Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
10.36 ₪
▲ 0.00 ₪ (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 09/19 04:38 PM
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
9.94 ₪ - 10.36 ₪
52-Week Range
5.00 ₪ - 16.90 ₪
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
9.13 ₪
Resistance
12.39 ₪
MSKE.TA is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+125.6% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 4/13 factors positiveRisk: High
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
MACD
MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.3% 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.
🗓️ 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
45
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
44
Risk
42
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 MSKE.TA...
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
10
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
—
Technical
44
Valuation
—
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-20%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a dominant herding dynamic, where traders align with peers’ recent gains (+4.7% vs. +2.8%) despite a 25.7% prior decline. Loss aversion lingers, but FOMO is muted by neutral RSI and modest volume spikes. The narrative gap (62 vs. 50) hints at optimism outpacing fundamentals. Key question: Will herding sustain if peers diverge or sentiment shifts?
Updated: 09/05/2026, 07:17 PM
What could change this?
📈 12D 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
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s divergent verdicts reflect stark contrasts in methodology focus and data availability. Mackay and Marks both score highly (76 and 73, respectively), as their frameworks prioritize macro sentiment and risk assessment—neither flagging obvious crowd behavior or cycle extremes. However, Marks’ *cycle-specific* variant (69) suggests a cautious mid-cycle stance, while Livermore’s low score (51) stems from his preference for clear directional trends, which this stock lacks. Meanwhile, Graham, Fisher, and Lynch all hit the floor (50) due to insufficient fundamental or valuation data, illustrating how their models hinge on deep quantitative analysis. On the other end, Housel’s 0 and Nelson’s 6 highlight extreme volatility concerns—Housel’s behavioral lens sees this as a psychological trap, while Nelson’s cycle analysis flags overbought conditions. Loeb’s low score (29) underscores his risk-averse stance, contrasting sharply with the more sanguine crowd-mania assessments of Mackay.
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 84
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)
🟢 72
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)
🟡 59
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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)
🟡 47
No clear edge either way
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)
🔴 31
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 30
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
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)
🔴 28
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
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)
🔴 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.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 5 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.
High 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.
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 Aran Meshek Energy Ltd (MSKE.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 MSKE.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.
MSKE.TA's technical score is 44/100, 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: MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; RSI 50.8 — healthy positive momentum; Rising volume supports the price advance.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.3% of price; Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MSKE.TA.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology