Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
78.11 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:10 AM
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
78.00 ₪ - 79.87 ₪
52-Week Range
59.10 ₪ - 80.98 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
67.98 ₪
Resistance
80.20 ₪
+26.3% (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
Golden Cross
SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200
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.
LUMI.TA exhibits a **strong overall investor score of 73**, driven primarily by robust technical performance and moderate risk metrics, though its news sentiment remains unremarkable. The technical category scores an impressive **85**, with the stock maintaining a clear upward bias—currently trading above both its **50-day and 200-day moving averages** and displaying **rising momentum** via a positive MACD histogram. However, caution is warranted as the **RSI (72.6) and %K (96.2) indicators** signal overbought conditions, suggesting potential short-term consolidation. The risk profile is relatively favorable, with a **Calmar ratio of 1.73** indicating resilience (3-year annualized return of **40.4%** offset by a **23.3% max drawdown**), though the **low ATR (1.7% of price)** hints at limited volatility. The lack of news-driven evidence keeps the news score at **50**, a neutral anchor that doesn’t detract from the technical and risk strengths but also fails to add conviction. Overall, the stock’s **momentum-driven strength** and **risk-adjusted returns** outweigh its minor overbought signals and lack of recent news catalysts.
The stock demonstrates strong bullish momentum, trading above both key moving averages (50-day and 200-day) with a positive MACD histogram, but is nearing overbought territory as indicated by RSI (72.6) and %K (96.2).
Technical strength signals sustained upward momentum, while overbought conditions may signal imminent pullback or consolidation.
No recent news-driven evidence is present in the dataset, resulting in a neutral news score of 50.
Lack of news sentiment means the stock’s performance is driven purely by technicals and fundamentals rather than external catalysts.
The stock exhibits a **Calmar ratio of 1.73**, reflecting strong risk-adjusted returns (40.4% annualized return over 3 years) despite a **23.3% max drawdown**, though volatility is low (ATR: 1.7% of price).
A high Calmar ratio suggests resilience in down markets, but the low ATR implies limited volatility, which may limit upside potential.
StockIQ conclusion
LUMI.TA presents a **balanced profile** with **strong technical momentum** and **resilient risk-adjusted returns**, though its **overbought indicators** and **lack of news catalysts** introduce minor caution. The stock’s ability to sustain its upward trend depends on whether it can avoid a pullback from overbought levels while maintaining its outperformance relative to the index. Investors should monitor technical signals closely, particularly moving average crossovers and volatility shifts, to gauge the next leg of its 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.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 11, 2026
Then
74
$78.92
Now
69
$78.11
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No 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
79
Risk
58
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 LUMI.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
4
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
—
Technical
79
Valuation
—
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Price (3M)
+19%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-5
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme anchoring (95) suggests traders are fixating on the 0.3% gap below resistance, treating it as a near-certain reversal point. FOMO (39) and euphoria (15) coexist but are muted by neutral news, while herding (49) hints at selective participation rather than broad enthusiasm. The narrow narrative-reality gap (-2) implies no major disconnect between price action and fundamentals. The key question: will traders break the resistance anchor, or will the 0.3% gap hold as a psychological barrier?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:35 PM
What could change this?
📈 15D 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
Morgan Housel — 85/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 43/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with some investors seeing steady potential while others flag caution or indecision. Morgan Housel and Howard Marks both rate it favorably—Housel’s quiet compounder lens finds value in its patient-friendly profile, while Marks sees a reasonably priced risk with no obvious cycle-timing red flags. However, Jesse Livermore’s neutral stance and Samuel Nelson’s outright warning highlight the stock’s ambiguous momentum, with Nelson calling it overbought and Livermore avoiding it for lack of clear trends. Meanwhile, the Graham, Fisher, and Lynch models all hit dead ends due to insufficient data, leaving their verdicts inconclusive, while the efficient-market camp dismisses it as unworthy of active picking. The contrast underscores whether the stock’s quiet growth or speculative hype is its defining trait.
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 85
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 84
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)
🟢 71
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 69
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 59
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 53
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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%
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 45
No clear edge either way
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)
🟡 43
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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 (8 bullish · 2 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 |
|---|---|
| 20.8.2026 | 76.986 ₪ |
| 1.6.2026 | 65.578 ₪ |
| 31.5.2026 | 65.578 ₪ |
| 12.3.2026 | 86.053 ₪ |
| 11.3.2026 | 86.053 ₪ |
| 25.11.2025 | 102.038 ₪ |
| 24.11.2025 | 102.038 ₪ |
| 20.8.2025 | 65.532 ₪ |
| 19.8.2025 | 65.532 ₪ |
| 28.5.2025 | 48.162 ₪ |
| 27.5.2025 | 48.162 ₪ |
| 12.3.2025 | 47.019 ₪ |
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 Bank Leumi Le-Israel B.M. (LUMI.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 LUMI.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.
LUMI.TA's technical score is 79/100, 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: SMA 50 recently crossed above SMA 200; ATR: 1.5% of price; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend.
Yes — LUMI.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