Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$0.61
▲ $0.01 (+2.3%)
Market data updated: 09/30 07:43 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$136.09M
Day Range
$0.60 - $0.62
52-Week Range
$0.53 - $2.35
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$0.57
Resistance
$0.83
TNYA 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.
-62.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/24 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 55.0%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Death Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200
Technical
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
45
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
71
Quality
No data available
Value
55
Momentum
8
Risk
40
Sentiment
86
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.
Everyone's writing about Tenaya Therapeutics, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 7 of the last 16 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
26
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
71
Fundamentals
46
Technical
8
Valuation
55
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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)
-22%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that Graham, Bagehot and Mackay view the stock very positively because it scores a perfect 100 for defensive attractiveness and strong liquidity, while Mackay’s 99 reflects the absence of crowd mania. In contrast, Lynch, Fisher and Smith each receive low or incomplete verdicts because their frameworks require robust growth or dividend fundamentals that are not present, so they cannot form a strong recommendation. Cycle‑focused analysts such as Marks‑cycle and Nelson give mid‑90 scores, seeing an early‑to‑mid market cycle and a relatively oversold position that makes the stock appealing from a timing perspective. Finally, risk‑oriented lenses like Loeb, Veblen and Livermore produce low scores, flagging capital threat, growth pursued for its own sake, or a negative trend, respectively – the divergence reflects each methodology’s emphasis on different metrics such as valuation, liquidity, growth data, cycle timing, or behavioral risk.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 100
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
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 91
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 87
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)
🟢 82
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 78
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 77
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 62
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 52
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
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)
🟡 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)
🟡 38
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 14
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
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
Based on the last 288 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-73.5%
ROA
-61.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.59
Cash
$100.55M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
6.84
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$0.61
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$8.40
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $-75.77M | $-69.51M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-81.93M | $-68.96M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-87.05M | $-67.22M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-90.86M | $-64.36M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-93.13M | $-60.53M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-68.88M
Terminal Value
$-1.47B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-954.45M
Enterprise Value
$-1.29B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.29B
*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
$0.81
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.81
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 8 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 16 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.9.2026
MarketBeat · 18.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 5.8.2026
Yahoo · 5.8.2026
Benzinga · 5.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 4.8.2026
Yahoo · 4.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.7.2026
MT Newswires · 29.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 29.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 15.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 11.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.6.2026
Simply Wall St. · 5.6.2026
Tenaya Therapeutics, Inc. (TNYA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, rated "Moderate" (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.
TNYA currently scores 45/100 (Moderate) 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.
TNYA's technical score is 8/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 55.0%; Free cash flow growth: 24.7%; Current ratio: 6.84.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: SMA 50 recently crossed below SMA 200; ATR: 5.8% of price; Calmar: -0.40 (3y annualized return -37.3% / max drawdown 94.3%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for TNYA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ali Faraz | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 539,782 | +122,000 | — |
| Tingley Whittemore | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 263,073 | +49,000 | — |
| Ali Faraz | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 732,500 | +732,500 | — |
| Tingley Whittemore | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.9.2026 | 293,000 | +293,000 | — |
| Ali Faraz | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 430,208 | -3,969 | $0.71 |
| Ali Faraz | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 434,177 | -5,837 | $0.71 |
| Tingley Whittemore | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 219,860 | -1,637 | $0.71 |
| Ali Faraz | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 425,188 | -5,020 | $0.71 |
| Tingley Whittemore | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 218,223 | -1,637 | $0.71 |
| Tingley Whittemore | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 214,073 | -2,279 | $0.71 |
| Ali Faraz | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 417,782 | -7,406 | $0.71 |
| Tingley Whittemore | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 216,352 | -1,871 | $0.71 |
| Tingley Whittemore | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 1,637 | -1,637 | $0.71 |
| Ali Faraz | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 7,406 | -7,406 | $0.71 |
| Ali Faraz | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 5,837 | -5,837 | $0.71 |
| Ali Faraz | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 5,020 | -5,020 | $0.71 |
| Tingley Whittemore | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 2,279 | -2,279 | $0.71 |
| Ali Faraz | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 3,969 | -3,969 | $0.71 |
| Tingley Whittemore | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 1,637 | -1,637 | $0.71 |
| Tingley Whittemore | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 1,871 | -1,871 | $0.71 |
| Hyllengren Eric J | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.7.2026 | 1,650,000 | +1,650,000 | — |
| Hyllengren Eric J | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.7.2026 | 1,650,000 | +1,650,000 | — |
| Williams R Sanders | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 120,000 | +120,000 | — |
| Burroughs Amy L. | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 120,000 | +120,000 | — |
| Lee June | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.5.2026 | 120,000 | +120,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
21,641,185 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 20,774,743 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
61.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 57.1% 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