencies, with Graham’s stricter tests failing outright. At the opposite end, Fisher, Livermore, and Bagehot dismiss it entirely—Fisher for lack of quality/growth, Livermore for counter-trend risk, and Bagehot for liquidity concerns—highlighting a disconnect between cyclical/technical views and deep-value or structural skepticism. Even the efficient-market camp and Housel’s patience-based approach reject it, suggesting volatility or inefficiency isn’t enough to justify active selection.
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
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 78
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 41
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 36
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 32
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 25
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 25
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 10
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 8 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
46.7%
Operating Margin
1.0%
Net Margin
-39.8%
EBITDA Margin
8.8%
ROE
238.8%
ROA
-44.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$14.31
Cash
$281.99M
Total Debt
$250.00M
Current Ratio
0.58
Debt/Equity
-0.54
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.12.2021 | $0.003 |
| 13.12.2021 | $0.003 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$0.89
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$49.88
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
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $-278.11M | $-255.15M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-269.42M | $-226.76M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-266.05M | $-205.44M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-267.71M | $-189.65M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-274.41M | $-178.34M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-292.75M
Terminal Value
$-4.33B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-2.81B
Enterprise Value
$-3.87B
Net Debt
$-31.99M
Equity Value
$-3.84B
*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
-$5.99
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$23.74
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 11 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 17.8.2026
Business Wire · 17.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
MT Newswires · 14.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
Fintel · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
ChartMill · 10.8.2026
ChartMill · 10.8.2026
ChartMill · 10.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
ChartMill · 10.8.2026
Business Wire · 10.8.2026
MT Newswires · 10.8.2026
Accendra Health, Inc. (ACH) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 37/100, 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.
ACH currently scores 37/100 (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.
ACH's technical score is 22/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 238.8% — strong; Debt/equity: -0.54; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -39.8% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 13.1% of price.
Yes — ACH 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 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Galloway Heath H | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 1,822 | -1,822 | $2.91 |
| Galloway Heath H | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 966 | -966 | $3.04 |
| Bernocchi Perry A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 7,908 | -7,908 | $3.04 |
| Leon Jonathan A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 1,770 | -1,770 | $3.04 |
| Pesicka Edward A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 17,692 | -17,692 | $3.04 |
| Pesicka Edward A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 1,072,785 | -17,692 | $3.04 |
| Leon Jonathan A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 290,533 | -1,770 | $3.04 |
| Bernocchi Perry A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 313,913 | -7,908 | $3.04 |
| Galloway Heath H | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 168,128 | -966 | $3.04 |
| Kline Teresa L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 31,191 | +31,191 | — |
| Bingham Gwendolyn M | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 31,191 | +31,191 | — |
| Klemash Stephen W | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 31,191 | +31,191 | — |
| Beck Mark A | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 31,191 | +31,191 | — |
| Gardner-Smith Kenneth | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 31,191 | +31,191 | — |
| Beck Mark A | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 71,259 | +31,191 | — |
| Kline Teresa L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 85,316 | +31,191 | — |
| Bingham Gwendolyn M | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 80,603 | +31,191 | — |
| Klemash Stephen W | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 90,242 | +31,191 | — |
| Gardner-Smith Kenneth | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 86,113 | +31,191 | — |
| Galloway Heath H | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.3.2026 | 9,347 | -9,347 | $2.03 |
| Pesicka Edward A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.3.2026 | 58,945 | -58,945 | $2.03 |
| Bernocchi Perry A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.3.2026 | 20,841 | -20,841 | $2.03 |
| Leon Jonathan A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.3.2026 | 11,286 | -11,286 | $2.03 |
| Pesicka Edward A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.3.2026 | 1,090,477 | -58,945 | $2.03 |
| Leon Jonathan A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 20.3.2026 | 292,303 | -11,286 | $2.03 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
8,830,601 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 5,325,615 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
62.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 55.7% 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