Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$2.55
▼ $0.03 (-1.2%)
Market data updated: 09/20 03:09 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$432.34M
Day Range
$2.52 - $2.61
52-Week Range
$2.00 - $4.23
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$2.48
Resistance
$3.75
CABA 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.
+17.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/22 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
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 2.77
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 8.6% 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.
CABA’s investorScore of 54 and MODERATE rating reflect a mixed picture across key dimensions. Technicals are robust, scoring 79, driven by price trading above both 50‑ and 200‑day averages, a rising positive MACD histogram, and a healthy RSI of 57.9, indicating sustained upward momentum. Fundamentals lag, however, with a low score of 41 highlighted by a negative ROE of –149.8%, a weak ROA of –101.7%, and a negative interest coverage of ‑85.9x, signaling severe profitability and solvency concerns. Growth metrics are equivocal (score 43), as EPS growth of 10.3% is offset by steep declines in free cash flow (–46.3%) and net income (–44.9%). Valuation is neutral (score 50) with a negative P/E of ‑1.5, while news sentiment is mixed (score 44) amid analyst downgrades and some neutral updates. Risk remains moderate (score 40), with elevated ATR volatility (5.8% of price) and a poor Calmar ratio of –0.42. Overall, the moderate score balances strong technical momentum against troubling fundamental and cash‑flow metrics.
Technical indicators show price above both 50‑day and 200‑day averages, a positive MACD histogram indicating rising momentum, and an RSI of 57.9, which lies in a healthy positive range. The %K value of 59.6 is neutral, supporting an overall bullish technical outlook.
Strong technicals suggest the stock is currently in an uptrend, which can support short‑term price movements.
Fundamental data reveal a negative ROE of –149.8%, a weak ROA of –101.7%, a solid current ratio of 2.77, and a deeply negative interest coverage of ‑85.9x. These figures point to severe profitability challenges and high leverage risk.
Poor profitability and coverage metrics erode confidence in the company’s ability to generate sustainable earnings.
Growth metrics are mixed: EPS growth is positive at 10.3%, yet free cash flow growth is down –46.3% and net income has declined –44.9%. This divergence highlights earnings that are not translating into cash generation.
Weak cash‑flow and net income trends limit the firm’s capacity for reinvestment and dividend sustainability.
Valuation is represented by a negative P/E ratio of ‑1.5, indicating the company is currently unprofitable on an earnings basis.
A negative P/E signals that traditional earnings‑based valuation cannot be applied, complicating price assessment.
Recent news includes a Wells Fargo equal‑weight rating with a lowered price target, negative commentary on Adicet Bio as a cheap gamma delta T‑cell play, and neutral updates from Cabaletta Bio regarding Q2 results and EPS beat. Overall sentiment is mixed with a slight negative tilt.
Mixed news can cause volatility and affect investor perception, especially with analyst downgrades outweighing neutral updates.
Risk factors comprise a high ATR of 5.8% of price, indicating elevated volatility, a concerning Calmar ratio of –0.42 (annualized loss of ‑40% vs. a 95.9% max drawdown), and the current ratio of 2.77, which, while providing liquidity, may not offset other risks.
High volatility and poor risk‑adjusted returns suggest substantial downside potential for investors.
StockIQ conclusion
CABA’s moderate score stems from robust technical momentum contrasted with weak fundamentals, declining cash flows, and mixed news sentiment. While technical indicators support a bullish short‑term view, persistent profitability and liquidity challenges pose significant concerns. Investors should monitor fundamental improvements and cash‑flow recovery before making decisions, as the current picture balances upside potential against notable downside risks.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
43
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
13
Risk
40
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
41
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 **Cabaletta Bio** has centered on its financial performance and market sentiment, with analysts offering mixed but cautious outlooks. The company reported a narrower-than-expected Q2 loss ($0.34 vs. $0.39 estimated), though ongoing challenges in its autoimmune CAR-T pipeline—including a halted study by competitors—have raised industry scrutiny. Wells Fargo downgraded its rating while lowering its price target to $3, contrasting with HC Wainwright’s "Buy" call at $16. Investor conferences and broader market volatility also briefly touched the stock, though no major breakthroughs were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cabaletta Bio, Inc.. News trend score: 44. Reason: 3 of the last 16 articles are negative, versus 2 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
51
Fundamentals
41
Technical
13
Valuation
50
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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
30
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-20
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a dominant FOMO-driven rally, with momentum (11.9% ROC) and elevated volume (1.24x) pulling buyers in despite modest peer underperformance. Overconfidence (30) and early euphoria (19) indicate traders may be overpaying for growth, while residual panic (12) hints at lingering uncertainty. The narrative gap (6) implies optimism slightly outpaces fundamentals. The key question: will momentum sustain or collapse under volatility (1.33x ATR) if sentiment cools?
Updated: 09/05/2026, 03:25 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Wells Fargo analyst Derek Archila lowers the price target from $4 to $3"
"Cabaletta Bio reported quarterly losses of $(0.34) per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate"
"Cabaletta Bio is turning Rese-cel enrollment and new financing into a clearer autoimmune cell therapy setup"
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?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with Graham’s valuation frameworks failing due to insufficient data, leaving his models unable to form a verdict at all. Meanwhile, trend-following approaches like Jesse Livermore’s (75) and Walter Bagehot’s liquidity assessment (69) see more promise, suggesting the stock may have momentum or adequate market depth—but not exceptional strength. On the other end, Fisher, Housel, and Nelson all score zero or near-zero, either because of missing fundamentals or because the volatility or cycle positioning appears too risky for patient, long-term investors. The middle ground, where Marks (60) and Veblen (53) see mixed signals—good business but potentially overpriced or uncertain profitability—highlights a core tension: the stock may have *some* appeal for opportunistic traders or liquidity-focused investors, but lacks the clarity or stability to satisfy disciplined, data-driven strategies.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 93
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)
🟢 86
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 69
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 67
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 53
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
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)
🟡 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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 34
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
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)
🔴 17
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)
🔴 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
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: 20%
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 282 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-149.8%
ROA
-101.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.10
Cash
$82.98M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.77
Debt/Equity
—
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
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 11 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 16 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
BioPharma Dive · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 10.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 17.6.2026
Exec Edge · 9.6.2026
Business Wire · 9.6.2026
Insider Monkey · 7.6.2026
MT Newswires · 3.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.6.2026
Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (CABA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 35/100, rated "Weak" (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.
CABA currently scores 35/100 (Weak) 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.
CABA'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: 2.77; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 10.3%; Current ratio: 2.77.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 8.6% of price; Calmar: -0.49 (3y annualized return -47.3% / max drawdown 95.9%); Return on equity (ROE): -149.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CABA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 3 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HENRIQUES RICHARD C JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Tomasello Shawn | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Simon Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Brun Scott C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Bollard Catherine | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| HENRIQUES RICHARD C JR | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Simon Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Tomasello Shawn | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Brun Scott C. | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Bollard Catherine | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.6.2026 | 22,000 | +22,000 | — |
| Das Arun | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 175,000 | +175,000 | — |
| Binder Gwendolyn | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Marda Anup | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Gerard Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 175,000 | +175,000 | — |
| Chang David J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Nichtberger Steven | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 674,000 | +674,000 | — |
| Nichtberger Steven | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 674,000 | +674,000 | — |
| Marda Anup | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Chang David J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Binder Gwendolyn | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 225,000 | +225,000 | — |
| Gerard Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 175,000 | +175,000 | — |
| Das Arun | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.3.2026 | 175,000 | +175,000 | — |
| Tomasello Shawn | Open Market Purchase | 21.1.2026 | 22,725 | +22,725 | $2.21 |
| Chang David J. | Open Market Purchase | 21.1.2026 | 8,800 | +8,800 | $2.26 |
| Binder Gwendolyn | Open Market Purchase | 21.1.2026 | 11,312 | +11,312 | $2.19 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
41,442,251 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 40,777,017 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
59.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 46.9% 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