Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Materials · ·
$110.91
▼ $4.14 (-3.6%)
Market data updated: 09/20 04:22 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$13.09B
Day Range
$110.43 - $115.13
52-Week Range
$79.30 - $221.00
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$107.90
Resistance
$144.06
ALB is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
+37.0% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/31 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
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 48.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $64.36 vs. price $110.91 (-42.0%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (68/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
79/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
89/100
Analog Quality
-3.5%
Median 40D Outcome
50/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
33%
+12.0% … +14.2%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.3% … +0.2%
🔴 Bearish
53%
-9.9% … -3.7%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 60 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 33% (95% CI 15%–58%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -3.3%.
Echo #1 — Oversold Reversal
3 occurrence(s) · 0% historical success
Echo #2 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 33% 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 | 40% (20%–64%) | +0.7% | -5.6% … +4.5% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +2.6% | -4.8% … +9.1% | +0.3% |
| 20D | 33% (15%–58%) | -3.3% | -5.0% … +7.0% | +0.5% |
| 40D | 40% (20%–64%) | -3.5% | -18.0% … +12.4% | +0.6% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -5.4% | -17.7% … +6.7% | -0.5% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-12-26 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -3.6% | -15.1% |
| 2025-02-10 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -3.3% | -25.4% |
| 2019-08-27 | 78/100 | High Volatility | +15.2% | +9.7% |
| 2024-01-17 | 77/100 | Downtrend | -5.2% | +1.6% |
| 2023-05-03 | 77/100 | High Volatility | +13.1% | +22.8% |
| 2023-03-20 | 77/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -3.7% | +6.4% |
| 2018-12-26 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +0.4% | +6.9% |
| 2025-03-04 | 76/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -0.5% | -20.3% |
| 2023-10-02 | 76/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -21.6% | -8.1% |
| 2024-06-13 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -11.8% | -27.4% |
| 2025-04-03 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -9.3% | -5.4% |
| 2023-10-26 | 75/100 | High Volatility | -4.7% | -10.0% |
| 2022-12-21 | 72/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +12.0% | -4.2% |
| 2023-08-16 | 72/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +1.9% | -36.9% |
| 2025-06-02 | 70/100 | Downtrend | +14.2% | +59.2% |
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. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLB (this stock's sector).
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
41
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
25d ago · $132.80
Evidence: -6.9pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
25d ago · $133.95
Evidence: 5 bullish / 4 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
25d ago · $133.05
Evidence: -5.4pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
26d ago · $141.51
Evidence: 7 bullish / 4 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
27d ago · $143.25
Evidence: +4.1pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
27d ago · $143.25
Evidence: 7 bullish / 4 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
27d ago · $143.25
Evidence: +4.1pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
27d ago · $143.25
Evidence: 7 bullish / 4 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
28d ago · $143.25
Evidence: +4.8pp vs. sector average today
What happened after
28d ago · $143.25
Evidence: 7 bullish / 4 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
31d ago · $134.70
Evidence: 7 bullish / 4 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
32d ago · $132.27
Evidence: 7 bullish / 3 bearish technical signals agreeing
What happened after
🐂🐻 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 18, 2026
Then
56
$132.17
Now
41
$110.91
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
68
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
9
Risk
46
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
31
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING ALB...
Recent coverage of Albemarle Corp. has highlighted a sharp 29% decline in its shares over six months as weak lithium prices and near‑term margin pressure weigh on the company, even as lithium producers overall report a profit turnaround. Analysts note the stock’s recent slide amid broader market gains, while the firm announced a quarterly cash dividend of $0.41 per share. Cost‑saving measures and upcoming project ramp‑ups are cited as potential support.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Albemarle Corporation. News trend score: 98. Reason: 10 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
37
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
55
Fundamentals
31
Technical
9
Valuation
38
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-31%
Market Narrative
64
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
+26
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant herding behavior reflects synchronized selling across ALB and its peers, with no clear catalyst driving divergence. Elevated volume and volatility align with panic selling, yet extreme positive sentiment (100/100) suggests conflicting narratives—likely driven by confirmation bias toward optimistic narratives despite stagnant fundamentals. The key question is whether the narrative gap (+32) will sustain momentum or if overconfidence in valuation (+101% DCF) will correct. Loss aversion may delay further declines, but the absence of anchoring near support (11.7% away) leaves no obvious near-term trigger for reversal.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:09 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Albemarle Corp. has named BHP Group Limited’s Chief Commercial Officer Ragnar ‘Rag’ Udd as its next CEO"
"Albemarle (ALB) reported earnings 30 days ago... stock is up 5.4%"
📈 18D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 20/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for ALB reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score and bullish cycle position suggest he sees this stock as oversold and ripe for a rebound, likely prioritizing technical or momentum signals. In contrast, Philip Fisher’s low score and negative verdict highlight his focus on long-term qualitative growth and management excellence—qualities Fisher’s model may not detect here. Meanwhile, the middle-ground scores from Graham, Marks, and Lynch indicate mixed signals: while some see modest value or moderate risk, others like Livermore and Bagehot’s liquidity assessment offer starkly opposing takes, with Livermore’s negative trend verdict clashing with Bagehot’s resilience-focused approach. The range from 92 to 27 underscores whether the stock’s current state aligns with cyclical optimism, fundamental bargains, or Fisherian growth—each framework prioritizing different levers of analysis.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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)
🟢 80
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 73
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 72
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 68
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 60
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 58
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 57
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 56
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 51
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 51
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 44
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 20
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 300 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.
Gross Margin
13.0%
Operating Margin
-7.1%
Net Margin
-9.9%
EBITDA Margin
5.7%
ROE
-5.4%
ROA
-3.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$5.76
Cash
$1.62B
Total Debt
$3.19B
Current Ratio
2.23
Debt/Equity
0.33
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 11.9.2026 | $0.410 |
| 12.6.2026 | $0.405 |
| 11.6.2026 | $0.405 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.405 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.405 |
| 12.12.2025 | $0.405 |
| 11.12.2025 | $0.405 |
| 12.9.2025 | $0.405 |
| 11.9.2025 | $0.405 |
| 13.6.2025 | $0.405 |
| 12.6.2025 | $0.405 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.405 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$110.91
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$64.36
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-42.0%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $657.84M | $603.53M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $637.29M | $536.39M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $629.32M | $485.95M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $633.25M | $448.61M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $649.08M | $421.86M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$692.47M
Terminal Value
$10.24B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$6.65B
Enterprise Value
$9.15B
Net Debt
$1.58B
Equity Value
$7.57B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$81.02
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$66.46
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 10 positive, 8 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 9.9.2026
Albemarle Corporation (ALB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 41/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ALB currently scores 41/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, ALB's estimated fair value is $64.36, which is 42.0% below the current price of $110.91. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ALB's technical score is 9/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 48.6%; Free cash flow growth: 169.8%; Net income growth: 56.7%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $64.36 vs. price $110.91 (-42.0%); Operating margin: -7.1% (negative); Net margin: -9.9% (negative).
Yes — ALB 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hood Max | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.9.2026 | 1,476 | +1,476 | — |
| DESALLES BARTOLOMEO EDUARDO | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.7.2026 | 1,375 | +1,375 | — |
| DESALLES BARTOLOMEO EDUARDO | Grant/Award from Employer | 21.7.2026 | 1,375 | +1,375 | — |
| BRLAS LAURIE | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| Van Deursen Holly | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| STEINER GERALD A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 36 | +36 | — |
| Cramer Ralf Hans | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| Wolff Alejandro Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 33 | +33 | — |
| STEINER GERALD A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| Cramer Ralf Hans | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 13 | -13 | $136.08 |
| BRLAS LAURIE | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 36 | +36 | — |
| Cramer Ralf Hans | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.7.2026 | 929 | -929 | $136.08 |
| OConnell Diarmuid B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| Cramer Ralf Hans | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 36 | +36 | — |
| OConnell Diarmuid B. | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 36 | +36 | — |
| Collins Michelle T | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2 | +2 | — |
| Widmar Mark R | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| Collins Michelle T | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| Wolff Alejandro Daniel | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| MINOR GLENDA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| STEINER GERALD A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 13,196 | +1,250 | — |
| STEINER GERALD A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 13,232 | +36 | — |
| BRLAS LAURIE | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 7,253 | +1,250 | — |
| BRLAS LAURIE | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 7,289 | +36 | — |
| MINOR GLENDA J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 5,606 | +1,250 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,633,162 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 11,190,342 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.6% 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