Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$9.09
▼ $0.03 (-0.3%)
Market data updated: 09/20 08:01 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/20/2026
Market Cap
$1.59B
Day Range
$8.95 - $9.13
52-Week Range
$7.30 - $16.09
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$8.95
Resistance
$13.39
HUN is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-11.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/31 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 46.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$0.29 vs. price $9.09 (-103.2%)
Fair Value
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.
🗓️ 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
32
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
40
Quality
42
Value
43
Momentum
23
Risk
42
Sentiment
32
Fundamental
23
Institutional
100
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Huntsman Corporation has primarily focused on its **proposed merger with Olin**, with multiple sources reporting that shareholders in both companies approved the all-stock merger of equals in late August. Analysts have also adjusted price targets downward, with Deutsche Bank cutting its target to $11 from $15 while maintaining a "Hold" rating. Some coverage highlights Huntsman’s valuation and dividend potential amid market volatility, though no new operational or financial details beyond the merger are explicitly mentioned.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Huntsman Corporation. News trend score: 32. Reason: 5 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
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
69
Fundamentals
23
Technical
23
Valuation
43
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-25%
Market Narrative
33
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
-2
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** (91) reflects a market behavior where investors cling to positions despite a prolonged drawdown (-32.5% over three months), evidenced by subdued trading volume (0.75x average). Meanwhile, **Confirmation Bias** (16) suggests selective attention to narrative-driven metrics (e.g., narrative gap +12) while ignoring deteriorating fundamentals (e.g., -0.1% revenue growth). The **Anchoring** score (31) hints at a psychological resistance near support (3.4% above), while low **FOMO** (6) and **Panic Selling** (14) scores indicate neither urgency nor extreme distress. The key question: Will the narrative gap persist, or will deteriorating fundamentals force a re-evaluation of loss thresholds?
Updated: 09/09/2026, 05:10 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"HUNTSMAN Shareholders Approve Transformative Merger of Equals"
"Huntsman (HUN) Price Target Decreased by 18.63% to 12.15"
"Investors turn to dividend-yielding stocks during market turbulence"
"Huntsman: Undervalued With Free Cash Flow Poised For An Inflection"
📈 10D 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
Peter Lynch — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with some seeing it as a high-conviction opportunity and others dismissing it outright. The top scorers—Samuel Armstrong Nelson (85), Charles Mackay (82), and Jack Schwager (77)—highlight technical or cyclical tailwinds, suggesting it’s either near a bottom, free of speculative frenzy, or offers a disciplined risk-reward trade. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s split verdict (74 vs. 62) reflects a tension between statistical undervaluation and the lack of clear defensive traits, while Howard Marks’ mixed signals (75 vs. 54) hint at a business that may be fairly valued but not yet overbought. On the opposite end, the lowest scorers—Peter Lynch (17), Philip Fisher (33), and Walter Bagehot (30)—reject it for either lacking growth potential, quality, or liquidity, framing it as either a speculative trap or a poor fit for their core principles. The contrast underscores how technical/cyclical traders and fundamentalists often agree on upside potential, while value purists and growth-focused investors remain skeptical.
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 100
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
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 75
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 71
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
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 62
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 47
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)
🟡 47
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 35
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 34
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 30
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 17
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 9 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.
Gross Margin
13.2%
Operating Margin
-2.3%
Net Margin
-5.0%
EBITDA Margin
2.7%
ROE
-10.3%
ROA
-4.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.65
Cash
$429.00M
Total Debt
$2.01B
Current Ratio
1.30
Debt/Equity
0.73
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 15.9.2026 | $0.088 |
| 15.6.2026 | $0.088 |
| 14.6.2026 | $0.088 |
| 13.3.2026 | $0.088 |
| 12.3.2026 | $0.088 |
| 15.12.2025 | $0.088 |
| 14.12.2025 | $0.088 |
| 15.9.2025 | $0.250 |
| 14.9.2025 | $0.250 |
| 13.6.2025 | $0.250 |
| 12.6.2025 | $0.250 |
| 14.3.2025 | $0.250 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$9.09
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$0.29
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-103.2%
🔴 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% | $110.20M | $101.10M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $106.76M | $89.85M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $105.42M | $81.40M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $106.08M | $75.15M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $108.73M | $70.67M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$116.00M
Terminal Value
$1.71B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$1.11B
Enterprise Value
$1.53B
Net Debt
$1.58B
Equity Value
$-49.43M
*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
$15.93
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$10.50
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 13 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Zacks · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
PR Newswire · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
MarketBeat · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
MT Newswires · 25.8.2026
PR Newswire · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 20.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
Huntsman Corporation (HUN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 32/100, 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.
HUN currently scores 32/100 (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, HUN's estimated fair value is -$0.29, which is 103.2% below the current price of $9.09. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
HUN's technical score is 23/100, 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: Free cash flow growth: 46.8%; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; NAV per share: $10.50.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$0.29 vs. price $9.09 (-103.2%); Operating margin: -2.3% (negative); Net margin: -5.0% (negative).
Yes — HUN 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 — 2 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Huntsman Peter R | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | $9.81 |
| Huntsman Peter R | Open Market Purchase | 3.8.2026 | 7,256,341 | +100,000 | $9.81 |
| Buberl Jan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 422 | -422 | $9.76 |
| Buberl Jan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 31.7.2026 | 55,791 | -422 | $9.76 |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.6.2026 | 883 | -883 | $14.99 |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.6.2026 | 177,944 | -883 | $14.99 |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 932 | -932 | $13.21 |
| Buberl Jan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 414 | -414 | $13.21 |
| Buberl Jan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 1,514 | -1,514 | $13.21 |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.2.2026 | 1,950 | -1,950 | — |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.2.2026 | 3,141 | -3,141 | — |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.2.2026 | 1,513 | -1,513 | — |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.2.2026 | 3,141 | +3,141 | — |
| Jorgensen Steven C. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 321 | -321 | $13.21 |
| Rogers Robert Wade | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 2,329 | -2,329 | $13.21 |
| Rogers Robert Wade | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 1,417 | -1,417 | $13.21 |
| Wright Scott J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 2,096 | -2,096 | $13.21 |
| Rogers Robert Wade | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 1,109 | -1,109 | $13.21 |
| Wright Scott J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 1,250 | -1,250 | $13.21 |
| Wright Scott J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 843 | -843 | $13.21 |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.2.2026 | 1,950 | +1,950 | — |
| Jorgensen Steven C. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 414 | -414 | $13.21 |
| Buberl Jan | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 321 | -321 | $13.21 |
| Jorgensen Steven C. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.2.2026 | 583 | -583 | $13.21 |
| Hansen Steen Weien | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.2.2026 | 1,513 | +1,513 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
12,893,169 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 15,751,882 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
34.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 58.7% 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