Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Financials · ·
$15.88
▲ $0.06 (+0.4%)
Market data updated: 09/18 05:45 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$32.19B
Day Range
$15.55 - $15.97
52-Week Range
$14.89 - $19.46
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
HBAN is a stock from the Financials sector — Banks, insurance, and asset management — profitability sensitive to interest rates and credit cycles.
-9.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/26 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $21.72 vs. price $15.88 (+36.8%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.46 (3y annualized return 14.3% / max drawdown 31.4%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+8.2%
Median 40D Outcome
59/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+6.3% … +14.6%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.5% … +0.5%
🔴 Bearish
33%
-6.6% … -4.7%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 10 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +4.7%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
6 occurrence(s) · 67% 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%) | +0.1% | -3.9% … +1.8% | +0.4% |
| 10D | 67% (42%–85%) | +1.5% | -1.5% … +4.5% | +0.6% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +4.7% | -2.9% … +10.1% | +0.6% |
| 40D | 60% (36%–80%) | +8.2% | -2.6% … +13.0% | +1.9% |
| 60D | 60% (36%–80%) | +2.9% | -5.2% … +11.6% | +2.4% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-09-07 | 82/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +14.6% | +18.6% |
| 2018-10-17 | 81/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +0.5% | -10.5% |
| 2020-01-28 | 81/100 | Downtrend | -6.6% | -41.8% |
| 2022-12-14 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +4.7% | -20.7% |
| 2018-12-06 | 79/100 | Downtrend | -8.8% | +2.9% |
| 2025-03-05 | 79/100 | Consolidation | -1.1% | +1.6% |
| 2021-12-20 | 79/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +17.7% | +4.5% |
| 2019-05-31 | 79/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +9.2% | -0.2% |
| 2026-05-12 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +6.3% | +10.8% |
| 2024-12-20 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +3.6% | -8.0% |
| 2023-09-13 | 77/100 | ✓ Downtrend | -4.7% | +11.3% |
| 2025-10-09 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -5.6% | +12.0% |
| 2023-10-23 | 76/100 | ✓ Downtrend | +15.7% | +32.9% |
| 2025-10-31 | 76/100 | Downtrend | +7.1% | +12.0% |
| 2025-08-01 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +11.0% | -2.5% |
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 XLF (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
🐂🐻 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
70
Quality
50
Value
67
Momentum
12
Risk
42
Sentiment
0
Fundamental
51
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING HBAN...
Recent media coverage of Huntington Bancshares has focused on two key developments: the company appointed Brant Standridge as its new president, marking a leadership transition. Additionally, Huntington launched a national business unit targeting community associations and management partners, offering specialized banking and treasury solutions. No broader financial or strategic shifts were highlighted in the provided sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Huntington Bancshares. News trend score: 0. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 2 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
36
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
38
Psychology
58
Fundamentals
51
Technical
12
Valuation
67
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.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-6%
Market Narrative
6
Fundamental Reality
38
Narrative Gap
-32
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
HBAN’s market behavior suggests a dominant herding dynamic, with traders aligning with peer movements despite modest underperformance. Anchoring near support (2.1% above) may reinforce this, as participants fixate on potential reversal points. The narrative gap (-15) hints at a disconnect between market sentiment (23) and technical reality (38), but no clear panic or euphoria signals emerge. The key question remains whether herding persists or shifts as price tests support, given subdued volatility and neutral volume. Overconfidence and loss aversion appear absent, leaving anchoring as the most active bias.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:33 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Huntington Bancshares Appoints Brant Standridge as President"
"Huntington National Bank has launched a national specialty group focused on providing community associations and their management partners"
"RBC Capital reiterates Outperform on Huntington Bancshares, Maintains $21 Price Target"
📈 5D 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
Charles Mackay — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 25/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for HBAN reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. At the top, Mackay’s near-perfect score suggests the stock avoids crowd-driven mania, while Nelson and Marks both see it as favorably positioned in its market cycle—either oversold or reasonably priced without obvious red flags. Meanwhile, Graham’s defensive and enterprising approaches split: one finds it attractive, while the other dismisses it as lacking the deep bargain of his enterprising bar. Fisher and Housel, though more cautious, still see it as a solid or patient-friendly holding, whereas the efficient-market camp and Smith question its long-term justification. At the lower end, Livermore’s outright rejection stands out as an outlier, aligning with his contrarian trend-following rule, while the rest—from Lynch’s mixed growth assessment to Schwager’s indecision—highlight a lack of consensus on whether the stock’s price reflects its true potential or risk.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 100
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)
🟢 100
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 82
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 78
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)
🟢 77
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 77
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 73
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 65
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 65
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 60
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 60
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 58
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 57
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: 25%
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 47
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 25
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 · 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
141.5%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
9.1%
ROA
1.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.41
Cash
$13.49B
Total Debt
$18.48B
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
0.76
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 17.6.2026 | $0.155 |
| 16.6.2026 | $0.155 |
| 18.3.2026 | $0.155 |
| 17.3.2026 | $0.155 |
| 18.12.2025 | $0.155 |
| 17.12.2025 | $0.155 |
| 17.9.2025 | $0.155 |
| 16.9.2025 | $0.155 |
| 17.6.2025 | $0.155 |
| 16.6.2025 | $0.155 |
| 18.3.2025 | $0.155 |
| 17.3.2025 | $0.155 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$15.88
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$21.72
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+36.8%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.8%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.8% | $2.34B | $2.15B |
| 2 | 5.0% | $2.46B | $2.07B |
| 3 | 4.2% | $2.56B | $1.98B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $2.65B | $1.88B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $2.72B | $1.76B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$2.21B
Terminal Value
$42.82B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$27.83B
Enterprise Value
$37.67B
Net Debt
$4.99B
Equity Value
$32.68B
*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
$16.18
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$12.09
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 4 neutral, 14 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
PR Newswire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
PR Newswire · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 8.9.2026
Huntington Bancshares (HBAN) 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.
HBAN 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, HBAN's estimated fair value is $21.72, which is 36.8% above the current price of $15.88. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HBAN's technical score is 12/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $21.72 vs. price $15.88 (+36.8%); Free cash flow growth: 30.8%; Net margin: 141.5% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.46 (3y annualized return 14.3% / max drawdown 31.4%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
Yes — HBAN 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 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Miller Timothy W | Tax Withholding in Shares | 3.9.2026 | 2,465 | -2,465 | $17.06 |
| Kowalski Kendall A | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 400.94 | -400.94 | $17.21 |
| Kowalski Kendall A | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 27,570 | -27,570 | $17.20 |
| Kowalski Kendall A | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 97,595 | -401 | $17.21 |
| Kowalski Kendall A | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 70,025 | -27,570 | $17.20 |
| Sit Roger J | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 1,803.273 | +1,803.273 | — |
| NEU RICHARD W | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 2,964.581 | +2,964.581 | — |
| Shea Teresa H | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 865.571 | +865.571 | — |
| Diaz-Granados Rafael | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 2,488.517 | +2,488.517 | — |
| CRANE ANN B | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 1,803.273 | +1,803.273 | — |
| Shea Teresa H | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 11,813 | +866 | — |
| Sit Roger J | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 50,385 | +1,803 | — |
| Diaz-Granados Rafael | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 37,297 | +2,489 | — |
| CRANE ANN B | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 106,276 | +1,803 | — |
| NEU RICHARD W | Grant/Award from Employer | 28.7.2026 | 119,184 | +2,965 | — |
| PORTEOUS DAVID L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 127.811 | +127.811 | — |
| Shea Teresa H | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 256.54 | +256.54 | — |
| Phelan Kenneth J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 913.526 | +913.526 | — |
| Santhanakrishnan Senthilkumar | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 708.689 | +708.689 | — |
| PORTEOUS DAVID L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 1,317.005 | +1,317.005 | — |
| Sit Roger J | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 412.205 | +412.205 | — |
| PORTEOUS DAVID L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 581.931 | +581.931 | — |
| Shea Teresa H | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 92.887 | +92.887 | — |
| Wasserman Zachary Jacob | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 2,244.75 | +2,244.75 | — |
| PORTEOUS DAVID L | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.7.2026 | 933.894 | +933.894 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
51,518,248 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 51,241,492 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 49.6% 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