Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NYSE
$71.98
▼ $0.62 (-0.9%)
Market data updated: 09/16 06:24 PM
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$71.92 - $72.88
52-Week Range
$43.26 - $81.85
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+54.4% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 2/12 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 200
Price is above the 200-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 4.6% 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.
IRBO’s overall score of 51 reflects a mixed technical and risk profile, tempered by a strong news sentiment. The technical category (33) highlights conflicting signals: while the stock sits above its 200-day average—a bullish long-term indicator—the price remains below the 50-day average, alongside a negative MACD histogram and RSI bias, signaling short-term weakness. The oversold %K (19.1) could suggest potential rebound pressure, but the downtrend confirmed by the Parabolic SAR (SAR point) raises caution. Meanwhile, the risk score (42) underscores volatility concerns, with a Calmar ratio of 0.86 indicating high drawdown risk relative to returns (3-year annualized return: 27.9%, max drawdown: 32.4%). The ATR of 4.6% further emphasizes price volatility. However, the news score (100) is a standout, driven by positive earnings highlights (e.g., SUPV’s return to profitability, MSV’s EBITDA surge) and neutral/positive market commentary, which may offset technical headwinds by reinforcing sector or thematic tailwinds.
The stock exhibits short-term weakness (below 50-day average, negative MACD, RSI bias) but long-term support (above 200-day average) and potential oversold bounce (%K 19.1). However, the Parabolic SAR confirms a downtrend, and momentum is clearly declining.
Technical indicators drive near-term trading decisions, and conflicting signals here suggest caution despite potential mean-reversion opportunities.
All recent news items are neutral or positive, with multiple earnings calls highlighting profitability and growth (e.g., SUPV, MSV), alongside broader market optimism (e.g., Nvidia mentions).
Positive news can sustain or elevate sentiment, potentially overshadowing technical resistance in the short term.
The ATR (4.6%) and Calmar ratio (0.86) indicate high volatility and drawdown risk, with a 3-year max drawdown of 32.4% despite a 27.9% annualized return.
High volatility and drawdown risk suggest the stock may experience significant price swings, requiring risk management strategies.
StockIQ conclusion
IRBO presents a nuanced profile with technical headwinds—short-term weakness, volatility, and downtrend signals—offset by strong news sentiment and long-term support. The stock’s risk profile is elevated, but positive thematic exposure and potential mean-reversion opportunities may attract selective investors. However, without clearer technical confirmation or reduced volatility, the outlook remains cautious, dependent on external catalysts or sector performance.
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
51
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
33
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
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.
The provided sources do not directly mention the **iShares Future AI & Tech ETF** or its performance, holdings, or recent developments. The headlines focus instead on unrelated topics—such as earnings reports from companies like Kanzhun and Mitchell Services, stock movements (e.g., Salesforce, Palo Alto Networks), financial sector updates, and industry-specific events in beauty and hospitality. Without relevant ETF-specific news, no summary of its recent media coverage can be offered.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about iShares Future AI & Tech ETF. News trend score: 100. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
32
Fundamentals
—
Technical
33
Valuation
—
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+12%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
IRBO’s psychology profile is ambiguous, with no single dominant state emerging. The 17.5% premium above the 200-day average paired with neutral RSI (38) and negative momentum suggests *Euphoria* may persist despite weak technical momentum. However, subdued volume (0.87x avg) and low volatility (0.93x ATR) imply selling pressure isn’t panic-driven. The key question: is the outperformance structural (e.g., fundamentals) or psychological (e.g., selective optimism)? The narrow narrative-reality gap (3 points) hints at mild misalignment, but no clear behavioral red flags exist.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 05:33 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"EBITDA soars 67% as Net Income rises sharply (Article 4)"
"Net Profit Surges 40%, reinforcing leadership (Article 6)"
"Nvidia, These 7 Stocks Are In Buy Zones (Article 2)"
📈 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Nelson's documented principles, the model estimates a very favorable cycle position, yielding a high 96 score, whereas Smith’s perfect score is tempered by a lack of dividend and growth data, resulting in a neutral read. Mackay and Schwager, with moderate scores in the high‑50s, signal emerging crowd excitement but no decisive edge. Graham, Fisher, Lynch, Bagehot, Veblen and the Enterprising‑Graham variant all sit at the neutral midpoint of 50 because each of their methodologies requires data that is presently unavailable, leading to essentially inconclusive assessments. Marks (both his cycle and general frameworks) and Livermore assign lower scores, flagging mid‑cycle positioning, risk‑valuation concerns, and a negative trend that contradicts Livermore’s trend‑following rule. Loeb and Housel give the lowest scores, emphasizing capital‑risk threats and volatility that would likely deter patient investors, which explains the wide spread of opinions across the historical approaches.
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
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 59
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 56
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
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%
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 35
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 33
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 26
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
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 234 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 8 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 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.6.2026 | $0.043 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.000 |
| 17.12.2024 | $0.070 |
| 11.6.2024 | $0.118 |
| 20.12.2023 | $0.150 |
| 7.6.2023 | $0.153 |
| 13.12.2022 | $0.057 |
| 9.6.2022 | $0.135 |
| 13.12.2021 | $0.912 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 11 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
StockStory · 28.8.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 28.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 28.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 28.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 28.8.2026
StockStory · 28.8.2026
ACCESS Newswire · 28.8.2026
PR Newswire · 28.8.2026
Quartz · 27.8.2026
Motley Fool · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
Associated Press · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 27.8.2026
PR Newswire · 27.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 27.8.2026
PR Newswire · 27.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for iShares Future AI & Tech ETF (IRBO) — 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 IRBO 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.
IRBO's technical score is 33/100, 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: Price is above the 200-day average; +12.1% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 4.6% of price; Price is below the 50-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — IRBO 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 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology