Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$5.03
▼ $0.20 (-3.8%)
Market data updated: 09/23 04:57 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/23/2026
Market Cap
$73.15M
Day Range
$4.96 - $5.22
52-Week Range
$3.16 - $11.89
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$4.20
Resistance
$5.94
CING 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.
+31.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 1/24 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 59.1%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.3% 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
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
54
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
16
Risk
34
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
37
Institutional
No data available
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 Cingulate Inc. has centered on its financial performance and progress with its lead drug candidate, CTx-1301, particularly for ADHD treatment. Analysts like Roth Capital and Ascendiant Capital maintained "Buy" ratings but adjusted downward price targets ($9 and $44, respectively). The company reported Q2 2026 losses of $0.45 per share, better than estimates, alongside no revenue and high operating expenses ($5.4M). Key milestones included Phase 3 ADHD trial results published, patent issuance for CTx-1301, and updates on NDA resubmission progress, alongside inclusion in the Russell 3000E Index.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cingulate Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 1 vs. 1 out of the last 15 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
7
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
44
Fundamentals
37
Technical
16
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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)
+6%
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 for CING suggests a neutral-to-cautious stance, with no dominant psychological state emerging. Weak momentum (-3.2% ROC) and modest volatility (1.03x ATR) imply a lack of urgency, while the stock’s slight outperformance (+0.5%) relative to peers hints at selective positioning rather than herd behavior. The narrative gap (-10) suggests a mild disconnect between market sentiment and fundamentals, but no extreme bias like panic or euphoria is active. The key question is whether the current divergence from peers will persist or if external catalysts (e.g., sector shifts) could reignite volatility.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 04:36 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"Roth Capital reiterates Cingulate with a Buy and lowers the price target from $10 to $9."
"Cingulate Inc. Reports Second Quarter 2026 Financial Results and Provides Update on CTx-1301 CMC Progress Towards NDA Resubmission and Commercial Readiness"
"Cingulate Receives Complete Response Letter from FDA for CTx-1301"
"Cingulate reported quarterly losses of $(0.45) per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.63) by 28.57 percent."
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
Benjamin Graham — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect a clash between cyclical optimism and deep structural concerns. On one end, Samuel Nelson and Charles Mackay see potential—Nelson flags a favorable cycle position, while Mackay finds no crowd-driven mania, suggesting a more rational valuation. Meanwhile, Peter Lynch and Howard Marks (in his business-focused view) acknowledge growth or quality but hedge with uncertainty: Lynch lacks data, and Marks warns expectations may be overpriced. Yet the opposite camp—led by Benjamin Graham (who scores it a dismal 5) and Gerald Loeb—paints a bleak picture, citing extreme risk, illiquidity, and failure to meet defensive metrics. Even Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager reject it outright, dismissing its trend alignment or setup discipline. The divide isn’t just about risk/reward but whether the stock’s volatility or cyclical tailwinds justify ignoring red flags like Graham’s margin-of-safety failures or Loeb’s capital-threatening risks.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 100
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
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 70
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)
🟢 67
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 33
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 27
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 23
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 22
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 20
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 18
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
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
🔴 16
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 12
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 5
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 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 9 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.
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
-894.8%
ROA
-148.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$4.44
Cash
$10.95M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.16
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$5.03
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$64.24
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% | $-19.15M | $-17.57M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-20.70M | $-17.43M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-22.00M | $-16.99M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-22.96M | $-16.27M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-23.53M | $-15.30M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-17.41M
Terminal Value
$-371.12M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-241.20M
Enterprise Value
$-324.74M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-324.74M
*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
$0.50
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.50
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 1 positive, 13 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 15 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
Yahoo · 19.8.2026
Zacks Small Cap Research · 19.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 11.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 30.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 16.6.2026
TMX Newsfile · 4.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.6.2026
Zacks Small Cap Research · 19.5.2026
GlobeNewswire · 14.5.2026
Cingulate Inc. (CING) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 37/100, 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.
CING currently scores 37/100 (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.
CING's technical score is 16/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 59.1%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.3% of price; Calmar: -0.70 (3y annualized return -68.9% / max drawdown 98.9%); Return on equity (ROE): -894.8% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CING.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Werth Peter J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Brams Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 26,400 | +26,400 | — |
| Silva Raul R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 53,600 | +53,600 | — |
| Schaffer Shane J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 197,650 | +197,650 | — |
| Callahan Jennifer L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 19,800 | +19,800 | — |
| Silva Raul R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 26,400 | +26,400 | — |
| Schaffer Shane J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 97,350 | +97,350 | — |
| Downey Bryan Wade | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 33,000 | +33,000 | — |
| Brams Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 53,600 | +53,600 | — |
| Hargroves Thomas Jeffrey | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Lawrence Bryan Jay | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Callahan Jennifer L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 40,200 | +40,200 | — |
| Downey Bryan Wade | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 67,000 | +67,000 | — |
| Silva Raul R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 53,600 | +53,600 | — |
| Silva Raul R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 26,400 | +26,400 | — |
| Werth Peter J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Callahan Jennifer L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 40,200 | +40,200 | — |
| Callahan Jennifer L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 19,800 | +19,800 | — |
| Hargroves Thomas Jeffrey | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Brams Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 53,600 | +53,600 | — |
| Brams Matthew | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 26,400 | +26,400 | — |
| Lawrence Bryan Jay | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Downey Bryan Wade | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 67,000 | +67,000 | — |
| Downey Bryan Wade | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 33,000 | +33,000 | — |
| Schaffer Shane J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 16.7.2026 | 197,650 | +197,650 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,055,174 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,569,743 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 37.7% 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