Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$1.99
▲ $0.12 (+6.4%)
Market data updated: 09/27 03:33 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/27/2026
News analyzed: 09/27/2026
Market Cap
$15.10M
Day Range
$1.92 - $2.08
52-Week Range
$1.86 - $23.50
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
Support
$1.86
Resistance
$4.16
-85.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/27 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: 87.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$4.37 vs. price $1.99 (-319.8%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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.
CNSY exhibits a pronounced structural imbalance, with its WEAK rating (investor score of 31) driven primarily by severe fundamental and valuation distortions. The company’s negative operating and net profit margins (-293.5% and -429.4%, respectively) underscore an unsustainable business model, while the estimated fair value of -$4.37—far below the current price of $2.76—highlights a speculative or distressed valuation. Despite a notable 87.6% EPS growth (a rare bright spot in the growth category), this is offset by collapsing revenue (-10.5%) and cash flow (-94.8%), signaling operational instability. Technical indicators further reinforce caution: the stock trades below both 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a bearish MACD histogram and RSI of 34.8, reflecting weak momentum. The quality score is dragged down by deteriorating operating margins over time, while risk metrics—including an 8.9% ATR and a Clarke Ratio of -0.68—point to extreme volatility and historical underperformance. The absence of news data (score of 50) suggests either a lack of transparency or market indifference, which compounds concerns about liquidity and investor confidence.
The stock trades below both 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a bearish MACD histogram and RSI of 34.8, indicating downward momentum and oversold conditions.
These technical signals suggest short-term bearish pressure, which could persist unless fundamental conditions improve significantly.
Operating and net profit margins are catastrophically negative (-293.5% and -429.4%, respectively), with ROE at -560.2% and ROA at -137.1%, signaling severe financial inefficiency.
Such extreme negative profitability metrics imply the company is not generating value from its operations, raising red flags for sustainability.
While EPS growth is exceptionally high at 87.6%, revenue and free cash flow have collapsed (-10.5% and -94.8%, respectively), and net income growth is down -72.5%.
EPS growth without revenue or cash flow support is unsustainable and likely reflects accounting manipulations or one-time gains rather than operational strength.
The estimated fair value is -$4.37 compared to the current price of $2.76, with a negative P/E of -9.5 and NAV per share of $0.04, indicating extreme undervaluation or speculative trading.
Such valuation extremes often reflect distressed assets, speculative trading, or fundamental deterioration rather than investment potential.
There is no available news data (score of 50), which may indicate a lack of recent transparency or market activity around the stock.
The absence of news could signal either a lack of investor interest or a lack of credible updates, which complicates assessment.
Operating margins are deteriorating over time, reinforcing the company’s inability to maintain profitability or operational efficiency.
Declining margins suggest the business model is unsustainable and may face increasing competitive or financial pressures.
The ATR is 8.9% of the stock price, the current ratio is 1.23 (borderline liquidity), and the Clarke Ratio is -0.68, indicating extreme volatility and a 96.4% historical drawdown.
These risk metrics highlight the stock’s potential for extreme price swings and liquidity constraints, making it a high-risk speculative play.
StockIQ conclusion
CNSY’s WEAK rating reflects a company mired in severe financial distress, with catastrophically negative profit margins, collapsing revenue, and extreme valuation distortions. While speculative interest may be drawn to its exceptional EPS growth, this is likely unsustainable without fundamental improvements. Technical indicators reinforce bearish momentum, and risk metrics highlight extreme volatility and liquidity concerns. The absence of news data adds uncertainty, but the data overwhelmingly suggests a high-risk speculative asset with no clear path to recovery without significant operational or market-driven catalysts.
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
36
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
Not enough data yet to generate this synthesis.
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
40
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
27
Risk
34
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
26
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Everyone's writing about Cerenome, Inc.. News trend score: 68. Reason: 3 of the last 3 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
41
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
33
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
26
Technical
27
Valuation
38
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.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-53%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
33
Narrative Gap
+7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 96
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 89
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)
🟡 59
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 54
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 45
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 29
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 27
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 19
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)
🔴 17
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 7
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 9 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
-293.5%
Net Margin
-429.4%
EBITDA Margin
-284.9%
ROE
-560.2%
ROA
-137.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.29
Cash
$4.26M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.23
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.99
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$4.37
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-319.8%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
4.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4.0% | $-21.68M | $-19.89M |
| 2 | 3.6% | $-22.47M | $-18.91M |
| 3 | 3.3% | $-23.20M | $-17.92M |
| 4 | 2.9% | $-23.87M | $-16.91M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-24.47M | $-15.90M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-20.84M
Terminal Value
$-385.87M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-250.79M
Enterprise Value
$-340.33M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-340.33M
*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
$0.05
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.04
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 3 articles.
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Cerenome, Inc. (CNSY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 36/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CNSY currently scores 36/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure. 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, CNSY's estimated fair value is -$4.37, which is 319.8% below the current price of $1.99. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CNSY's technical score is 27/100, 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: 87.6%; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$4.37 vs. price $1.99 (-319.8%); Operating margin: -293.5% (negative); Net margin: -429.4% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CNSY.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
651,888 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 649,181 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.9% 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