Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Real Estate · ·
689.10 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:38 PM
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
678.30 ₪ - 693.90 ₪
52-Week Range
617.70 ₪ - 840.00 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
617.70 ₪
Resistance
722.60 ₪
BIG.TA is a stock from the Real Estate sector — REITs and real-estate companies — highly sensitive to interest rates and property prices.
+9.7% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 4/12 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
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 200
Price is below the 200-day average
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
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.
BIG.TA receives an overall Investor Score of 68 out of 100, placing it in the MODERATE rating category. This evaluation is primarily driven by strong short- to medium-term technical indicators, offset by longer-term moving average resistance, overbought momentum readings, and neutral baseline scores in the news and risk categories. The technical category achieved a score of 78 out of 100. Positive technical signals include the stock's price sitting above its 50-day moving average and above its Parabolic SAR point, signaling an ongoing uptrend. Additionally, the MACD histogram is positive, reflecting rising momentum, and the Relative Strength Index (RSI) stands at a healthy 65.4. Over the past three months, BIG.TA has outperformed its benchmark index by +2.9%. On the downside, the stock continues to trade below its 200-day moving average, pointing to potential long-term technical overhead, while the Stochastic %K indicator has reached 94.9, signaling overbought conditions. The risk category scored a neutral 50 out of 100 based on its historical volatility and drawdown profile. The stock demonstrates an Average True Range (ATR) representing 2.7% of its price. Over a three-year period, it delivered an annualized return of 33.2% against a maximum drawdown of 23.3%, resulting in a Calmar ratio of 1.43. The news category holds a neutral score of 50 out of 100 due to an absence of recorded news data. Overall, the score of 68 reflects solid underlying momentum across recent weeks, tempered by technical resistance at the 200-day average and an absence of directional news drivers.
The price trades above the 50-day average and SAR point with a positive MACD histogram and an RSI of 65.4. However, it remains below the 200-day average with a Stochastic %K of 94.9.
Moving averages and momentum indicators show medium-term trend strength alongside potential overbought risk.
No recent news evidence was recorded for this stock, resulting in a neutral baseline score.
News data provides context on market catalysts and broader sentiment shifts affecting price action.
The stock has an ATR of 2.7% of price and a Calmar ratio of 1.43, derived from a 3-year annualized return of 33.2% and a maximum drawdown of 23.3%.
Risk metrics demonstrate historical downside depth relative to generated returns.
StockIQ conclusion
BIG.TA achieves an overall score of 68, placing it in the MODERATE category. Its score is bolstered by a technical rating of 78, supported by positive MACD momentum, an RSI of 65.4, and trading above its 50-day moving average. However, the stock faces technical resistance below its 200-day moving average and an overbought %K of 94.9. Balanced by neutral news and risk scores, BIG.TA demonstrates moderate overall technical strength.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
51
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
51
Risk
50
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING BIG.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
4
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
—
Technical
51
Valuation
—
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.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
+2%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-10
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here suggests a **herding dynamic** where traders are aligning with peers after a relative outperformance, despite weak momentum and neutral sentiment. The anchoring score hints at lingering fixation on resistance, but the dominant herding implies traders may be chasing recent relative strength rather than fundamental conviction. The key open question is whether this herding will sustain if peers continue underperforming or if the stock drifts further from its peer group. The narrative gap (-6) suggests reality may outpace perception, but herding could delay adjustments until clear divergence emerges.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:32 PM
What could change this?
📈 11D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Charles Mackay — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 13/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts here reflects a mix of methodological constraints and contrasting risk/valuation perspectives. At the top, **Edgar Lawrence Smith** and **Charles Mackay** lean cautiously positive—Smith’s inability to assess dividends/growth leaves his score at a neutral 100, while Mackay’s high score (94) suggests no obvious speculative frenzy, though his verdict lacks depth. Meanwhile, **Howard Marks** (73) and **Marks (Market Cycle)** (63) offer nuanced caution: the first sees reasonable risk pricing, but the latter flags mid-cycle ambiguity, hinting at potential volatility. The cluster of **Graham, Fisher, Lynch, Bagehot, and Veblen** all default to 50 due to data gaps, underscoring how fundamentalist frameworks demand robust metrics—here, the stock’s opaque fundamentals neutralize their signals. On the skeptical end, **Jesse Livermore’s** (32) and **Jack Schwager’s** (29) low scores align with contrarian or trend-following logic, dismissing the stock outright, while **Malkiel/Bogle’s** (41) and **Housel’s** (40) mid-range verdicts reflect passive skepticism—either because the stock lacks clear alpha potential or requires active management. The debate thus pivots between *data scarcity* (forcing neutral defaults) and *philosophical divergence*—from Marks’ cyclical pragmatism to Livermore’s trend aversion.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 96
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 75
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
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)
🟢 71
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 58
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 51
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
Not enough growth/insider data for a real Veblen read
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 35
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 18
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 13
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
Based on the last 255 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 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 uptrend 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 5.6.2026 | 873.523 ₪ |
| 4.6.2026 | 873.523 ₪ |
| 31.8.2025 | 809.199 ₪ |
| 30.8.2025 | 809.199 ₪ |
| 2.12.2021 | 473.153 ₪ |
| 1.12.2021 | 473.153 ₪ |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for Big Shopping Centers Ltd (BIG.TA) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for BIG.TA specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
BIG.TA'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: Price is above the 50-day average; RSI 51.6 — healthy positive momentum; +0.5% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 200-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — BIG.TA has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology