Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Telecommunications · ·
37.32 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:19 PM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
36.51 ₪ - 38.11 ₪
52-Week Range
30.13 ₪ - 42.75 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
30.13 ₪
Resistance
38.11 ₪
+24.6% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 9/13 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
🟢 Bullish
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
MACD
MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum
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.
Cellular Investment Trust (CEL.TA) exhibits a balanced yet nuanced profile, with its **investorScore of 70** and **STRONG rating** driven primarily by robust technical performance. The stock demonstrates clear strength in momentum indicators—such as its position above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a positive MACD histogram, and a strong ADX reading of 32.4—suggesting a well-established uptrend. However, this momentum is tempered by technical overbought signals, with the RSI at 72.4 and %K at 88.7, indicating potential near-term consolidation or pullback risk. The **technical score of 82** reflects these conflicting signals, where bullish trends dominate but overbought conditions introduce caution. Meanwhile, the **news and risk scores (both 50)** highlight gaps in available data or sentiment, though the risk profile reveals moderate volatility (ATR: 2.8%) and a historically volatile but high-return environment (Calmar ratio: 1.59, with a 3-year annualized return of 44.1% and a max drawdown of 27.8%).
The stock shows strong bullish momentum with prices above both 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a positive MACD histogram, and an ADX of 32.4, but it is approaching overbought territory (RSI 72.4, %K 88.7).
This combination of strength and overbought signals suggests a high-probability continuation of the uptrend but also signals potential short-term volatility or correction.
No specific news or sentiment data is provided, resulting in a neutral score of 50 with no evidence to support or detract from the stock's narrative.
Lack of news data means external factors influencing the stock cannot be assessed, leaving its trajectory dependent on technical and risk factors alone.
The stock exhibits moderate volatility (ATR: 2.8%) and a historically volatile but high-reward profile, with a Calmar ratio of 1.59 (3-year annualized return: 44.1%, max drawdown: 27.8%).
This volatility profile indicates potential for significant gains but also underscores the need for risk management due to the high drawdowns observed.
StockIQ conclusion
Cellular Investment Trust (CEL.TA) presents a compelling technical profile with strong momentum and bullish indicators, supported by historical outperformance despite volatility. However, overbought conditions and elevated risk metrics introduce caution, particularly for short-term traders. The lack of news data leaves its trajectory dependent on technical factors alone, while the high volatility underscores the need for disciplined risk management. Investors should monitor for potential pullbacks or external catalysts that could alter the stock’s trajectory.
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
69
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
81
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 CEL.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
58
Fundamentals
—
Technical
81
Valuation
—
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.
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)
+16%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-5
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here is dominated by **anchoring**, where traders appear fixated on the 1.7% resistance level, likely due to its proximity. FOMO (42) and euphoria (20) coexist, driven by momentum (+10.9% ROC) and overbought conditions (RSI 72), but anchoring’s dominance (66) implies a reluctance to push beyond this level. The narrative gap (7) suggests a slight disconnect between market sentiment and fundamentals, but the key question remains: *Will traders break the resistance anchor, or will it hold as a psychological barrier?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 06:38 PM
What could change this?
📈 10D 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 — 78/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between momentum-driven and fundamental/valuation-based methodologies. Jesse Livermore’s high score reflects a clear upward price trend that aligns with his technical, trend-following approach, while Howard Marks’ slightly lower but still positive score suggests the risk-reward balance is acceptable—though not overwhelmingly compelling. Meanwhile, Charles Mackay’s moderate score hints at early crowd-driven excitement, which could signal a speculative bubble forming. In stark contrast, the valuation and growth-focused investors—like Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, and Peter Lynch—all default to neutral due to insufficient data, revealing a lack of clear fundamentals to justify a confident buy. Even the market-cycle purist, Samuel Armstrong Nelson, flags potential overbought conditions, while the efficient-market camp dismisses the stock as unexceptional compared to broader indices. The debate thus hinges on whether this stock’s appeal lies in its price action (favored by Livermore and Marks) or whether it’s fundamentally unconvincing (as per the majority of traditional investors).
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 68
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 51
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 50
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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%
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 46
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 45
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)
🟡 43
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 39
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 17
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 255 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 1 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.
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 |
|---|---|
| 3.4.2026 | 118.805 ₪ |
| 2.4.2026 | 118.805 ₪ |
| 2.12.2025 | 119.032 ₪ |
| 1.12.2025 | 119.032 ₪ |
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 Cellcom Israel Ltd (CEL.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 CEL.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.
CEL.TA's technical score is 81/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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; Price is above the 200-day average; RSI 65.2 — healthy positive momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — CEL.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