Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Materials · ·
$84.40
▲ $0.16 (+0.2%)
Market data updated: 09/17 12:39 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$21.53B
Day Range
$83.69 - $85.17
52-Week Range
$59.14 - $89.32
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
IFF is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
+30.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/31 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.42
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$7.67 vs. price $84.40 (-109.1%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
84/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
91/100
Analog Quality
+1.2%
Median 40D Outcome
60/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+3.9% … +7.3%
🟡 Base
13%
-0.6% … -0.1%
🔴 Bearish
27%
-14.0% … -1.8%
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, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +3.3%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
1 occurrence(s) · 100% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
2 occurrence(s) · 0% 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%) | +0.2% | -0.7% … +1.9% | +0.2% |
| 10D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -0.9% … +3.9% | +0.2% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +3.3% | -1.1% … +6.6% | +0.5% |
| 40D | 53% (30%–75%) | +1.2% | -5.8% … +5.1% | +0.6% |
| 60D | 47% (25%–70%) | -1.1% | -9.9% … +7.8% | -1.2% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-05-15 | 84/100 | Consolidation | +10.6% | -9.6% |
| 2024-05-01 | 79/100 | ✓ Uptrend | +13.8% | +18.5% |
| 2019-07-03 | 79/100 | Uptrend | -2.0% | -17.3% |
| 2018-10-16 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +3.9% | -2.9% |
| 2024-06-27 | 77/100 | Uptrend | +3.3% | +8.1% |
| 2024-01-12 | 76/100 | Uptrend | +0.1% | +7.4% |
| 2018-08-22 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +6.3% | +8.3% |
| 2024-06-04 | 76/100 | Uptrend | -1.3% | +6.9% |
| 2022-12-22 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +7.3% | -19.6% |
| 2024-08-14 | 76/100 | Consolidation | +7.0% | -5.9% |
| 2023-05-03 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -18.7% | -10.2% |
| 2021-07-21 | 75/100 | Consolidation | +4.5% | +2.3% |
| 2021-08-25 | 75/100 | Consolidation | -12.4% | -1.1% |
| 2024-09-12 | 74/100 | Uptrend | -0.8% | -14.0% |
| 2024-02-12 | 74/100 | Consolidation | +1.1% | +21.1% |
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
🐂🐻 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
26
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
56
Risk
48
Sentiment
38
Fundamental
32
Institutional
44
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING IFF...
Recent media coverage of **International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF)** has centered on its stock performance, regulatory scrutiny, and strategic shifts. The company has faced a **second antitrust probe in India**, while research highlights how **GLP-1 medications are altering consumer food preferences** in India, influencing industry trends. Additionally, there’s discussion about **insider selling**, **potential stock dilution from divestitures**, and CEO Erik Fyrwald’s upcoming appearance at the **Barclays Global Consumer Conference**. Analysts debate whether IFF’s stock can rebound amid these developments.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about International Flavors & Fragrances. News trend score: 38. Reason: 5 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 3 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
10
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
12
Fundamentals
32
Technical
56
Valuation
38
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, 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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
35
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
-2
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior reflects IFF’s relative underperformance today, with traders aligning to peers despite mixed fundamentals. Overconfidence and confirmation bias may amplify selective optimism, while anchoring near resistance hints at tactical positioning. The key tension lies between narrative-driven narratives (+7 gap) and deteriorating fundamentals, raising whether herding is driven by momentum chasing or defensive alignment. Open questions include whether traders will pivot if peers diverge further or if anchoring near resistance triggers a breakout/reversal.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:52 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"IFF released new research examining how GLP-1 use is influencing food behaviors among Indian consumers"
"International Flavors & Fragrances facing second antitrust probe in India"
"Chief Executive Officer Erik Fyrwald will participate in a fireside chat at the Barclays Global Consumer Conference"
"International Flavors & Fragrances insider sold shares worth $475,692"
📈 6D 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 — 83/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The methodologies for IFF split sharply between cautious optimism and outright skepticism, reflecting starkly different priorities. Charles Mackay’s high score suggests the stock lacks obvious crowd-driven mania, while Howard Marks leans toward a balanced risk assessment, though his cycle-focused model flags it as mid-cycle. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s stricter valuation tests and his enterprising investor variant both reject the stock as too expensive or statistically unappealing. On the other end, Fisher, Veblen, and Lynch dismiss it outright—Fisher for lacking quality/growth, Veblen for signaling speculative excess, and Lynch for failing his growth-at-a-reasonable-price test. Even the more neutral approaches (like Schwager or Housel) acknowledge moderate holdability but no clear edge, while Walter Bagehot and Nelson warn of liquidity and overbought risks. The divide underscores whether the stock’s fundamentals or market positioning justify entry at all.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 83
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)
🟢 74
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 66
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 64
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 57
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 55
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 45
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 41
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 41
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 40
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)
🔴 27
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 21
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 4 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 clear uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low 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
36.2%
Operating Margin
-3.5%
Net Margin
-3.3%
EBITDA Margin
5.3%
ROE
-2.5%
ROA
-1.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.41
Cash
$590.00M
Total Debt
$5.99B
Current Ratio
1.42
Debt/Equity
0.42
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 18.6.2026 | $0.400 |
| 17.6.2026 | $0.400 |
| 20.3.2026 | $0.400 |
| 19.3.2026 | $0.400 |
| 19.12.2025 | $0.400 |
| 18.12.2025 | $0.400 |
| 29.9.2025 | $0.400 |
| 28.9.2025 | $0.400 |
| 20.6.2025 | $0.400 |
| 19.6.2025 | $0.400 |
| 21.3.2025 | $0.400 |
| 20.3.2025 | $0.400 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$84.40
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$7.67
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-109.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-4.3%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -4.3% | $245.03M | $224.80M |
| 2 | -2.6% | $238.69M | $200.90M |
| 3 | -0.9% | $236.56M | $182.67M |
| 4 | 0.8% | $238.46M | $168.93M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $244.42M | $158.86M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$256.00M
Terminal Value
$3.85B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.51B
Enterprise Value
$3.44B
Net Debt
$5.40B
Equity Value
$-1.96B
*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
$55.29
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.62
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 12 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 14.9.2026
Fintel · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 3.9.2026
Zacks · 3.9.2026
MT Newswires · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Business Wire · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 19.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.8.2026
Yahoo · 18.8.2026
Business Wire · 18.8.2026
Yahoo · 18.8.2026
Barchart · 18.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) 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.
IFF 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, IFF's estimated fair value is -$7.67, which is 109.1% below the current price of $84.40. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
IFF's technical score is 56/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.42; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$7.67 vs. price $84.40 (-109.1%); Operating margin: -3.5% (negative); Net margin: -3.3% (negative).
Yes — IFF 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 — 4 purchases and 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teles de Mendonca Ana Paula | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 5,718 | -5,718 | $83.19 |
| Birenkrant Marc | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | $85.00 |
| Birenkrant Marc | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 3,446 | -1,000 | $85.00 |
| DeVeau Michael | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 8,825 | -8,825 | $85.55 |
| DeVeau Michael | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 5,199 | -8,825 | $85.55 |
| FRIBOURG PAUL J | Open Market Purchase | 1.6.2026 | 13,500 | +13,500 | $74.49 |
| FRIBOURG PAUL J | Open Market Purchase | 1.6.2026 | 260,000 | +260,000 | $74.28 |
| FRIBOURG PAUL J | Open Market Purchase | 1.6.2026 | 43,150 | +13,500 | $74.49 |
| FRIBOURG PAUL J | Open Market Purchase | 1.6.2026 | 2,682,730 | +260,000 | $74.28 |
| Borg Deborah | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.5.2026 | 713 | -713 | $70.09 |
| DeVeau Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.5.2026 | 452 | -452 | $70.09 |
| DeVeau Michael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 884 | -884 | $70.09 |
| Borg Deborah | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 1,768 | +1,768 | — |
| Birenkrant Marc | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 389 | -389 | $70.09 |
| Birenkrant Marc | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.5.2026 | 141 | -141 | $70.09 |
| Borg Deborah | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 1,768 | -1,768 | $70.09 |
| Birenkrant Marc | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 389 | +389 | — |
| DeVeau Michael | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 884 | +884 | — |
| Finzel Ralf | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.5.2026 | 734 | -734 | $70.09 |
| Teles de Mendonca Ana Paula | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.5.2026 | 362 | -362 | $70.09 |
| Finzel Ralf | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 1,326 | +1,326 | — |
| Teles de Mendonca Ana Paula | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 708 | -708 | $70.09 |
| Finzel Ralf | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 1,326 | -1,326 | $70.09 |
| Teles de Mendonca Ana Paula | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 708 | +708 | — |
| Borg Deborah | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 4.5.2026 | 38,638 | +1,768 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
16,147,089 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 16,410,025 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
55.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 69.3% 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