Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$68.64
▲ $1.76 (+2.6%)
Market data updated: 09/23 03:31 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/23/2026
News analyzed: 09/23/2026
Market Cap
$6.14B
Day Range
$66.00 - $68.76
52-Week Range
$21.15 - $93.61
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$62.86
Resistance
$93.61
LQDA 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.
+179.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/27 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
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 1031.2%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$11.87 vs. price $68.64 (-117.3%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (82/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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.
🗓️ 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
🐂🐻 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
82
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
44
Risk
56
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
30
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 Liquidia Corporation has centered on its FDA Fast Track designation for YUTREPIA (treprostinil inhalation powder) to treat Raynaud’s phenomenon in systemic sclerosis, marking a potential breakthrough in an unmet medical need. The company’s stock has seen volatility, with investors weighing its strong long-term gains against current valuation concerns amid expectations for its pipeline. Analysts also highlight the upcoming Phase 2a RE-WARM study in October 2026, while noting YUTREPIA’s commercial success and its outperformance in investor returns.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Liquidia Corporation. News trend score: 100. Reason: 9 of the last 20 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
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
72
Psychology
62
Fundamentals
30
Technical
44
Valuation
38
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.
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
59
Fundamental Reality
72
Narrative Gap
-13
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s psychology for LQDA appears fragmented, with no single dominant state. Positive sentiment (92/100) and proximity to support (3.7%) fuel anchoring, while muted volume (0.70x avg) and negative momentum (-8.9% ROC) dampen FOMO or panic. The narrative gap (-21) hints at a disconnect: traders may overestimate bullishness relative to technical weakness. The key question is whether traders will hold near support or exit as momentum remains negative.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 09:15 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"FDA granted Fast Track designation to YUTREPIA for Raynaud’s phenomenon in systemic sclerosis"
"Yutrepia launch continues to outpace the expectations"
"Liquidia stock has delivered very strong long term gains... yet current valuation checks present a more cautious picture"
📈 3D 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
Peter Lynch — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 21/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between growth-focused and value-driven methodologies. Peter Lynch and Samuel Armstrong Nelson, both bullish on momentum and cyclical opportunities, rate it near the top (93 and 90, respectively), seeing it as either undervalued relative to its growth potential or positioned favorably within a market cycle. Meanwhile, disciplined contrarians like Jack Schwager and Philip Fisher (scores of 76 and 75) acknowledge strong fundamentals or risk-reward dynamics but temper their enthusiasm, while liquidity and crowd psychology concerns from Walter Bagehot (68) and Charles Mackay (66) introduce caution. On the other end, value purists like Benjamin Graham (29) and Thorstein Veblen (21) dismiss it outright—Graham’s strict criteria are violated, and Veblen sees it as speculative growth without substance. Even moderate investors like Howard Marks (45) and Morgan Housel (45) view it as a ‘holdable’ but not a standout pick, highlighting the tension between its perceived upside and the lack of clear value or defensive traits.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 93
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 76
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 70
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 68
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 58
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 53
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 44
Moderate risk 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
🟡 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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 29
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
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
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (3 bullish · 6 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.
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
-32.5%
Net Margin
-43.5%
EBITDA Margin
-31.5%
ROE
-154.0%
ROA
-21.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.80
Cash
$190.68M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.01
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$68.64
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$11.87
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-117.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-50.03M | $-45.90M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-59.72M | $-50.27M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-67.93M | $-52.46M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-73.45M | $-52.03M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-75.29M | $-48.93M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-40.02M
Terminal Value
$-1.19B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-771.62M
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
$0.52
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.44
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 11 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 5.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
Liquidia Corporation (LQDA) 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.
LQDA 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, LQDA's estimated fair value is -$11.87, which is 117.3% below the current price of $68.64. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
LQDA's technical score is 44/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Revenue growth (last year): 1031.2%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 50.9%; Free cash flow growth: 59.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$11.87 vs. price $68.64 (-117.3%); Operating margin: -32.5% (negative); Net margin: -43.5% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for LQDA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Krepp Sarah | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 274 | -274 | $67.76 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 237,237 | +11,799 | $9.31 |
| Adair Jason | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 174,606 | -41,832 | $69.09 |
| Adair Jason | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 216,438 | -31,799 | $69.09 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 248,237 | +238 | $14.20 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 247,999 | +10,762 | $14.20 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 225,438 | +9,000 | $9.31 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 0 | -9,000 | — |
| Adair Jason | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 41,832 | -41,832 | $69.09 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 11,799 | -11,799 | — |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 238 | -238 | — |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 9,000 | +9,000 | $9.31 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 10,762 | +10,762 | $14.20 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 9,000 | -9,000 | — |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 11,799 | +11,799 | $9.31 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 238 | +238 | $14.20 |
| Adair Jason | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 21.8.2026 | 10,762 | -10,762 | — |
| Adair Jason | Open Market Sale | 21.8.2026 | 31,799 | -31,799 | $69.09 |
| Rielly-Gauvin Katherine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 11,727 | +11,727 | $2.51 |
| Rielly-Gauvin Katherine | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 18,393 | -18,393 | $72.23 |
| Rielly-Gauvin Katherine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 6,666 | +6,666 | $2.59 |
| Rielly-Gauvin Katherine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 11,727 | -11,727 | — |
| Rielly-Gauvin Katherine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 20.8.2026 | 6,666 | -6,666 | — |
| Rielly-Gauvin Katherine | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 19.8.2026 | 13,334 | -13,334 | — |
| Saggar Rajeev | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 19.8.2026 | 50,000 | +50,000 | $3.73 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,858,334 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,962,898 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
70.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 65.9% 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