Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Finance · ·
$28.18
▲ $0.03 (+0.1%)
Market data updated: 09/18 01:14 PM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$28.06 - $28.47
52-Week Range
$25.08 - $33.03
Beta
—
Next Earnings
16.10.2026
-13.3% (1Y)
🟡 Moderate
Strengths: 1/13 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 1.9% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.22 (3y annualized return 5.8% / max drawdown 26.8%)
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
25
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 August 26, 2026
Then
80
$30.39
Now
25
$28.18
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
13
Risk
50
Sentiment
44
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.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of ICICI Bank Limited has been limited and primarily focuses on broader market trends rather than the bank itself. The available sources mention fluctuations in Asian equities traded in the US as American Depositary Receipts, with no specific details about ICICI Bank. One notable exception is the introduction of a new feature in **ICICI Prudential Signature Pension**, allowing policyholders to extend benefits to family members, highlighting an expansion in retirement planning services.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ICICI Bank Limited. News trend score: 44. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 7 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
85
Fundamentals
—
Technical
13
Valuation
—
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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)
+1%
Market Narrative
34
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-16
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s focus on anchoring suggests traders are fixated on the 1.7% support level, likely due to its proximity to recent price action. Herding behavior is present but muted, as IBN’s underperformance relative to peers (-2.5% vs -0.5%) hints at selective participation rather than blind following. The narrative gap (-9) indicates a slight disconnect between market sentiment (41) and objective reality (50), but anchoring dominates, implying traders may resist breaking support unless triggered. The key question is whether the stock can sustain momentum above this level or if a test of support will reignite anchoring-driven volatility.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 10:24 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Asian equities traded in the US as American depositary receipts Edge Lower in Friday Trading"
📈 4D 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 — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 22/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s divergent verdicts reflect stark contrasts between methodologies that prioritize qualitative, behavioral, or cyclical signals versus those constrained by data gaps or fundamental uncertainty. Investors like **Morgan Housel (81)** and **Samuel Armstrong Nelson (87)** see potential in its quiet, patient-friendly qualities or cyclical positioning, suggesting it aligns with steady compounding or oversold conditions. Meanwhile, **Jesse Livermore (41)** and **Edgar Lawrence Smith (100, but data-limited)** either flag a negative trend or lack sufficient dividend/growth data, leaving their conclusions ambiguous or outright negative. The middle-ground scores—from **Howard Marks (67)** to **Gerald Loeb (63)**—acknowledge moderate risk but no clear red flags, while the majority of methodologies (Graham, Fisher, Lynch, etc.) default to neutral due to insufficient data, highlighting how this stock’s ambiguity splits analysts between cautious optimism and outright indecision.
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)
🟢 98
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 96
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
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 71
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 71
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 60
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
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
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%
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 46
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 36
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 22
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
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 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.
A pattern consistent with an early/mid distribution phase — a trading range after an advance with declining volume.
Medium confidence
$28.06
Range Bottom
$30.67
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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 |
|---|---|
| 3.8.2026 | $0.249 |
| 2.8.2026 | $0.249 |
| 12.8.2025 | $0.257 |
| 11.8.2025 | $0.257 |
| 12.8.2024 | $0.239 |
| 11.8.2024 | $0.239 |
| 8.8.2023 | $0.195 |
| 7.8.2023 | $0.195 |
| 9.8.2022 | $0.126 |
| 8.8.2022 | $0.126 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 5 neutral, 8 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 4.9.2026
MT Newswires · 3.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
MT Newswires · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
MT Newswires · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 26.8.2026
Stocktwits · 26.8.2026
Associated Press · 26.8.2026
TMX Newsfile · 26.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 26.8.2026
Motley Fool · 26.8.2026
TheStreet · 26.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for ICICI Bank Limited (IBN) — 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 IBN 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.
IBN's technical score is 13/100, 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: ATR: 1.9% of price.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.22 (3y annualized return 5.8% / max drawdown 26.8%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — IBN has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Batra Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 20,125 | +20,125 | $2.26 |
| Batra Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 20,125 | -20,125 | $2.26 |
| Gupta Ajay K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 18,200 | -18,200 | $2.98 |
| Gupta Ajay K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 41,400 | +41,400 | $4.23 |
| Gupta Ajay K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 41,400 | -41,400 | $4.23 |
| Gupta Ajay K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 18,200 | +18,200 | $2.98 |
| Gupta Ajay K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 714,288 | +41,400 | $4.23 |
| Gupta Ajay K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 732,488 | +18,200 | $2.98 |
| Gupta Ajay K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 55,200 | -41,400 | $4.23 |
| Gupta Ajay K | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 0 | -18,200 | $2.98 |
| Batra Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 829,560 | +20,125 | $2.26 |
| Batra Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 50,000 | -20,125 | $2.26 |
| Banerjee Anindya | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 125,600 | +125,600 | $14.18 |
| Banerjee Anindya | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 125,600 | +125,600 | $14.18 |
| Bakhshi Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 20,000 | -20,000 | $2.51 |
| Jha Rakesh | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 70,125 | +70,125 | $2.27 |
| Bakhshi Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 53,900 | -53,900 | $2.36 |
| Jha Rakesh | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 70,125 | -70,125 | $2.27 |
| Bakhshi Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 20,000 | +20,000 | $2.51 |
| Bakhshi Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 53,900 | +53,900 | $2.36 |
| Jha Rakesh | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 165,875 | +70,125 | $2.27 |
| Jha Rakesh | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 0 | -70,125 | $2.27 |
| Bakhshi Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 1,091,301 | +20,000 | $2.51 |
| Bakhshi Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 1,145,201 | +53,900 | $2.36 |
| Bakhshi Sandeep | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 28.4.2026 | 200,000 | -20,000 | $2.51 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
22,078,235 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 17,951,630 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.0% 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