Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$13.64
▼ $0.41 (-2.9%)
Market data updated: 09/22 12:59 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/22/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$783.43M
Day Range
$13.55 - $14.23
52-Week Range
$1.54 - $18.33
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$11.36
Resistance
$18.33
CLYM 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.
+490.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/23 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 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: 42.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$15.00 vs. price $13.64 (-210.0%)
Fair Value
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
49
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
57
Quality
No data available
Value
38
Momentum
33
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
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 Climb Bio, Inc. has centered on its positive clinical progress and bullish analyst sentiment. The company’s IgA nephropathy therapy, CLYM116, received support for an extended dosing schedule in Phase 1 data, advancing toward Phase 3 trials. Multiple analysts—including those from BTIG, Baird, and Truist—maintained Buy/Outperform ratings while raising price targets, signaling confidence in its potential. Climb Bio also announced upcoming investor conferences and continued Phase 2 trials in China, reinforcing its pipeline momentum.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Climb Bio, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
44
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
46
Technical
33
Valuation
38
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+11%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant *Euphoria* (score 50) suggests investors are ignoring negative momentum (-10.5% ROC) while fixating on extreme valuation (+34.6% above 200-day avg) and overwhelmingly positive sentiment (92/100). The *FOMO* (22) and *Panic Selling* (28) signals reveal tension: elevated volume (1.59x avg) and volatility (1.23x ATR) hint at underlying uncertainty, but the narrative gap (-1) implies traders are rationalizing gains over fundamentals. The key question is whether the herd’s divergence (+6.4% vs. peer -1.9%) will sustain or collapse under pressure.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 04:31 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"BTIG raises price target from $20 to $32"
"Positive Phase 1 data for CLYM116 supports extended dosing"
"Baird maintains 'Outperform' rating on Climb Bio"
"Q2 EPS $(0.18) beats $(0.21) estimate by 14.29%"
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 — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into starkly contrasting camps, with a few methodologies seeing it as a potential survivor of financial stress while others flag it as a speculative or late-cycle risk. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights its strong liquidity, suggesting it could weather a credit crisis, but most value-oriented investors like Benjamin Graham and Gerald Loeb dismiss it outright, citing either defensive criteria failures or moderate risk. Meanwhile, growth-focused thinkers like Peter Lynch and Philip Fisher lack sufficient data to form a view, while behavioral economists like Charles Mackay and Thorstein Veblen warn of speculative bubbles or misplaced enthusiasm. The divide between Bagehot’s resilience framework and the broader consensus of caution—especially from Howard Marks and Morgan Housel—reflects a tension between stability and valuation concerns, with no clear middle ground among the methodologies.
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
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 89
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 58
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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)
🟡 43
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 43
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 41
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 41
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 32
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 25
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)
🔴 22
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 8 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.
High 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
-37.3%
ROA
-35.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.88
Cash
$35.69M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
15.16
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$13.64
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$15.00
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-210.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
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% | $-60.00M | $-55.04M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-64.87M | $-54.60M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-68.93M | $-53.22M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-71.94M | $-50.96M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-73.74M | $-47.93M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-54.54M
Terminal Value
$-1.16B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-755.75M
Enterprise Value
$-1.02B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.02B
*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
$2.37
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.37
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 5 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
Benzinga · 8.9.2026
MT Newswires · 4.9.2026
Benzinga · 4.9.2026
MT Newswires · 4.9.2026
BioPharma Dive · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
MarketBeat · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
InvestorsHub · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Climb Bio, Inc. (CLYM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
CLYM currently scores 49/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, CLYM's estimated fair value is -$15.00, which is 210.0% below the current price of $13.64. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CLYM's technical score is 33/100, 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: 42.5%; Current ratio: 15.16; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$15.00 vs. price $13.64 (-210.0%); ATR: 7.9% of price; Return on equity (ROE): -37.3% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CLYM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 3 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brennan Aoife | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 30,902 | -30,902 | $13.17 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 70,284 | +70,284 | — |
| Celebi Breanna Maurine | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 70,284 | +70,284 | — |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 70,284 | +70,284 | — |
| Celebi Breanna Maurine | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.6.2026 | 70,284 | +70,284 | — |
| Brennan Aoife | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.6.2026 | 68,750 | +68,750 | — |
| Brennan Aoife | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 27.6.2026 | 68,750 | -68,750 | — |
| Dunn Judith | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Levin Andrew David | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| WILLIAMS DOUGLAS E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Cumbo Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Thomas Stephen Basil | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Drapkin Kimberlee C | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| WILLIAMS DOUGLAS E | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Drapkin Kimberlee C | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Cumbo Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Dunn Judith | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Thomas Stephen Basil | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Levin Andrew David | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.6.2026 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 2,106,000 | +2,106,000 | $9.50 |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.4.2026 | 22,546,000 | +2,106,000 | $9.50 |
| Thomas Stephen Basil | Open Market Sale | 26.2.2026 | 16,313 | -16,313 | $7.01 |
| Thomas Stephen Basil | Open Market Sale | 26.2.2026 | 154,657 | -16,313 | $7.01 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,300,939 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,037,695 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
67.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.0% 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