Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NASDAQ
$46.02
▲ $2.72 (+6.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 02:22 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/20/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$59.89B
Day Range
$44.21 - $46.13
52-Week Range
$32.84 - $71.82
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$34.96
Resistance
$46.37
-31.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/16 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
🟢 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
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.42 (3y annualized return 22.6% / max drawdown 53.3%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
56
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $46.02
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 8 to 35 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
38
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
79
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
50
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of the **iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF** has centered on strong investor demand, with Bitcoin ETFs attracting **$731 million in inflows in a single day**, contrasting with declining interest in XRP ETFs. Headlines highlight Bitcoin’s **40% rally from July lows**, nearing $100,000 targets amid macroeconomic uncertainty, including Fed rate hike speculation. Analysts note BlackRock’s role in driving institutional adoption, while supply dynamics and ETF inflows sustain upward momentum despite volatility.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 7 vs. 7 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
27
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
85
Fundamentals
50
Technical
79
Valuation
50
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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)
+29%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+0
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant anchoring behavior suggests traders are fixating on the 2.5% gap below resistance, using it as a psychological reference. Overconfidence and FOMO coexist, as momentum-driven gains (+16.6% ROC) outpace fundamentals, while euphoria lingers despite neutral sentiment. The narrative gap (61 vs. 50) hints at overestimation of tailwinds. The key question: will traders break the resistance anchor, or will overconfidence persist despite the EPS lag?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 03:59 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Bitcoin ETFs Took In $731 Million in a Day... continued inflows into spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds provided support"
"Bitcoin Just Exploded 40% From Its July Low — Is $100,000 Back on the Table?"
"Equitable Holdings introduced bitcoin exposure... through a new SCS Premier option that tracks the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF"
"Bitcoin remained below $80,000... although continued inflows into spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds provided support"
🧠 Market Brain events driving 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
Charles Mackay — 72/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 6/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among the methodologies, with Jesse Livermore’s high score (81) standing out as an outlier. Livermore’s model sees a clear positive trend in the price action, aligning with his focus on market momentum and technical patterns, while most others struggle to find strong conviction. Howard Marks’ cycle-based approach (60) suggests it’s mid-cycle, implying cautious optimism, but his fundamental assessment (58) flags potential overvaluation concerns. Meanwhile, Mackay’s crowd psychology (57) hints at growing speculative interest, contrasting with the more neutral or negative readings from Graham, Fisher, and Bagehot—all of whom lack sufficient data to form a definitive opinion. The lower-scoring methodologies, like Nelson (10) and Lynch (0), either see overbought conditions or insufficient growth signals, while efficient-market theorists (42) dismiss the stock as unworthy of active picking. The debate thus centers on whether this stock’s momentum (Livermore) or speculative hype (Mackay) justifies a buy, or if its lack of fundamental clarity (Graham, Fisher) and cyclical risks (Marks, Nelson) make it a high-risk bet.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 72
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)
🟢 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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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
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%
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
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 42
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 32
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
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 6
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 0
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: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (9 bullish · 2 bearish · 0 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.
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.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
—
ROA
—
ROIC
—
EPS
-$7.46
Cash
—
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 6 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 20.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 56/100, rated "Moderate" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
IBIT currently scores 56/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
IBIT'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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average; RSI 64.8 — healthy positive momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.42 (3y annualized return 22.6% / max drawdown 53.3%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -127.7%; Net income growth: -163.0%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for IBIT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
45,932,593 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 37,377,869 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
47.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.1% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology