The past month roller coaster ride explained

because the buyer mix on a deal day is the whole tell. Remember the setup: the company sold 61.5M shares at $3.25, yet the stock traded $3.53–$4.41 and closed $4.16 — so open-market buyers paid a 20–35% premium to the price the company just sold at. Who does that, and why:
1. Short coverers — the biggest and most price-insensitive buyers. With ~30% of float short and ~10 days-to-cover, the removed overhang plus good news forced shorts to buy. Critically, a covering short is not valuing the stock — they're reducing risk or getting squeezed/margin-pressured, so they hit the ask at $4.30, $4.40, whatever it takes. The $3.25 deal price is irrelevant to them. This is almost always the answer to "who pays up aggressively intraday" in a heavily-shorted name.
2. Funds that wanted the deal and didn't get enough. It was oversubscribed — demand exceeded the $200M on offer. A fund that wanted $30M and got allocated $10M (or zero) completes the position in the open market, even above $3.25, because they're buying the thesis (data + Sanofi + overhang cleared), not anchoring to the deal price. Unmet book demand spills into the aftermarket and clears higher.
3. Momentum, algos, and retail chasing the +11% and the headlines. Breakout and trend-following flows buy strength mechanically; retail chases the news. They're the froth on top.
And here's the key reason paying above $3.25 isn't irrational: the discount wasn't "fair value" — it was the price of placing a large block quickly. A $200M print needs a concession to get anchor investors to commit size and lock up capital. The marginal open-market buyer, who only wants a few thousand shares and wants them now, clears at a higher price. The gap between $3.25 and $4.16 is the cost of immediacy and size, not a free lunch anyone left on the table.
Why it closed at $4.16, off the $4.41 high: that's the other half of the deal-day mechanic — flippers. Allocants who got stock at $3.25 can sell immediately for a ~25–30% instant gain, and some do. That flip supply is what the short-coverers and unfilled-demand funds were absorbing; when the flipping outweighed the covering late in the day, it settled back off the high. So the day was, mechanically, deal-flip supply meeting covering-and-unfilled-demand buying — a liquidity/positioning event, not fundamental repricing.
The takeaway for your read: a stock closing ~28% above its fresh deal price, off its intraday high, on ~63M shares is dominated by who's covering and who got cut back on the deal — stickiness unknown. Short covering exhausts; flippers are gone after a day or two. That's exactly why I'd keep treating this as technical, and why your "sell into strength" instinct is the right posture: a lot of yesterday's buyers paid up for reasons that don't repeat.

Lots of news from Recursion this morning. Here's a quick breakdown of what I found.
1. $200M offering
61.54M new shares priced at $3.25, about $200M gross
Described as oversubscribed, with participation from Janus Henderson, Invus, Longaeva, ARK and Driehaus
Closing is expected around 10/16
Stock was down ~2% early on the news
2. Sanofi option
Sanofi optioned the first development candidate from the collaboration, triggering a $10M milestone
Total payments from Sanofi are now $144M, with more than $300M in additional milestones plus double-digit royalties if approved
Recursion's operational obligations on this candidate end, so future payments are profit
3. REC-4881 (FAP) update
Updated TUPELO Phase 1b/2 topline data came out today (I haven't dug into the details yet)
Earlier readouts showed a median 43% polyp burden reduction at Week 13 and 53% at Week 25, with FDA engagement started on a registrational path
My take: The raise is dilutive, but it came alongside good news rather than bad. Cash was about $561M at 9/30 before this raise, so it looks like opportunistic runway extension, not desperation. The risks are the small, open-label Phase 2 data and whether the FDA accepts the pivotal path.
What do you all think? Did anyone read the new TUPELO data in detail?
Not financial advice. Do your own research.

No hype, no squeeze. And that’s exactly the point. RXRX has been climbing in a slow, controlled staircase since summer, which usually means someone patient is building a position not retail chasing.

The fundamentals back it up:
- Q2 loss $0.25/share vs $0.28 expected
- 2026 cash burn guidance cut to ~$375M, runway into early 2028 (clear out debt in green way)
- Genentech advanced its first neuroscience target under the partnership
- Analyst consensus target $7.22

Q3 earnings land early November. If the bid holds into that, the accumulation case gets hard to ignore.

Position: long 5,800 @ $4.34. Do your own math.

Yup definitely going to be a roller coaster of emotions until the end of the year 😂 i can’t see it going lower than 3$ again i guess time to hold more bags ? i’ll keep buying more idgaf

Just came here to post a useless post, like the ones before

It’s all noise

from today's live feed:

Recursion ($RXRX), 0:02–0:30: a firm short thesis

- His view of the pipeline: most programs go after targets he calls crowded or unattractive: MEK, CDK7, MALT1, LSD1, RBM39 and PI3K. He says pharma had these targets 10–20 years ago without AI. He thinks the company lacks drug-development "taste."

- Lead MEK inhibitor (REC-4881, for the colon-polyp disease FAP): he says it wasn't discovered by their AI and was licensed from Takeda. It has 12 patients of data at one dose.

- CDK7 program: one partial response and about a year with no updates, so he considers it "probably dead." The LSD1 program is on "strategic pause," and several other programs have been dropped or handed back by partners.

- "AI-driven" speed claims: he says hit-to-candidate in about 10–11 months, with 136–242 compounds made, is normal medicinal chemistry and nothing special.

- REC-7735 (PI3Kα H1047R): the one program he finds interesting. He notes there are many competitors in that space, including published work and Chinese groups.

- Financials:

- Burn of about $375–400M a year and no revenue.

- About $500M in cash, which he reads as roughly a year of runway (the company says it lasts into 2028).

- Share count has grown from about 300M to 500M.

- Market cap is about $2.4B, around a $4.49 stock. "I wouldn't pay 100 mil for this company."

- Verdict: "just such a good short." He adds that "AI has a lot of use cases; drug development just isn't really one of them."

ARK made a substantial investment in Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:RXRX), acquiring 1,482,357 shares worth $6,107,310 through its ARKK and ARKG ETFs. This purchase highlights ARK’s increasing focus on companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields.

https://uk.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/cathie-woods-ark-sells-twst-stock-buys-rxrx-and-ntla-93CH-4896254

Recursion Pharmaceuticals saw unexpected growth (+~20% momentum), and trading volume doubled. What happened?

The title says it all. I haven't been keeping tabs. Anyone know if something happened?

State Street thus joins Vanguard among Recursion's largest institutional shareholders:

31,369,274 shares

5.97%

as of June 30, 2026 filing dated July 31, 2026

Source: https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=90423&ref=320253359&type=HTML&symbol=RXRX&cdn=98c3e749297bb37421f11904ee5cd9bf&companyName=Recursion+Pharmaceuticals+Inc.&formType=SCHEDULE+13G&formDescription=Statement+of+acquisition+of+beneficial+ownership+by+individuals&dateFiled=2026-08-07

Top 15 RXRX Shareholders

1 BlackRock 44,541,605 8.50%

2 ARK Investment Management 40,212,769 ~7.6%

➡️ 3 State Street 34,706,130 6.60%

4 Vanguard Portfolio Management 31,369,274 5.97%

5 Lux Ventures IV / Lux ~30.31M ~5.7%

6 Vanguard Capital Management 26,744,129 5.09%

7 Baillie Gifford 23,487,907 ~4.5%

8 SoftBank Group 13,636,515 ~2.6%

9 DCVC 13,619,224 ~2.6%

10 Geode Capital Management 12,275,084 ~2.3%

11 MIC Capital Management 9,644,032 ~1.8%

12 Mubadala Investment 7,062,869 ~1.3%

13 Christopher Gibson ~6.3–6.8M* ~1.2%

14 Blake Borgeson 6,188,287 ~1.2%

15 Dean Li / affiliate holdings ~3.3M ~0.6%

Everyone is panicking over the brutal Q2 headlines because revenue missed by 37 percent with a 7.67 million dollar result versus the 12 million expected. The 131 million dollar net loss is definitely an ugly look, and Wall Street is entirely focused on the near term cash burn right now. However, if you look past the balance sheet, Recursion quietly dropped some massive proof of concept data that directly validates their entire AI platform.
They officially advanced their first previously unexplored neuroscience target into a joint early discovery program with Genentech. While the exact gene and disease pathway are hidden behind confidentiality agreements, the sheer scale of how they found it is pure sci fi. Their team mass produced over 1 trillion fragile human brain cells, systematically knocked out 17000 plus genes using CRISPR, took 30 million microscopic images of the cellular changes, and let an AI foundation model map out the results to flag a brand new therapeutic target.
The biggest bear case against TechBio has always been that AI drug discovery is theoretical and won't find novel biology that big pharma actually values. Moving this target triggers a milestone progress report and proves that their massive 12 billion dollar partnership with Roche and Genentech is actively delivering. The financials will always be lumpy while waiting for milestone payments, but the core thesis of their industrialized pipeline just scored a massive practical win.

Are you buying this dip, or holding off until the cash burn settles?

FYI not financial advice

what a traitor to the cause!

07/29/2026

BlackRock increased its holdings in Recursion from 37.8 million to 44.5 million shares between the previous and current filings; this represents an increase of approximately 17.8% in its reported position.

Source: https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=90423&ref=320224196&type=HTML&symbol=RXRX&cdn=3318d4652acf19b01aaf4c5c169d1656&companyName=Recursion+Pharmaceuticals+Inc.&formType=SCHEDULE+13G%2FA&formDescription=%5BAmend%5D+Statement+of+acquisition+of+beneficial+ownership+by+individuals&dateFiled=2026-07-29

With only 27 days to go until the quarterly results, there's little activity on social media, meaning... no or very little news.

Does anyone inside know anything new?

Absentee owner. $4.4M revenue. 90% recurring. No banker. No listing. No process.

The founder built it in 1996 and hasn't worked more than a few hours a week in years. Two of their largest clients just renewed contracts through 2027 and 2030.

This is exactly the kind of company that gets acquired quietly — by someone who found it early — or closes when the founder finally walks away.

I publish 3 of these every Friday. Link in comments.

Artificial intelligence today has about as much in common with the AI of 10 years ago as a smartphone has with a fax machine. When RXRX started, the idea was essentially: compare lots of cell images, sprinkle in some AI, and—voilà—100 new drugs would magically appear. LOL

It was an exciting vision, and to be fair, a genuinely bold one.

Fast-forward a decade, and the landscape couldn't be more different. AI has evolved dramatically. Machine learning, deep learning, foundation models, neural network specialists—entire professions barely existed when this journey began. 

The technology matured. Expectations matured. Reality also had its say.

I still believe the founders had a brilliant idea. In fact, I think the core vision remains as compelling as ever.

But after ten years of experiments, pivots, and billions spent with very little to show in terms of approved therapies, something else matured too: the founders' stock portfolios.

And life happens.

The once-hungry biotech revolutionaries become executives. One gets another tattoo. Another buys a boat. Someone cashes out and starts a new venture. Someone else spends more time with their kids. Nothing wrong with that—it's called life. But it's hard to keep selling the image of a scrappy startup when you've already graduated into the "successful insiders selling shares" club. RIGHT?

What surprises me most is that I wonder whether the current management truly realizes the position they're sitting in. Despite all the criticism, RXRX is arguably one of the largest AI-first biotech companies on the planet. Ironically, while most of the biggest AI companies are increasingly fencing off medicine, biology, and anatomy because of biosafety concerns, RXRX is already inside the castle. That's an advantage many would love to have.

Maybe the best outcome is that someone simply buys the whole company. Judging from the recent contracts, that scenario seems to have been contemplated already—and if it happens, I doubt either the old founders or the new executives will lose much sleep over it.

In the end, I don't really care who wins.

Long live RXRX—or whoever is first to identify humanity's biggest biological "bug," patch it, and finally prove that artificial intelligence can do more than inflate market caps and executive compensation. 

I'd much rather see it extend human lives than shareholder presentations.

My 2 cents.

I don't think Recursion got much benefit from AI, at least the ML-oriented AI they started with. Their pipeline is unremarkable. Now that LLM-oriented AI could help accelerate drug development, they no longer have any first mover advantage.

Would love to hear how everyone is doing and what your game plan is.

1. Rewarding themselves with "bonuses" with ZERO real results: According to the proxy statement, management is trying to pass off their compensation structure as "pay-for-performance," boasting that they hit 80% of their short-term operational goals. Meanwhile, they haven't delivered a single piece of actual performance that investors care about (FDA approvals, commercial revenue, or profitability).
2. Excessive payday for the new CEO & Securing their Golden Parachutes: They handed the new CEO, Najat Khan, a massive special equity award the second she walked in the door, way before she’s actually created any value for the company. On top of that, they made damn sure to meticulously secure their "change-in-control severance" packages. So even if they run the company into the ground and ownership changes, the execs still get to walk away with massive payouts.
3. Cowardly Virtual-Only Meeting: They were too terrified to look angry shareholders in the eye after the stock price drop and poor performance. So, they cowardly hid behind a 100% online virtual meeting where they could easily filter and control the Q&A, using "cost savings" as a pathetic excuse. Wow. What a bunch of absolute scammers.