Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NYSE
$760.78
▼ $1.82 (-0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/18 07:31 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$810.44B
Day Range
$757.97 - $761.83
52-Week Range
$629.28 - $779.37
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+14.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/12 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 0.9% of price
Risk
Biggest negative driver
MACD
MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
87/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
93/100
Analog Quality
+2.6%
Median 40D Outcome
85/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
67%
+1.5% … +2.2%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.3% … +0.2%
🔴 Bearish
20%
-5.5% … -3.1%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 20 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 67% (95% CI 42%–85%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +1.5%.
Echo #1 — Trend Acceleration
6 occurrence(s) · 67% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
2 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 33% (15%–58%) | +0.4% | -1.6% … +1.5% | +0.5% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.6% | -0.2% … +2.1% | +0.9% |
| 20D | 67% (42%–85%) | +1.5% | -0.0% … +2.0% | +1.8% |
| 40D | 73% (48%–89%) | +2.6% | -1.2% … +5.1% | +3.0% |
| 60D | 80% (55%–93%) | +3.9% | +1.5% … +6.4% | +4.2% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-07-05 | 87/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.9% | +3.1% |
| 2025-10-17 | 86/100 | Consolidation | +1.1% | +3.9% |
| 2021-09-24 | 86/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.1% | +2.5% |
| 2019-09-30 | 85/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +2.2% | +8.2% |
| 2017-08-22 | 85/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.9% | +4.5% |
| 2019-05-16 | 85/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.5% | +0.1% |
| 2020-02-03 | 85/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -7.4% | -9.5% |
| 2023-08-23 | 85/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -2.6% | +1.6% |
| 2026-02-03 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -0.6% | +4.2% |
| 2024-11-05 | 84/100 | Consolidation | +5.4% | +4.3% |
| 2026-02-18 | 84/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -3.6% | +9.0% |
| 2023-05-02 | 84/100 | Uptrend | +1.7% | +11.2% |
| 2024-09-11 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.1% | +9.4% |
| 2025-01-06 | 83/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.5% | -9.9% |
| 2025-11-14 | 81/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +1.3% | +1.4% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity.
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
50
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
1d ago · $762.03
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from -19 to 9 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
50
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
44
Risk
58
Sentiment
62
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.
The provided sources do not mention **State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust** at all. The headlines focus instead on unrelated topics like semiconductor stocks (Qualcomm, SK Hynix), AI partnerships (Palantir, Nebius), energy sector shifts (Bloom Energy), and geopolitical trade measures (Canadian tariffs). No recent media coverage about the ETF is available.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust. News trend score: 62. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 6 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
6
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
52
Fundamentals
50
Technical
44
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.
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.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
+2%
Market Narrative
49
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests traders are fixated on a near-term resistance level (1.6% away), consistent with anchoring bias. Mild euphoria exists due to slight premium over the 200-day average, but FOMO remains subdued—momentum and volume are unremarkable. The narrative gap (15 points) hints at a disconnect between optimistic expectations and neutral technical signals. The key question: will traders break resistance or adjust expectations if momentum stalls?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 04:46 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"A quarterly index reshuffle just handed one fuel cell maker a flood of forced buying while simultaneously punishing a former Wall Street darling with an unusually steep demotion"
"AI data centers are pulling memory capacity away from smartphones"
"Amazon just handed Qualcomm a multi-generation AI silicon deal that sent shares surging"
"Palantir just handed Nebius a coveted sovereign AI label, but traders are punishing one side of the partnership and rewarding the other"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 7D 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
Morgan Housel — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 25/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast in verdicts for SPY reflects deep philosophical divides among these methodologies. Morgan Housel’s near-perfect score highlights his focus on patient, long-term compounding—where SPY’s steady, low-cost exposure to the market aligns perfectly with his principles. Meanwhile, methodologies like Jesse Livermore’s and Jack Schwager’s wizards’ approach flag SPY as a poor fit, with Livermore’s trend-following rule and Schwager’s disciplined setup criteria both rejecting it outright. The middle-ground scores from Gerald Loeb and Howard Marks suggest cautious optimism, with Loeb’s capital-preservation lens and Marks’ balanced view acknowledging SPY’s strengths but tempering enthusiasm due to potential overvaluation or market positioning. Meanwhile, the lack of definitive signals from Graham, Fisher, or Lynch—due to insufficient data—underscores how SPY’s broad, passive nature defies the granular, fundamental scrutiny those frameworks demand.
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 100
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 84
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 74
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 65
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 (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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)
🟡 64
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
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)
🟡 47
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 41
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 25
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 5 bearish · 3 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$729.10
Range Bottom
$779.37
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.
Gross Margin
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
—
ROA
—
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
—
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
Not enough data to compute signals.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.6.2026 | $1.904 |
| 20.3.2026 | $1.797 |
| 19.12.2025 | $1.993 |
| 19.9.2025 | $1.831 |
| 20.6.2025 | $1.761 |
| 21.3.2025 | $1.696 |
| 20.12.2024 | $1.966 |
| 20.9.2024 | $1.746 |
| 21.6.2024 | $1.759 |
| 15.3.2024 | $1.595 |
| 15.12.2023 | $1.906 |
| 15.9.2023 | $1.583 |
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)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 6 neutral, 6 negative out of the last 20 articles.
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
MT Newswires · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 18.9.2026
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
SPY currently scores 50/100 (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.
SPY'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: ATR: 0.9% of price; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; Price is below the SAR point — downtrend; ROC 12 days: -0.1%.
Yes — SPY 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.
81,719,964 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 94,367,939 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
53.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.3% 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