Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · CBOE
$214.00
▼ $2.77 (-1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/16 01:22 PM
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$212.67 - $217.64
52-Week Range
$195.71 - $256.60
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+5.9% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
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
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 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.
Italian Airlines (ITA) exhibits a **WEAK** overall rating (investor score of 34) driven primarily by its **technical performance**, which is heavily weighted down by persistent bearish signals. The stock trades **below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages**, accompanied by a **negative MACD histogram** and an **oversold %K (9.4)**, all of which suggest a weakening trend. While the **strong ADX (29.0)** indicates a clear directional bias, the **RSI (33.4)** and **3-month underperformance (-4.1% vs. index)** reinforce a short-term negative momentum. However, the **news sentiment** is notably positive (score of 86), buoyed by sector-specific tailwinds like Boeing’s F-15 contract and broader disruptive technology discussions in aerospace. Risk metrics, though moderate (score of 58), highlight **low volatility (ATR 1.9%)** and a **historically high return-to-drawdown ratio (25.3%/15.9%)**, which could appeal to investors seeking stability in volatile conditions. The contrast between technical weakness and strong news sentiment creates a nuanced picture, where external factors may offset immediate price pressures.
The stock is trading below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a negative MACD histogram, oversold %K (9.4), and weak RSI (33.4), indicating a short-term bearish trend despite a strong directional bias (ADX 29.0).
Technical indicators directly influence short-term trading decisions and investor sentiment, making these signals critical for assessing near-term price movement.
News sentiment is overwhelmingly positive (score of 86), driven by sector-specific wins (e.g., Boeing’s F-15 contract) and broader industry discussions on disruptive technologies, despite some neutral/mixed macroeconomic commentary.
Positive news sentiment can counteract technical weakness by attracting speculative or long-term investors, potentially stabilizing or reversing price declines.
The stock exhibits low volatility (ATR 1.9%) and a historically strong return-to-drawdown ratio (25.3% annualized return with a 15.9% max drawdown), suggesting resilience in volatile markets.
These risk metrics indicate potential stability and reward for investors willing to hold through short-term fluctuations, though they do not guarantee future performance.
StockIQ conclusion
Italian Airlines (ITA) presents a **contrarian opportunity** with a **WEAK** technical profile but **strong positive news sentiment** and favorable risk metrics. While short-term bearish signals dominate, the sector’s tailwinds and low volatility may attract investors seeking stability or long-term exposure. However, the stock’s underperformance and oversold conditions highlight inherent risks, requiring careful monitoring of both technical and macroeconomic developments to assess potential reversals.
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
27
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
6
Risk
58
Sentiment
62
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 on the **iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF** has centered on sector-wide trends, with a focus on **geopolitical risks, major defense contracts, and market volatility**. Headlines highlight **Trump’s potential Section 338 tariffs** raising uncertainty for defense investments, while **Boeing’s $131 billion F-15 contract** and debates over **GE Aerospace, Boeing, and RTX’s dominance** in 2026 dominate discussions. Analysts also explore **long-term growth in space-related industries** despite near-term profitability challenges. Overall, the sector faces both **opportunities from defense spending** and **macroeconomic and trade-related headwinds**.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF. News trend score: 62. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 7 negative.
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
90
Fundamentals
—
Technical
6
Valuation
—
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-12%
Market Narrative
39
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant anchoring behavior (75) reflects traders’ fixation on the 1.3% support level, likely due to its proximity. While FOMO (12) and panic (26) are present, they’re muted by weak momentum and neutral sentiment. The narrative gap (-1) suggests a near-balance between perception and reality, but the key question remains: will traders break the anchor or hold near support? Low volatility (0.85x ATR) suggests caution rather than extreme panic or euphoria.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 12:50 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Boeing (NYSE: BA) rises premarket on a massive $131B F-15 defense contract"
"Trump’s use of Section 338 tariffs has raised risk to the defense investment sector"
"Will disruptive technologies upend aerospace companies?"
"Industrial production grew 0.2% in July after June's 0.3% growth, lower than expected"
📈 6D 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 — 98/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 30/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s divergent verdicts reflect stark contrasts in methodology priorities. Samuel Nelson’s near-perfect score highlights his cyclical optimism, seeing it as oversold and ripe for a rebound, while Jesse Livermore’s low score aligns with his contrarian trend-following rule, flagging it as a potential downside bet. Meanwhile, the middle-ground scores from Housel, Loeb, and Schwager suggest a cautious but neutral stance—practical, patient holding or neutral market positioning—whereas Howard Marks’ mixed verdict hints at a business with strong fundamentals but already baked-in expectations. The lower scores from Graham, Fisher, and Lynch stem from insufficient data, underscoring how this stock lacks the deep fundamental or valuation depth those methods demand, while Veblen’s skepticism questions whether growth translates to true profitability.
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)
🟢 98
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)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 84
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 70
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)
🟡 64
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)
🟡 58
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
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%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 30
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 276 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 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 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 |
|---|---|
| 15.9.2026 | $0.251 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.164 |
| 17.3.2026 | $0.151 |
| 16.9.2025 | $0.750 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.172 |
| 18.3.2025 | $0.253 |
| 17.12.2024 | $0.437 |
| 25.9.2024 | $0.227 |
| 11.6.2024 | $0.299 |
| 21.3.2024 | $0.266 |
| 20.12.2023 | $0.433 |
| 26.9.2023 | $0.225 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 4 neutral, 7 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 31.8.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 22.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.8.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 19.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for iShares U.S. Aerospace & Defense ETF (ITA) — 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 ITA 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.
ITA's technical score is 6/100, 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: Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — ITA 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.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
1,260,754 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 1,550,216 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
42.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 41.5% 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