Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$21.35
▲ $0.27 (+1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/21 09:49 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/21/2026
Market Cap
$1.37B
Day Range
$20.98 - $21.79
52-Week Range
$5.68 - $23.19
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$16.00
Resistance
$23.19
CGEM 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.
+244.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/18 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 10.25
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.9% 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
57
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
38
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
69
Risk
40
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
46
Institutional
0
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 **Cullinan Therapeutics, Inc.** has centered on its **zipalertinib** drug, particularly the **Phase 3 REZILIENT3 trial** for first-line treatment of **EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation NSCLC**, which met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival. Analysts have raised price targets ($27–$42) and maintained **Buy/Outperform ratings**, highlighting its potential as a competitive lung cancer therapy. The company’s stock has been tracked amid broader healthcare sector fluctuations.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cullinan Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
43
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
46
Technical
69
Valuation
50
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+20%
Market Narrative
58
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a paradox: extreme positive sentiment (100/100) coexists with weak momentum (-1.9% ROC) and a 36.5% premium to the 200-day average, consistent with *euphoria*—a detached, overvalued state where fundamentals lag narrative hype. The narrow narrative-reality gap (12 points) implies investors may be overestimating tailwinds. Key open question: Will the disconnect between sentiment and momentum persist, or will a pullback test the 36.5% overvaluation?
Updated: 09/07/2026, 04:54 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Phase 3 REZILIENT3 trial data selected for Presidential Symposium presentation at IASLC 2026 (article 2)"
"Wedbush raises price target to $42 from $39 (article 9)"
"Zipalertinib combo clears key Phase 3 hurdle as first-line lung cancer treatment (article 10)"
"Phase 3 REZILIENT3 trial met primary endpoint of progression-free survival (article 3)"
📈 3D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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 — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a stark divide between methodologies, with some models seeing stability and others warning of speculative or overvalued risks. Benjamin Graham and Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect scores suggest strong balance-sheet resilience and liquidity, implying a defensive, crisis-proof position—though Graham’s verdict notes insufficient data for a full valuation assessment. In contrast, the lowest-scoring approaches—like Fisher, Veblen, and Housel—flag it as either lacking fundamental depth or prone to volatility, with Veblen’s low score hinting at growth-chasing behavior and Housel’s warning about patient investors’ discomfort. Meanwhile, cyclical and market-timing frameworks (Nelson, Marks) treat it as late-cycle or overbought, while Livermore’s neutral stance and Schwager’s indecision reflect a lack of clear directional momentum. The split underscores whether the stock’s stability (per Bagehot/Graham) outweighs its speculative or cyclical red flags (per Marks, Veblen, or Housel).
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 47
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 43
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 42
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 34
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
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)
🔴 29
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 18
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 13
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
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 283 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 2 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 uptrend 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-53.8%
ROA
-49.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$88.33M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
10.25
Debt/Equity
—
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)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 26.8.2026
Business Wire · 19.8.2026
Benzinga · 19.8.2026
MT Newswires · 17.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
BioPharma Dive · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
Cullinan Therapeutics, Inc. (CGEM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 57/100, rated "Moderate" (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.
CGEM currently scores 57/100 (Moderate) 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.
CGEM's technical score is 69/100, 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: Current ratio: 10.25; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.9% of price; Calmar: 0.39 (3y annualized return 31.1% / max drawdown 80.4%); Return on equity (ROE): -53.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CGEM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michaelson Jennifer | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | $20.26 |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | — |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | $4.30 |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 192,844 | +30,000 | $4.30 |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.8.2026 | 82,987 | -30,000 | — |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 162,844 | -30,000 | $20.26 |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.7.2026 | 4,000 | +4,000 | $4.30 |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.7.2026 | 4,000 | -4,000 | — |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 8,000 | -8,000 | $17.82 |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.7.2026 | 170,844 | +4,000 | $4.30 |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Open Market Sale | 6.7.2026 | 162,844 | -8,000 | $17.82 |
| Michaelson Jennifer | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.7.2026 | 112,987 | -4,000 | — |
| Fenton Mary Kay | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 1,541 | +1,541 | $8.60 |
| SUMER JACQUELYN L | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 2,470 | +2,470 | $8.60 |
| Fenton Mary Kay | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 127,921 | +1,541 | $8.60 |
| SUMER JACQUELYN L | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 130,559 | +2,470 | $8.60 |
| Allen Andrew R | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 21,781 | +21,781 | — |
| Webster Stephen W | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 25,319 | +25,319 | — |
| Thistle Mary | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 25,319 | +25,319 | — |
| Doyle Mittie | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 21,781 | +21,781 | — |
| Meek David D. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 25,319 | +25,319 | — |
| Rosenberg Anthony | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 25,319 | +25,319 | — |
| Thistle Mary | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 25,319 | +25,319 | — |
| Allen Andrew R | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 21,781 | +21,781 | — |
| Webster Stephen W | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.6.2026 | 25,319 | +25,319 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
10,371,763 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,254,541 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
80.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 71.6% 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