Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
382.40 ₪
▼ 3.80 ₪ (-1.0%)
Market data updated: 09/15 05:18 PM
News analyzed: 09/15/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
380.80 ₪ - 387.30 ₪
52-Week Range
251.80 ₪ - 514.90 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+41.2% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 2/12 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
MACD
MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is below the 50-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.
MISH.TA carries an overall investor score of 62, yielding a MODERATE rating. This score reflects a blend of strong short-term price momentum alongside longer-term technical hurdles and mixed risk metrics. The technical category score stands at 67, supported by a price trading above its 50-day moving average, a positive MACD histogram indicating rising momentum, an RSI of 61.0 pointing to healthy positive momentum, and a strong trend with an ADX reading of 36.4. However, technical indicators also display conflicting signals; the stock remains below its 200-day moving average, and a stochastic %K reading of 94.4 signals overbought short-term conditions. Furthermore, trading volume has been falling even as the price advances, pointing to potential momentum exhaustion, and the stock has underperformed its benchmark index by -8.6% over the last 3 months. In terms of risk profile, the category score is 58, underpinned by an Average True Range (ATR) representing 3.6% of the stock's price, alongside a solid Calmar ratio of 2.06 derived from a 3-year annualized return of 60.8% against a maximum drawdown of 29.5%. Meanwhile, the news score is neutral at 50 due to a lack of recent news evidence. Together, these positive momentum indicators balanced against overbought levels, lower volume on price advances, and long-term average resistance result in the overall moderate evaluation.
Technical indicators show the price is above the 50-day average with a positive MACD histogram, an RSI of 61.0, and an ADX of 36.4, though it stays below the 200-day average with an overbought %K of 94.4.
Positive short-term momentum signals upward strength, but remaining under the 200-day average and hitting overbought levels can limit further upside without broader confirmation.
There is no evidence or recorded metrics available for recent news activity.
A lack of news data leaves the stock's score neutral in this category without external sentiment drivers.
The stock exhibits an ATR of 3.6% of its price and a Calmar ratio of 2.06, backed by a 3-year annualized return of 60.8% and a maximum drawdown of 29.5%.
Risk indicators highlight historical return potential relative to drawdown depth alongside daily price volatility.
StockIQ conclusion
MISH.TA receives a score of 62 (MODERATE), reflecting healthy short-term technical momentum offset by overhead long-term resistance and declining volume. While an RSI of 61.0 and strong 3-year annualized returns (60.8%) demonstrate upside strength, an overbought stochastic reading of 94.4 and trading below the 200-day moving average emphasize caution. Future performance tracking will depend on whether volume rebounds to support price advances above key long-term averages.
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
40
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
34
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 MISH.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
6
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
—
Technical
34
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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)
-11%
Market Narrative
41
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-9
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior here is dominated by **Loss Aversion**, as the 15.7% decline over three months and muted volume suggest traders are cautious about further downside. FOMO is present but muted, with momentum and RSI signaling moderate excitement rather than urgency. The narrative gap (7 points) hints at a slight disconnect between market sentiment and fundamentals, but no clear bias toward overconfidence or panic. The key open question: *Will traders exit underperforming positions, or will the stock’s recent momentum sustain cautious buying?*
Updated: 09/07/2026, 04:56 PM
What could change this?
📈 9D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 23/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of each investor, the model estimates that the high scores from Mackay (96) and the two Marks assessments (83 and 75) suggest the stock is not in a crowd‑driven mania and appears reasonably priced within an early‑to‑mid market cycle. In contrast, Livermore’s low score (35) and Housel’s very low score (18) reflect a negative price trend and volatility that would deter a trend‑following or patient long‑term holder. Several classic value and growth frameworks (Smith, Graham, Fisher, Lynch, Bagehot, Veblen, Graham‑Enterprising) returned neutral 50‑point scores because the required dividend, balance‑sheet, growth, or insider data were unavailable, leading to inconclusive reads. Loeb’s moderate risk rating (42) and the efficient‑market view (39) further temper enthusiasm, indicating only a mixed case for out‑performance. Overall, the divergence stems from data constraints for fundamental‑focused methods versus cycle‑ and sentiment‑focused models that can still form an opinion.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 81
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 76
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 76
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 53
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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%
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 44
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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)
🔴 28
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 23
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 252 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 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 |
|---|---|
| 8.6.2026 | 500.000 ₪ |
| 7.6.2026 | 500.000 ₪ |
| 8.12.2025 | 775.000 ₪ |
| 7.12.2025 | 775.000 ₪ |
| 4.9.2025 | 265.000 ₪ |
| 3.9.2025 | 265.000 ₪ |
| 8.12.2024 | 200.000 ₪ |
| 7.12.2024 | 200.000 ₪ |
| 14.4.2024 | 200.000 ₪ |
| 13.4.2024 | 200.000 ₪ |
| 6.4.2022 | 300.000 ₪ |
| 5.4.2022 | 300.000 ₪ |
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 Mivtach Shamir Holdings Ltd (MISH.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 MISH.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.
MISH.TA's technical score is 34/100, which currently reads as bearish — 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: MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; CMF 20 days: 0.06.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average; -13.3% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Yes — MISH.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