Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$58.37
▲ $0.16 (+0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/29 04:31 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/29/2026
News analyzed: 09/29/2026
Market Cap
$22.66B
Day Range
$57.63 - $58.77
52-Week Range
$34.96 - $64.38
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$56.36
Resistance
$64.38
RPRX 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.
+66.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/28 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
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 2.40
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
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
49
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
40
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
28
Risk
56
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
60
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 Royalty Pharma plc has centered on its strategic investments in high-potential drug royalties, particularly its $100 million upfront payment for future royalties on Zealand Pharma’s experimental treatment rusfertide for polycythemia vera, pending FDA approval. The company also faced scrutiny after Novartis’ Phase 3 trial failure for pelacarsen, an Lp(a)-targeting drug, which missed its primary cardiovascular endpoint. Despite setbacks, Royalty Pharma’s strong financial performance—including record stock highs driven by Ziihera’s FDA approval—highlighted its focus on high-margin royalty assets and disciplined execution.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Royalty Pharma plc. News trend score: 92. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
31
Fundamentals
60
Technical
28
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+4%
Market Narrative
60
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+24
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme narrative gap (63 vs. 36) and euphoric sentiment (100/100) suggest investors are decoupling price from fundamentals, consistent with detached optimism. The stock’s outperformance relative to peers (+10.1% above 200-day average) fuels euphoria, while weak momentum (-0.9% ROC) hints at potential overvaluation. The key question is whether this disconnect will persist or if volume spikes (1.15x) signal early profit-taking. Herding and panic signals remain muted, but the narrative gap may amplify volatility if external catalysts emerge.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Ziihera’s FDA approval strengthened its royalty opportunity"
"Royalty Pharma has outperformed the market over the past 10 years by 27.34% on an annualized basis"
"Royalty Pharma shows strong execution and upside catalysts as it shifts to higher-IRR development assets"
📈 15D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 84/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 15/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing strong technical or structural tailwinds while others flag deep red flags. Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Jesse Livermore both rate it favorably—Nelson’s cycle analysis suggests it’s oversold, and Livermore’s trend-following approach aligns with its price action, implying momentum. Walter Bagehot’s liquidity focus also gives it a solid score, hinting at resilience in stress scenarios. However, the contrast is striking: Graham’s strict valuation framework dismisses it outright, calling it too risky for even his more flexible Enterprising Investor criteria, while Lynch and Veblen reject it for lacking growth potential or being speculative. The middle ground, represented by Marks and Fisher, reveals a mixed picture—some see potential but tempered by high expectations, while others like Schwager and the efficient-market camp struggle to justify a clear edge over passive investing. The debate hinges on whether the stock’s technical or liquidity strengths outweigh its valuation or growth deficiencies.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 84
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 71
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 65
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 61
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 59
Moderate risk 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)
🟡 48
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 44
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 44
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 35
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 25
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 19
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 15
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 286 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 8 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.
A trading range after an advance, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of a distribution phase.
Low confidence
$56.36
Range Bottom
$64.38
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
65.6%
Net Margin
32.4%
EBITDA Margin
65.6%
ROE
7.9%
ROA
3.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.79
Cash
$618.70M
Total Debt
$8.95B
Current Ratio
2.40
Debt/Equity
0.92
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 14.8.2026 | $0.235 |
| 15.5.2026 | $0.235 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.235 |
| 20.2.2026 | $0.235 |
| 19.2.2026 | $0.235 |
| 14.11.2025 | $0.220 |
| 13.11.2025 | $0.220 |
| 15.8.2025 | $0.220 |
| 14.8.2025 | $0.220 |
| 16.5.2025 | $0.220 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.220 |
| 21.2.2025 | $0.220 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$17.21
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.57
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 9 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
MarketBeat · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Motley Fool · 25.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 23.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
PR Newswire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Royalty Pharma plc (RPRX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 49/100, 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.
RPRX currently scores 49/100 (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.
RPRX's technical score is 28/100, 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: 2.40; Price is above the 200-day average; Operating margin: 65.6% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -6.8%; Net income growth: -10.2%.
Yes — RPRX 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 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hite Christopher | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2026 | 274,328 | -96,073 | $58.51 |
| Hite Christopher | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2026 | 270,401 | -3,927 | $58.93 |
| Hite Christopher | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2026 | 3,927 | -3,927 | $58.93 |
| Hite Christopher | Open Market Sale | 22.9.2026 | 96,073 | -96,073 | $58.51 |
| Hite Christopher | Gift | 19.8.2026 | 23,200 | -16,800 | — |
| Hite Christopher | Gift | 19.8.2026 | 16,800 | -16,800 | — |
| Hite Christopher | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 370,401 | -100,000 | $59.97 |
| Hite Christopher | Open Market Sale | 18.8.2026 | 100,000 | -100,000 | $59.97 |
| Coyne Terrance P. | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 0 | -1,772 | $59.14 |
| Coyne Terrance P. | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 1,772 | -9,230 | $58.59 |
| Coyne Terrance P. | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 9,230 | -9,230 | $58.59 |
| Coyne Terrance P. | Open Market Sale | 13.8.2026 | 1,772 | -1,772 | $59.14 |
| Urist Marshall | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | — |
| Legorreta Pablo G. | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | — |
| Coyne Terrance P. | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 18,500 | -18,500 | — |
| Legorreta Pablo G. | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 662,701 | -30,000 | — |
| Urist Marshall | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 244,412 | -3,000 | — |
| Coyne Terrance P. | Gift | 7.8.2026 | 1,788,777 | -18,500 | — |
| Legorreta Pablo G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 65,216 | +65,216 | — |
| Coyne Terrance P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 11,002 | +11,002 | — |
| Hite Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 11,002 | +11,002 | — |
| Urist Marshall | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 8,252 | +8,252 | — |
| Hite Christopher | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 470,401 | +11,002 | — |
| Legorreta Pablo G. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 1,307,820 | +65,216 | — |
| Coyne Terrance P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.8.2026 | 11,002 | +11,002 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
11,647,565 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 11,903,716 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.7% 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