Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$13.21
▼ $0.55 (-4.0%)
Market data updated: 09/18 07:43 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$305.14M
Day Range
$12.86 - $14.40
52-Week Range
$8.60 - $17.79
Beta
—
Next Earnings
28.10.2026
CTNM 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.
+6.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/23 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 27.50
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$26.49 vs. price $13.21 (-300.5%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
14d ago · $17.57
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 63)
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
No data available
Value
38
Momentum
23
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
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 Contineum Therapeutics has primarily focused on its financial and investor updates. The company reported its second-quarter 2026 results and reaffirmed key clinical milestones, while analysts like RBC Capital raised their price target to $23 and maintained an "Outperform" rating. Additionally, Contineum was highlighted alongside other biotech firms ahead of the Morgan Stanley Global Healthcare Conference, reflecting positive momentum in its pipeline.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Contineum Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 5 vs. 5 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
36
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
47
Fundamentals
46
Technical
23
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
+11%
Market Narrative
33
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-17
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests a **split but balanced tension** between *herding* (relative underperformance) and *euphoria* (momentum + outperformance vs. 200-day average). The narrative gap (64 vs. 50) hints at traders overestimating positive momentum, while the lack of panic or confirmation bias keeps sentiment contained. The key question: *Will traders double down on momentum (euphoria) or pivot to peers (herding) if underperformance persists?*
Updated: 09/05/2026, 03:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Morgan Stanley Adjusts PT on Contineum Therapeutics to $18 From $16"
"Affirms Key Clinical Development Milestones"
"streamlined its discovery programs to focus on drug candidates"
"reported quarterly losses of $(0.40) per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.48)"
📈 4D 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
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s starkly divided verdicts reflect deep methodological divides between risk tolerance, valuation thresholds, and market timing philosophies. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on liquidity and resilience, suggesting the company’s financial health would weather a crisis—an approach starkly contrasting with the near-universal caution from Fisher, Lynch, and Housel, who lack sufficient data to even engage. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s defensive investor approves while his enterprising counterpart demurs, illustrating how even the same framework can yield opposing conclusions based on margin requirements. The middle ground—where Loeb, Marks, and Schwager flag risks—shows a consensus that the stock’s volatility or valuation doesn’t justify active participation, while the lowest scorers (Veblen, Smith) critique its speculative or unsustainable growth patterns. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s liquidity or speculative momentum outweighs its perceived overvaluation or cyclical risks.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 99
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)
🟢 99
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 89
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 72
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)
🟢 68
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 68
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 67
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
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)
🔴 30
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 17
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
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 2
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
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 279 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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 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
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-23.0%
ROA
-21.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.17
Cash
$75.60M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
27.50
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$13.21
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$26.49
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-300.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $-52.77M | $-48.41M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $-51.12M | $-43.02M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $-50.48M | $-38.98M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $-50.79M | $-35.98M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-52.06M | $-33.84M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-55.54M
Terminal Value
$-821.00M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-533.59M
Enterprise Value
$-733.82M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-733.82M
*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
$9.42
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$9.42
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 10 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Business Wire · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 17.8.2026
Yahoo · 17.8.2026
MT Newswires · 17.8.2026
ChartMill · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 31.7.2026
Benzinga · 31.7.2026
Business Wire · 30.7.2026
Yahoo · 30.7.2026
Contineum Therapeutics, Inc. (CTNM) 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.
CTNM 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, CTNM's estimated fair value is -$26.49, which is 300.5% below the current price of $13.21. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
CTNM's technical score is 23/100, 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: Current ratio: 27.50; +5.7% over the last 3 months relative to the index; Current ratio: 27.50.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$26.49 vs. price $13.21 (-300.5%); ATR: 7.7% of price; Calmar: -0.07 (3y annualized return -6.1% / max drawdown 84.4%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for CTNM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 8 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | $1.01 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.9.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | — |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $16.46 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | $1.01 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $16.01 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | — |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 19,717 | +2,500 | $1.01 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 17,217 | -2,500 | $16.01 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 3.8.2026 | 276,930 | -2,500 | — |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Open Market Sale | 9.7.2026 | 25 | -25 | $16.00 |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.7.2026 | 25 | -25 | — |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.7.2026 | 25 | +25 | $1.01 |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.7.2026 | 135,227 | +25 | $1.01 |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Open Market Sale | 9.7.2026 | 135,202 | -25 | $16.00 |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 9.7.2026 | 33,257 | -25 | — |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.7.2026 | 1,015 | -1,015 | — |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.7.2026 | 1,015 | +1,015 | $1.01 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.7.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | — |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Open Market Sale | 8.7.2026 | 1,015 | -1,015 | $16.00 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.7.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | $1.01 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Open Market Sale | 8.7.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | $16.00 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.7.2026 | 19,717 | +2,500 | $1.01 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Open Market Sale | 8.7.2026 | 17,217 | -2,500 | $16.00 |
| Stengone Carmine N. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.7.2026 | 279,430 | -2,500 | — |
| Lorrain Daniel S. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 8.7.2026 | 136,217 | +1,015 | $1.01 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
2,340,890 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 2,822,177 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 35.0% 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