Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
457.50 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/19 09:38 PM
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
442.30 ₪ - 469.70 ₪
52-Week Range
201.00 ₪ - 577.90 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
401.20 ₪
Resistance
503.20 ₪
+89.8% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 7/13 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
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 2.18 (3y annualized return 60.7% / max drawdown 27.9%)
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.1% of price
Risk
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.
The overall investor score of **70** for IBI.TA reflects a balanced profile with notable strengths in technical performance and risk-adjusted returns, though tempered by modest concerns. The **technical category** (score: 82) highlights a robust upward trend, with the stock trading above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, supported by a positive MACD histogram and RSI of 65.6—indicating healthy momentum. However, the %K value of 93.2 suggests the stock is overbought, which could signal a near-term pullback. The **risk category** (score: 50) reveals a Calmar ratio of 2.13, implying strong risk-adjusted returns (60.2% annualized over three years) despite a significant max drawdown of 28.2%. The ATR of 4.3% of price indicates moderate volatility. Meanwhile, the **news category** (score: 50) lacks specific data, leaving sentiment analysis ambiguous. The combination of strong technicals and high volatility creates a mixed outlook, where upside potential is balanced by potential overvaluation and volatility risks.
The stock exhibits strong bullish momentum, trading above both its 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a positive MACD histogram and RSI of 65.6. However, the %K value of 93.2 indicates it is currently overbought.
Technical strength suggests near-term upward pressure, but overbought conditions may limit further gains without a pullback.
No recent news or sentiment data is provided, leaving the category unscored beyond a neutral baseline.
Lack of news data means external catalysts or headwinds cannot be assessed.
The stock demonstrates high risk-adjusted returns (Calmar ratio: 2.13) but carries a substantial max drawdown of 28.2%. Volatility is moderate (ATR: 4.3% of price).
Strong returns are offset by the potential for significant drawdowns, requiring careful risk management.
StockIQ conclusion
IBI.TA presents a mixed profile with strong technical indicators and risk-adjusted returns, though concerns about overbought conditions and relative underperformance temper optimism. The absence of news data and elevated drawdown risk highlight the need for cautious positioning. Investors should monitor volatility trends and external developments to assess whether the current momentum can sustain or if a correction is imminent.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
as of 09/10/202659
This Week
70
7D Ago
↓ -11
Weakening
Technical
65
7D Ago: 82
↓ -17
News
50
7D Ago: 50
→ 0
Risk
50
7D Ago: 50
→ 0
Biggest Declines
📊 Score History
59
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
14d ago · $469.90
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 2 to 54 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
⚖️ Base Case
59 / 100
🐻 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 10, 2026
Then
70
$466.90
Now
59
$457.50
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
🧬 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
65
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 IBI.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
13
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
54
Fundamentals
—
Technical
65
Valuation
—
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price (3M)
-10%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+0
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **FOMO** state reflects a market primed for momentum-driven buying, with elevated volume and RSI signaling urgency. The **anchoring** score suggests traders may be fixated on resistance levels, reinforcing entry points. Meanwhile, the **narrative gap** (11-point discrepancy) hints at a disconnect between perceived momentum and underlying fundamentals. The key question: *Will traders sustain FOMO-driven buying, or will anchoring near resistance trigger profit-taking?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 10:06 AM
What could change this?
📈 8D 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 — 76/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some traders seeing opportunity while others flag severe risks. Jesse Livermore’s high score (85) and positive verdict highlight a clear upward price trend that aligns with his technical, momentum-driven approach. Meanwhile, disciplined traders like Jack Schwager (66) and Howard Marks (67) also see a favorable setup—Marks noting reasonable risk pricing, while Schwager emphasizes a structured reward-to-risk ratio. However, the contrast is stark with Morgan Housel (0) and Samuel Nelson (4), who warn of overbought conditions and volatility that would test patient investors’ resolve. Meanwhile, fundamentalists like Benjamin Graham, Philip Fisher, and Peter Lynch are stymied by insufficient data, leaving their models unable to form a verdict. The divergence underscores whether this stock’s strength lies in its price action (for Livermore or Schwager) or whether it’s a speculative gamble (for Loeb or Housel) rather than a sound long-term bet.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
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)
🟡 63
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 57
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 57
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
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)
🟡 40
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 35
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 34
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 26
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
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
Based on the last 254 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 3 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 27.8.2026 | 353.617 ₪ |
| 4.6.2026 | 497.142 ₪ |
| 3.6.2026 | 497.142 ₪ |
| 30.3.2026 | 355.309 ₪ |
| 29.3.2026 | 355.309 ₪ |
| 4.12.2025 | 256.154 ₪ |
| 3.12.2025 | 256.154 ₪ |
| 26.8.2025 | 183.184 ₪ |
| 25.8.2025 | 183.184 ₪ |
| 8.6.2025 | 146.848 ₪ |
| 7.6.2025 | 146.848 ₪ |
| 31.3.2025 | 588.265 ₪ |
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 IBI Investment House Ltd (IBI.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 IBI.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.
IBI.TA's technical score is 65/100, 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: Calmar: 2.18 (3y annualized return 60.7% / max drawdown 27.9%); Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.1% of price; -11.9% over the last 3 months relative to the index; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — IBI.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