Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$1.98
▼ $0.00 (-0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/16 01:58 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/15/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$67.60M
Day Range
$1.94 - $2.00
52-Week Range
$1.87 - $36.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
10.11.2026
CALC 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.
-87.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/23 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
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 445.1% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 14.1% 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.
🗓️ 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
42
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
10d ago · $2.17
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 25 to -10 day-over-day
What happened after
14d ago · $2.21
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -10 to 25 day-over-day
What happened after
14d ago · $2.21
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 88)
What happened after
14d ago · $2.21
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 14 to 77 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
32
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
19
Risk
40
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
58
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 CalciMedica, Inc. has centered on its financial and strategic moves. The company announced a **one-for-five reverse stock split**, effective August 28, 2026, to strengthen its stock price. Additionally, analysts like Guggenheim’s Vamil Divan initiated coverage with a **Buy rating and $9 price target**. Despite missing Q2 earnings estimates—reporting a **$0.45 loss per share**—the company saw a **6% stock gain** due to positive updates in its pulmonary hypertension clinical progress.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about CalciMedica, Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 7 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
33
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
76
Fundamentals
58
Technical
19
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.
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-53%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant herding dynamic where traders align with peers despite CALC’s slight underperformance today. Loss aversion (50) is a close contender, reflecting deep prior losses (-59.1%) and cautious volume activity. The narrative gap (-10) hints at a disconnect between market sentiment (40) and objective reality (50), possibly amplifying herd-like behavior. The key question is whether the underperformance will persist or if traders will pivot away from peers. The absence of panic or euphoria signals a measured, risk-averse environment.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 01:12 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"CalciMedica Inc. announced a one-for-five reverse stock split"
"Guggenheim analyst Vamil Divan initiates coverage on CalciMedica with a Buy rating and announces Price Target of $9"
"CalciMedica reported quarterly losses of $(0.45) per share which missed the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.28)"
"CalciMedica Reaches FDA Alignment on Phase 2b Trial Design for Auxora in Acute Pancreatitis"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 12D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 11/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of investors focused on balance‑sheet strength and liquidity (Bagehot, Graham’s data‑limited reads), the model estimates a high score (100) because sufficient liquidity is evident, though Graham cannot form a full valuation judgment. Cycle‑oriented thinkers such as Nelson, Mackay, Marks‑cycle and Veblen also assign strong scores (91‑95) reflecting a favorable position in the market cycle, modest crowd sentiment and growth that appears to create real value. More risk‑adjusted or trend‑following frameworks (Schwager, Marks, efficient‑market, Loeb, Livermore) give moderate to low scores (71‑32) indicating mixed business quality, potential over‑optimism, a risk profile that could threaten capital, and a negative price trend. Finally, methodologies that rely heavily on dividend, growth or fundamental detail (Smith, Fisher, Lynch) return near‑zero scores because the necessary data is missing, highlighting how data availability drives divergent conclusions.
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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)
🟢 95
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 91
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 87
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 71
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)
🟡 62
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)
🟡 45
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 32
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 11
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
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
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: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 276 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 10 bearish · 0 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
445.1%
ROA
-217.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.97
Cash
$11.52M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.58
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.98
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$26.35
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
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% | $-23.33M | $-21.40M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-25.22M | $-21.23M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-26.80M | $-20.69M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-27.97M | $-19.82M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-28.67M | $-18.63M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-21.21M
Terminal Value
$-452.10M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-293.84M
Enterprise Value
$-395.61M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-395.61M
*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
-$0.44
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 9 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
InvestorsHub · 11.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
ChartMill · 3.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
ChartMill · 3.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
MT Newswires · 29.7.2026
PR Newswire · 29.7.2026
Benzinga · 29.7.2026
Benzinga · 28.7.2026
Benzinga · 24.7.2026
MT Newswires · 24.6.2026
PR Newswire · 24.6.2026
CalciMedica, Inc. (CALC) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, 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.
CALC currently scores 42/100 (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.
CALC's technical score is 19/100, 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): 445.1% — strong; Current ratio: 3.58; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 14.1% of price; Calmar: -0.53 (3y annualized return -50.0% / max drawdown 94.7%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -61.5%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CALC.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 1 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WILSON ROBERT N | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| WILSON ROBERT N | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 1,182,621 | +1,182,621 | — |
| Glicklich Alan | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Shaw Allan | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Roberts Eric W | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 186,729 | +186,729 | — |
| Leheny A. Rachel | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 186,729 | +186,729 | — |
| Hebbar Sudarshan | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 124,486 | +124,486 | — |
| ALAFI CAPITAL CO LLC | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 3,529,192 | +3,529,192 | — |
| Leheny A. Rachel | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 186,729 | +186,729 | — |
| Hebbar Sudarshan | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 124,486 | +124,486 | — |
| Roberts Eric W | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 186,729 | +186,729 | — |
| Zaytsev Evgeny | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 1,450,267 | +1,450,267 | — |
| Guerard Frederic | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Zaytsev Evgeny | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| WILSON ROBERT N | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 1,182,621 | +1,182,621 | — |
| ALAFI CAPITAL CO LLC | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 3,529,192 | +3,529,192 | — |
| Zaytsev Evgeny | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 1,450,267 | +1,450,267 | — |
| ALAFI CAPITAL CO LLC | Grant/Award from Employer | 19.8.2026 | 3,529,192 | +3,529,192 | — |
| Zaytsev Evgeny | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Zaytsev Evgeny | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Leheny A. Rachel | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 186,729 | +186,729 | $0.80 |
| WILSON ROBERT N | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 1,182,621 | +1,182,621 | $0.80 |
| Middleton Fred A | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2026 | 248,972 | +248,972 | $0.80 |
| Hebbar Sudarshan | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 124,486 | +124,486 | $0.80 |
| Roberts Eric W | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 186,729 | +186,729 | $0.80 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
127,684 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 503,070 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.9% 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