Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$1.30
▼ $0.05 (-3.7%)
Market data updated: 09/17 09:32 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$101.13M
Day Range
$1.26 - $1.38
52-Week Range
$0.76 - $3.31
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
CRDF 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.
-35.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 12/28 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
🟢 Bullish
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: 27.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -8256.3% (negative)
Fundamental
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
54
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
15d ago · $1.05
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 10 to 52 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
40
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
81
Risk
40
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
30
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 **Cardiff Oncology, Inc.** has primarily focused on its **second-quarter 2026 financial results**, where the company reported a narrower loss per share ($0.14) than expected, surpassing analyst estimates by 12.5%. The quarter also saw revenue of $104,000—beating projections—though the firm remains in the red. Additionally, an **analyst downgrade** from *William Blair* to "Market Perform" and an **insider stock purchase** worth $1 million were noted, alongside the company’s upcoming conference participation in September.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Cardiff Oncology, Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
66
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
20
Investors appear highly excited (66), but evidence of strong fundamental conviction is comparatively weak (20).
Psychology
78
Fundamentals
30
Technical
81
Valuation
50
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+7%
Market Narrative
80
Fundamental Reality
20
Narrative Gap
+60
🔀 Weak-Conviction Rally
Price is moving, but not accompanied by a matching rise in news attention/sentiment.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
CRDF’s psychology is dominated by **confirmation bias**, where traders prioritize a bullish narrative (score: 82) over deteriorating fundamentals (margin contraction, revenue stagnation). The **narrative gap (+62)** and **loss aversion (73)** suggest investors are selectively ignoring red flags, while **overconfidence (52)** is fueled by price momentum outpacing earnings growth. The key question: *Will traders double down on the narrative despite weakening fundamentals, or will loss aversion trigger a re-evaluation?* The absence of panic selling or herding implies no panic-driven liquidation, but the 3-month decline (-27.3%) keeps caution alive.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 06:00 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Cardiff Oncology (NASDAQ:CRDF) reported quarterly losses of $(0.14) per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.16) by 12.5 percent"
"William Blair Downgrades Cardiff Oncology to Market Perform — William Blair analyst Andy Hsieh downgrades Cardiff Oncology (NASDAQ:CRDF) from Outperform to Market Perform"
"Cardiff Oncology Announces $10 Million Registered Direct Offering to Strengthen Working Capital"
📈 5D 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
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Walter Bagehot’s documented focus on liquidity, the model estimates a perfect score and a strong credit‑squeeze resilience, while Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria also rate the stock highly, and Thorstein Veblen’s growth‑value lens sees respectable value creation. In contrast, Howard Marks (both cycle and general), Graham’s enterprising view, Livermore, Peter Lynch, Charles Mackay and Jack Schwager all land in the middle range, reflecting mixed signals about cycle position, modest discounts and uncertain momentum. At the lower end, Loeb, the efficient‑market advocates, Edgar Lawrence Smith, Morgan Housel, Philip Fisher and Samuel Armstrong Nelson assign weak scores, flagging capital risk, volatility, insufficient stability, and overbought conditions. These differences arise because each methodology weighs liquidity, margin of safety, growth quality, market cycles and behavioral risk differently, leading to divergent overall judgments for CRDF.
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 74
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 65
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 62
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 55
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)
🟡 50
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 49
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 48
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 48
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 17
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 10
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)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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 an uptrend (9 bullish · 1 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 downtrend 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
-8256.3%
Net Margin
-7732.0%
EBITDA Margin
-8194.9%
ROE
-101.0%
ROA
-74.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.69
Cash
$17.47M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.67
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.30
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$12.50
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
17.7%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17.7% | $-44.70M | $-41.01M |
| 2 | 13.9% | $-50.93M | $-42.86M |
| 3 | 10.1% | $-56.08M | $-43.30M |
| 4 | 6.3% | $-59.62M | $-42.23M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-61.11M | $-39.72M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-37.97M
Terminal Value
$-963.61M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-626.28M
Enterprise Value
$-835.41M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-835.41M
*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
$0.68
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.68
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 13 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
Zacks Small Cap Research · 17.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
MT Newswires · 12.8.2026
Associated Press · 11.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
MT Newswires · 16.7.2026
ChartMill · 15.7.2026
ChartMill · 15.7.2026
InvestorsHub · 15.7.2026
Cardiff Oncology, Inc. (CRDF) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
CRDF currently scores 54/100 (Moderate) 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.
CRDF's technical score is 81/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 27.4%; Current ratio: 3.67; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -8256.3% (negative); Net margin: -7732.0% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CRDF.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 12 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohindru Mani | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 34,364 | +34,364 | $1.46 |
| Mohindru Mani | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 34,364 | +34,364 | — |
| PACE GARY W | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 687,285 | +687,285 | — |
| PACE GARY W | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 687,285 | +687,285 | $1.46 |
| PACE GARY W | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 2,043,661 | +687,285 | $1.46 |
| PACE GARY W | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 687,285 | +687,285 | — |
| Mohindru Mani | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 59,067 | +34,364 | $1.46 |
| Mohindru Mani | Open Market Purchase | 14.7.2026 | 34,364 | +34,364 | — |
| Mohindru Mani | Open Market Purchase | 18.6.2026 | 24,703 | +24,703 | $1.21 |
| PACE GARY W | Open Market Purchase | 18.6.2026 | 30,000 | +30,000 | $1.22 |
| PACE GARY W | Open Market Purchase | 18.6.2026 | 1,356,376 | +30,000 | $1.22 |
| Mohindru Mani | Open Market Purchase | 18.6.2026 | 24,703 | +24,703 | $1.21 |
| White Lale | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 40,565 | +40,565 | — |
| Markin Rodney S | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 40,565 | +40,565 | — |
| Armitage James O | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 40,565 | +40,565 | — |
| TANNENBAUM RENEE P | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 40,565 | +40,565 | — |
| PACE GARY W | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 40,565 | +40,565 | — |
| PACE GARY W | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 228,104 | +40,565 | — |
| Armitage James O | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 228,104 | +40,565 | — |
| Markin Rodney S | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 263,430 | +40,565 | — |
| TANNENBAUM RENEE P | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 209,331 | +40,565 | — |
| White Lale | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 199,246 | +40,565 | — |
| Aggarwal Ajay | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 400,000 | +400,000 | — |
| Aggarwal Ajay | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.4.2026 | 400,000 | +400,000 | — |
| Smeal Tod | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.4.2026 | 300,000 | +300,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,684,625 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 12,193,957 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
68.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 63.6% 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