Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$15.43
▼ $0.62 (-3.9%)
Market data updated: 09/30 02:43 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/29/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$1.76B
Day Range
$15.38 - $16.17
52-Week Range
$15.38 - $30.46
Beta
—
Next Earnings
22.10.2026
Support
$15.42
Resistance
$24.82
OLN is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-36.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 1/32 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $5.37 vs. price $15.43 (-65.2%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
27
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
34
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
6
Risk
28
Sentiment
38
Fundamental
19
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.
Recent media coverage of Olin Corporation has centered on its planned merger with Huntsman Corporation, which received shareholder approval in late August 2026. Analysts highlight potential earnings growth and cost-cutting benefits from the $12.5 billion deal, though concerns remain about weak demand, leverage, and cash flow. Some reports suggest Olin’s stock remains undervalued despite recent price declines.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Olin Corporation. News trend score: 38. Reason: 4 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
29
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
92
Fundamentals
19
Technical
6
Valuation
38
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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)
-21%
Market Narrative
40
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
+0
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant Loss Aversion (61) reflects a market behavior consistent with traders prioritizing avoiding further losses after a 29.2% drop over three months. Overconfidence (45) hints at some investors holding onto overvalued positions (+223% vs. DCF), possibly anchoring near recent lows (3.7% from support). The narrative gap (13) suggests traders may be misaligning expectations with fundamentals. The key question is whether the stock’s proximity to support (3.7%) will trigger defensive buying or if overconfidence persists despite weak momentum. The absence of panic (19) and FOMO (4) suggests caution rather than extreme behavior.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:43 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Huntsman stockholders approved the company’s proposed merger agreement with Olin Corporation"
"$12.5 billion chemicals combination targeting more than $400 million in benefits"
"Olin and Huntsman's shareholders overwhelmingly back their all-stock merger"
"Deutsche Bank analyst lowers Olin price target from $30 to $20"
📈 3D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Howard Marks' market‑cycle principles, the model estimates the stock sits in an early‑to‑mid cycle and is not overextended, a view echoed by Samuel Nelson’s oversold assessment and Charles Mackay’s lack of crowd mania. Mid‑range scores from Jack Schwager, Graham’s enterprising approach, and Edgar Lawrence Smith suggest a modest discount or reasonable profile but no clear long‑term edge. In contrast, lower scores from the broader Marks assessment, efficient‑market reasoning, Livermore’s trend rule, Veblen’s growth‑for‑its‑own‑sake warning, Graham’s defensive criteria, Fisher, and Lynch indicate concerns about valuation, trend weakness, and missing quality‑growth characteristics. The very low scores from Loeb, Bagehot, and Morgan Housel highlight perceived capital‑risk, liquidity, and volatility issues that would deter those investors.
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 99
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 65
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
🟡 57
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 48
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 29
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 25
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 17
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)
🔴 17
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 7
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 288 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.
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
7.4%
Operating Margin
0.1%
Net Margin
-1.5%
EBITDA Margin
7.8%
ROE
-5.5%
ROA
-1.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.88
Cash
$167.60M
Total Debt
$2.83B
Current Ratio
1.21
Debt/Equity
1.54
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 27.8.2026 | $0.200 |
| 14.5.2026 | $0.200 |
| 13.5.2026 | $0.200 |
| 3.3.2026 | $0.200 |
| 2.3.2026 | $0.200 |
| 28.11.2025 | $0.200 |
| 27.11.2025 | $0.200 |
| 28.8.2025 | $0.200 |
| 27.8.2025 | $0.200 |
| 15.5.2025 | $0.200 |
| 14.5.2025 | $0.200 |
| 6.3.2025 | $0.200 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$15.43
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$5.37
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-65.2%
🔴 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% | $235.50M | $216.06M |
| 2 | -3.1% | $228.15M | $192.03M |
| 3 | -1.2% | $225.29M | $173.97M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $226.70M | $160.60M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $232.37M | $151.02M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$247.90M
Terminal Value
$3.66B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.38B
Enterprise Value
$3.28B
Net Debt
$2.66B
Equity Value
$615.51M
*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
$16.05
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2.07
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 2 positive, 14 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Fintel · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
PR Newswire · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 27.8.2026
MarketBeat · 27.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 25.8.2026
Olin Corporation (OLN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 27/100, 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.
OLN currently scores 27/100 (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, OLN's estimated fair value is $5.37, which is 65.2% below the current price of $15.43. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
OLN's technical score is 6/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $5.37 vs. price $15.43 (-65.2%); Net margin: -1.5% (negative); ATR: 4.0% of price.
Yes — OLN 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carter Deon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.6.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | — |
| Carter Deon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 17.6.2026 | 609 | -609 | $24.13 |
| Carter Deon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.6.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | — |
| Kohl Florian J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 1,250 | -1,250 | — |
| Kohl Florian J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 492 | -492 | $25.67 |
| Kohl Florian J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| Kohl Florian J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 8,441 | +1,250 | — |
| Kohl Florian J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 7,949 | -492 | $25.67 |
| Kohl Florian J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.6.2026 | 2,500 | -1,250 | — |
| Kohl Florian J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.5.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | — |
| Kohl Florian J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 819 | -819 | $27.07 |
| Kohl Florian J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.5.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | — |
| Kohl Florian J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.5.2026 | 8,010 | +2,500 | — |
| Kohl Florian J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 7,191 | -819 | $27.07 |
| Kohl Florian J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.5.2026 | 0 | -2,500 | — |
| Ehrhardt Marc | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.5.2026 | 5,206 | -5,206 | — |
| Ehrhardt Marc | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.5.2026 | 2,500 | -2,500 | — |
| Ehrhardt Marc | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.5.2026 | 2,500 | +2,500 | — |
| Ehrhardt Marc | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.5.2026 | 5,206 | +5,206 | — |
| Ehrhardt Marc | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.5.2026 | 1,877 | -1,877 | $28.48 |
| Weideman William H | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 7,023 | +7,023 | $28.48 |
| Williams Carol A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 7,023 | +7,023 | $28.48 |
| Babcock Beverley A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 4,916 | +4,916 | $28.48 |
| Babcock Beverley A | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 2,107 | +2,107 | $28.48 |
| Darnall Matthew S | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 10,535 | +10,535 | $28.48 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
12,914,192 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 11,550,219 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.5% 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