Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Miscellaneous · ·
$5.86
▼ $0.04 (-0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/17 11:08 PM
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$5.84 - $6.02
52-Week Range
$5.80 - $8.92
Beta
—
Next Earnings
24.02.2027
-22.2% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 0/13 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
No notable strengths identified.
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 6.0% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
70/100
Similarity
7
Historical Matches
69/100
Analog Quality
+6.9%
Median 40D Outcome
58/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
57%
+6.7% … +11.1%
🟡 Base
14%
+0.3% … +0.3%
🔴 Bearish
29%
-7.6% … -7.6%
📌 Bottom line: Out of 7 similar historical cases for this stock, 57% (95% CI 25%–84%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +4.3%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 57% (25%–84%) | +2.4% | +0.4% … +5.5% | -0.9% |
| 10D | 43% (16%–75%) | -1.2% | -3.8% … +6.7% | -1.8% |
| 20D | 57% (25%–84%) | +4.3% | -3.6% … +8.2% | -1.7% |
| 40D | 57% (25%–84%) | +6.9% | -0.6% … +7.9% | +0.3% |
| 60D | 57% (25%–84%) | +1.2% | -1.2% … +13.3% | +2.2% |
Sample size: 7 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-20 | 70/100 | Downtrend | -7.6% | +1.2% |
| 2026-04-07 | 69/100 | ✓ High Volatility | +9.0% | +13.4% |
| 2026-04-22 | 67/100 | High Volatility | +4.3% | +16.5% |
| 2026-03-06 | 64/100 | ✓ High Volatility | -7.6% | -7.6% |
| 2026-06-11 | 60/100 | Downtrend | +17.6% | -3.1% |
| 2026-05-28 | 53/100 | Downtrend | +7.5% | +13.1% |
| 2026-05-11 | 47/100 | Downtrend | +0.3% | +0.6% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity.
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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.
CUVL’s overall investor score of 30, categorized as **WEAK**, reflects a pronounced technical and risk-based weakness outweighing its relatively neutral-to-positive news sentiment. The technical indicators are particularly concerning, with the stock trading below both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, alongside a **negative MACD histogram** and an RSI of 45.1—all signaling a downward momentum. The **Klinger Oscillator** further reinforces this, showing a -0.33 reading with a 3-year annualized return of -16.9% and a potential maximum drawdown of 50.7%, underscoring volatility and downside risk. Meanwhile, the news category, scoring 68, appears more balanced, with articles highlighting both bullish and bearish factors, including its Nasdaq uplisting and broader market trends. However, the dominance of technical and risk metrics—particularly the ATR (6.8% of price) and the Klinger’s extreme negative values—dwarfs the positive narrative, driving the overall weak rating.
The stock is trading below both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a negative MACD histogram and an RSI of 45.1 indicating weakening momentum. The Klinger Oscillator (-0.33) and 3-year annualized return of -16.9% further suggest prolonged downside pressure.
Technical weakness often precedes further price declines, especially when momentum indicators align with overbought/oversold extremes and moving average crossovers.
News sentiment is mixed, with neutral/positive coverage (e.g., Nasdaq uplisting, healthcare sector movement) offset by broader market downturns (e.g., Marvell, PayPal declines).
Neutral news sentiment alone cannot compensate for technical and risk signals, which dominate the overall assessment.
The average true range (ATR) is 6.8% of the stock’s price, and the Klinger Oscillator shows a 50.7% maximum drawdown potential over 3 years, indicating high volatility and downside risk.
Elevated ATR and extreme Klinger readings signal potential for sharp price swings, increasing uncertainty for investors.
StockIQ conclusion
CUVL’s weak investor score stems primarily from overwhelming technical and risk-based weaknesses, despite a relatively balanced news environment. The stock’s position below critical moving averages, combined with extreme negative momentum indicators and high downside potential, creates a cautious outlook. While neutral news and sector trends offer some optimism, the current technical and risk profile suggests limited upside without a catalyst to reverse the prevailing bearish trend. Investors should monitor earnings or regulatory developments as potential turning points.
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
29
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
13
Risk
34
Sentiment
68
Fundamental
No data available
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 Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals Limited. News trend score: 68. Reason: 4 of the last 9 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
12
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
72
Fundamentals
—
Technical
13
Valuation
—
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-20%
Market Narrative
46
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-4
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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 — 91/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 83
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)
🟡 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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 49
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 43
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 26
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
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
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 8.9.2026 | $0.036 |
| 9.9.2024 | $0.034 |
| 7.9.2023 | $0.032 |
| 9.9.2022 | $0.027 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 4 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 9 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 22.7.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals Limited (CUVL) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for CUVL specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
CUVL's technical score is 13/100, 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: ATR: 6.0% of price; Calmar: -0.33 (3y annualized return -17.0% / max drawdown 51.3%); Price is below the 50-day average.
Yes — CUVL has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
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.
11,023 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 127 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
68.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 75.8% 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