Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$43.97
▼ $0.63 (-1.4%)
Market data updated: 09/30 09:22 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$2.56B
Day Range
$43.20 - $44.93
52-Week Range
$40.51 - $59.68
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$40.51
Resistance
$52.50
SUPN 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.
-7.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/30 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
🟡 Mixed
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.00
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $12.96 vs. price $43.97 (-70.5%)
Fair Value
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
34
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
51
Risk
62
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
39
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.
Recent media coverage of Supernus Pharmaceuticals has centered on its participation in investor conferences in September 2026, reflecting ongoing market interest despite its stock being labeled as "out-of-favor." The company, which specializes in central nervous system (CNS) disease treatments, also gained attention for its partnership with Olympic gold medalist Chloe Kim to promote Qelbree®, a leading non-stimulant ADHD medication for adults, emphasizing awareness and tailored treatment. Broader industry discussions include potential regulatory pressures on biotech pricing.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 10 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
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
39
Technical
51
Valuation
38
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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)
-7%
Market Narrative
83
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+46
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s fixation on SUPN’s proximity to support (95% anchoring) suggests traders are rigidly anchored to a near-term floor, ignoring valuation extremes (+227% above DCF). Overconfidence (45%) may stem from detached valuation metrics, while muted FOMO (5%) and herding (28%) indicate limited contagion. The key tension lies in whether traders will break free from the 0.3% support anchor or double down, given the narrative-reality gap (17 points).
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:16 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Chloe Kim teams up with Qelbree® to highlight ADHD awareness and prescriptions"
"Supernus faces increased downside risk due to small-cap limitations"
"Options market movements suggest potential SUPN stock spike"
📈 19D 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 — 71/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits methodologies into two stark camps: the bullish technical/cycle-focused investors and the bearish value/growth purists. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s near-perfect score and Charles Mackay’s crowd-savvy verdict suggest a favorable technical setup, while Howard Marks (cycle) and Jack Schwager’s disciplined risk/reward assessment further reinforce a contrarian or cyclical bull case. Conversely, the value-oriented Graham disciples—both Defensive and Enterprising—reject it outright, with scores in the single digits, citing weak valuation and stability. Meanwhile, Fisher, Lynch, and Livermore dismiss it as lacking growth potential or momentum, while Housel’s low score flags volatility as a red flag for patient investors. The divide hinges on whether the stock’s current position is a cyclical bottom (favored by Nelson, Mackay, and Marks) or fundamentally flawed (rejected by Graham, Fisher, and Livermore).
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 65
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 58
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 53
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 52
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 50
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 48
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
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
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 40
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 40
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 33
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 30
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 24
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 16
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 287 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (5 bullish · 4 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
89.9%
Operating Margin
-8.7%
Net Margin
-5.4%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-3.6%
ROA
-2.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.68
Cash
$128.45M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.90
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$43.97
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$12.96
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-70.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
2.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.9% | $47.31M | $43.41M |
| 2 | 2.8% | $48.63M | $40.93M |
| 3 | 2.7% | $49.94M | $38.56M |
| 4 | 2.6% | $51.23M | $36.29M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $52.51M | $34.13M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$45.99M
Terminal Value
$828.08M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$538.20M
Enterprise Value
$731.52M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$731.52M
*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
$18.48
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$8.57
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 9 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 25.9.2026
StockStory · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
StockStory · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
MT Newswires · 17.9.2026
StockStory · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 2.9.2026
Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (SUPN) 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.
SUPN 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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, SUPN's estimated fair value is $12.96, which is 70.5% below the current price of $43.97. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SUPN's technical score is 51/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.00; Current ratio: 1.90; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $12.96 vs. price $43.97 (-70.5%); Operating margin: -8.7% (negative); Net margin: -5.4% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SUPN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Khattar Jack A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 29,849 | -29,849 | — |
| Rubin Jonathan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 750 | +750 | — |
| Mottola Frank | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 797 | -797 | $46.57 |
| Rubin Jonathan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 363 | -363 | $46.57 |
| Khattar Jack A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 29,849 | +29,849 | — |
| Khattar Jack A. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 12,642 | -12,642 | $46.57 |
| Bhatt Padmanabh P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 1,158 | -1,158 | $46.57 |
| DEC TIMOTHY C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 1,250 | -1,250 | — |
| Bhatt Padmanabh P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | — |
| Mottola Frank | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 1,650 | +1,650 | — |
| Rubin Jonathan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 750 | -750 | — |
| Bhatt Padmanabh P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | — |
| DEC TIMOTHY C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 604 | -604 | $46.57 |
| Mottola Frank | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 1,650 | -1,650 | — |
| DEC TIMOTHY C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| DEC TIMOTHY C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 9,733 | +1,250 | — |
| DEC TIMOTHY C | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 0 | -1,250 | — |
| DEC TIMOTHY C | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 9,129 | -604 | $46.57 |
| Bhatt Padmanabh P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 19,795 | +2,500 | — |
| Bhatt Padmanabh P. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 18,637 | -1,158 | $46.57 |
| Bhatt Padmanabh P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 0 | -2,500 | — |
| Khattar Jack A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 1,270,993 | +29,849 | — |
| Khattar Jack A. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.8.2026 | 1,258,351 | -12,642 | $46.57 |
| Khattar Jack A. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 0 | -29,849 | — |
| Rubin Jonathan | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.8.2026 | 14,342 | +750 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,989,421 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 4,671,860 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
69.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 70.6% 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