Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$1.25
▲ $0.02 (+1.6%)
Market data updated: 09/17 09:48 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$18.92M
Day Range
$1.13 - $1.40
52-Week Range
$0.75 - $1.80
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
BCDA 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.
-26.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/26 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
🟢 Bullish
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: 57.6%
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
61
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
48
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
94
Risk
34
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
42
Institutional
100
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 **BioCardia, Inc.** has centered on its progress in regulatory approvals and strategic advancements. The company announced FDA confirmation of meeting minutes supporting its **Helix Transendocardial Delivery Catheter System** for a follow-on *De Novo* submission, while also highlighting regulatory wins in both the **U.S. and Japan** during its **Q2 2026 earnings call**. Financial discussions included cash runway projections extending into **2027**, alongside ongoing efforts to advance its cellular and cell-derived therapeutics for cardiovascular and pulmonary treatments.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about BioCardia, Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
58
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
34
Psychology
67
Fundamentals
42
Technical
94
Valuation
50
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+29%
Market Narrative
66
Fundamental Reality
34
Narrative Gap
+32
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **Confirmation Bias** (53) reflects a stubborn narrative gap (+41) where investors prioritize positive sentiment (86/100) over weak fundamentals (revenue -1.0%). FOMO (43) and overconfidence (35) suggest momentum-driven buying, but euphoria (34) remains muted by RSI (61) and peer underperformance. The key question: *Will traders double down on the narrative despite deteriorating fundamentals?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:18 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"FDA has reviewed and accepted the meeting minutes provided by BioCardia... supporting Follow-On De Novo Pre-Submission for Approval"
"BioCardia advances toward Japanese Shonin submission and FDA approval pathways"
"reported quarterly losses of $(0.13) per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.18)"
📈 5D 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
Jesse Livermore — 74/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 4/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Thorstein Veblen standing out as the sole advocate for a bullish stance—his model sees growth aligned with real value creation, contrasting sharply with the overwhelming caution from others. Meanwhile, the middle-ground approaches like Jesse Livermore’s trend-following and Peter Lynch’s growth valuation suggest only lukewarm interest, noting that while potential exists, the price may already reflect it. The more risk-averse frameworks—from Howard Marks’ cycle analysis to Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria—pile on red flags, flagging overvaluation, stretched cycles, or outright failure of core principles, while liquidity risks and volatility concerns further polarize the debate. Only a handful of methodologies hover near neutrality, unable to decisively justify either entry or exit, highlighting the stock’s contentious nature across historical investor lenses.
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟢 74
Positive trend — the price action Livermore looked for
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 65
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 54
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 52
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 52
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 47
Some signs of crowd excitement building
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)
🟡 46
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 40
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 24
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 22
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 20
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 19
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 17
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)
🔴 15
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
🔴 14
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 4
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 278 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (11 bullish · 0 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 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-919.3%
ROA
-241.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.23
Cash
$2.50M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.12
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.25
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$14.75
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% | $-7.07M | $-6.49M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-6.85M | $-5.77M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-6.76M | $-5.22M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-6.81M | $-4.82M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-6.98M | $-4.53M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-7.44M
Terminal Value
$-110.02M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-71.50M
Enterprise Value
$-98.34M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-98.34M
*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
$0.13
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.13
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 7 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 24.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 24.8.2026
Motley Fool · 19.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
Moby · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 12.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 5.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.7.2026
Yahoo · 28.7.2026
Benzinga · 15.7.2026
Benzinga · 14.7.2026
Zacks · 14.7.2026
BioCardia, Inc. (BCDA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 61/100, 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.
BCDA currently scores 61/100 (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.
BCDA's technical score is 94/100, 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: 57.6%; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 7.1% of price; Calmar: -0.41 (3y annualized return -39.2% / max drawdown 95.2%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for BCDA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 20 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 3.9.2026 | 800 | +800 | $1.09 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 17.8.2026 | 5,400 | +5,400 | $0.93 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 1,900 | +1,900 | $0.92 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 13.8.2026 | 375,785 | +1,900 | $0.92 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 29.7.2026 | 5,000 | +5,000 | $0.78 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 29.7.2026 | 373,885 | +5,000 | $0.78 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 17.7.2026 | 500 | +500 | $0.83 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 17.7.2026 | 368,885 | +500 | $0.83 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 15.7.2026 | 1,500 | +1,500 | $0.86 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 15.7.2026 | 368,385 | +1,500 | $0.86 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 2,800 | +2,800 | $0.88 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 366,885 | +2,800 | $0.88 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 10.7.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $0.94 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 10.7.2026 | 369,485 | +1,000 | $0.94 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 9.7.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $0.90 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 9.7.2026 | 368,485 | +1,000 | $0.90 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 8.7.2026 | 5,400 | +5,400 | $0.96 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 8.7.2026 | 5,500 | +5,500 | $0.97 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 8.7.2026 | 361,985 | +5,400 | $0.96 |
| Altman Peter | Open Market Purchase | 8.7.2026 | 367,485 | +5,500 | $0.97 |
| Altman Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 57,688 | +57,688 | — |
| STERTZER SIMON H | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 8,000 | +8,000 | — |
| Allen Jim L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 8,000 | +8,000 | — |
| Slosman Marvin | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 8,000 | +8,000 | — |
| MOYES JAY M | Grant/Award from Employer | 6.7.2026 | 8,000 | +8,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,007,473 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,106,847 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 40.5% 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