Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Energy · ·
$52.30
▼ $1.90 (-3.5%)
Market data updated: 09/17 04:58 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/17/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$77.62B
Day Range
$51.56 - $54.29
52-Week Range
$31.64 - $60.46
Beta
—
Next Earnings
16.10.2026
SLB is a stock from the Energy sector — Oil, gas, and renewable energy — highly volatile profitability, dependent on global commodity prices.
+48.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/29 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 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
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.11 (3y annualized return -5.1% / max drawdown 48.2%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
81/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-4.9%
Median 40D Outcome
68/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
27%
+4.1% … +5.9%
🟡 Base
7%
+0.1% … +0.1%
🔴 Bearish
67%
-9.2% … -3.3%
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, 27% (95% CI 11%–52%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -3.2%.
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 | 47% (25%–70%) | +0.6% | -5.5% … +4.3% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 47% (25%–70%) | -0.3% | -6.7% … +2.4% | +0.2% |
| 20D | 27% (11%–52%) | -3.2% | -7.4% … +1.5% | +0.4% |
| 40D | 27% (11%–52%) | -4.9% | -7.7% … +3.1% | +0.2% |
| 60D | 40% (20%–64%) | -3.8% | -9.1% … +16.6% | -0.6% |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-02-05 | 81/100 | Uptrend | -6.6% | -3.8% |
| 2024-08-02 | 80/100 | Downtrend | -2.1% | -7.9% |
| 2021-03-23 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -3.5% | +21.7% |
| 2023-03-10 | 80/100 | Consolidation | -1.9% | -7.9% |
| 2021-06-18 | 80/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -14.8% | -11.6% |
| 2023-02-03 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +5.1% | -12.3% |
| 2023-04-26 | 78/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -3.2% | +19.3% |
| 2024-10-18 | 77/100 | Downtrend | +3.0% | -2.0% |
| 2026-06-17 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -6.6% | +5.9% |
| 2021-10-29 | 76/100 | Uptrend | -8.1% | +23.4% |
| 2023-02-22 | 76/100 | ✓ Consolidation | -9.6% | -14.4% |
| 2023-10-04 | 75/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +0.1% | -6.8% |
| 2025-04-03 | 75/100 | Downtrend | -11.4% | -10.2% |
| 2026-03-04 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +4.5% | +13.9% |
| 2025-11-20 | 74/100 | ✓ Consolidation | +8.2% | +46.5% |
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 XLE (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
45
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
63
Value
50
Momentum
36
Risk
48
Sentiment
26
Fundamental
61
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING SLB...
Recent media coverage of SLB focuses on major strategic acquisitions, market performance, and insider trading. The company announced a 4.1 billion
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Schlumberger. News trend score: 26. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 4 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
25
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
80
Fundamentals
61
Technical
36
Valuation
50
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+9%
Market Narrative
19
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
-23
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests **FOMO** dominates as momentum (+7.4% ROC), volume (1.47x avg), and positive sentiment (62/100) align, despite RSI remaining moderate. The narrative gap (+14) and overvaluation (+6% vs. DCF) hint at confirmation bias, but no extreme euphoria or anchoring. The key question: will momentum sustain or falter as valuation gaps widen? Peer underperformance (-0.7% vs. +1.0%) further isolates SLB, reducing herd-driven flows.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 02:26 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"SLB announced on August 31 that it will acquire Kelvion... with a strategic focus on serving data centers. The deal comes as part of SLB's $4.1 billion bet on the AI data center boom."
"SLB has acquired S&P Global's upstream energy software portfolio... expanding its digital offering by combining its software tools with access to S&P Global Energy data."
"SLB stock has slightly underperformed the S&P 500 index’s returns over the past three months."
📈 7D 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 — 93/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock splits the historical methodologies into two starkly opposing camps: the bullish camp, led by Jesse Livermore’s high-scoring 'Positive trend' verdict, sees clear momentum and price action worth following, while Edgar Lawrence Smith and Charles Mackay also lean positive, framing it as a long-term hold or a speculative crowd-driven opportunity. Meanwhile, the bearish majority—including Fisher, Graham, and Veblen—rejects the stock outright, with Fisher and Graham dismissing it for lacking quality or defensive value, while Veblen flags it as growth-driven without substance. The middle ground, represented by Marks and Schwager, acknowledges some merits but warns of overvaluation or lack of clear edge, while the most cautious investors like Bagehot and Nelson see liquidity risks or overbought conditions. The divergence reflects a clash between momentum-driven traders (Livermore) and fundamental skeptics (Graham, Fisher), with even the 'buy-and-hold' advocates (Smith) struggling to overcome the outright rejections from the most rigorous value investors.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 93
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)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 75
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 63
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 45
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 43
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 42
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 41
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
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)
🟡 40
No clear edge either way
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)
🔴 33
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 32
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)
🔴 29
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)
🔴 28
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 16
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
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 (2 bullish · 7 bearish · 2 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
9.4%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
12.9%
ROA
6.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$2.38
Cash
—
Total Debt
$9.74B
Current Ratio
1.33
Debt/Equity
0.37
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 2.9.2026 | $0.295 |
| 3.6.2026 | $0.295 |
| 2.6.2026 | $0.295 |
| 11.2.2026 | $0.295 |
| 10.2.2026 | $0.295 |
| 3.12.2025 | $0.285 |
| 2.12.2025 | $0.285 |
| 3.9.2025 | $0.285 |
| 2.9.2025 | $0.285 |
| 4.6.2025 | $0.285 |
| 3.6.2025 | $0.285 |
| 5.2.2025 | $0.285 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$52.30
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$53.62
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+2.5%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
8.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.6% | $5.21B | $4.78B |
| 2 | 7.1% | $5.58B | $4.69B |
| 3 | 5.6% | $5.89B | $4.55B |
| 4 | 4.0% | $6.13B | $4.34B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $6.28B | $4.08B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$4.79B
Terminal Value
$99.01B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$64.35B
Enterprise Value
$86.79B
Net Debt
$9.74B
Equity Value
$77.05B
*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
$18.17
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.01
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 8 neutral, 8 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
CNBC · 14.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Motley Fool · 8.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Barchart · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 7.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Schlumberger (SLB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
SLB currently scores 45/100 (Moderate) 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, SLB's estimated fair value is $53.62, which is 2.5% above the current price of $52.30. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SLB's technical score is 36/100, 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; Debt/equity: 0.37; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.11 (3y annualized return -5.1% / max drawdown 48.2%); Revenue growth (last year): -1.6%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -24.4%.
Yes — SLB 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 13 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 35,000 | -35,000 | $60.00 |
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 1,331,328 | -5,000 | $60.00 |
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 31.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $60.00 |
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 1,336,328 | -5,000 | $55.00 |
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $55.00 |
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 1,341,328 | -25,000 | $52.55 |
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | $52.55 |
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 27.5.2026 | 25,000 | -25,000 | $56.99 |
| Le Peuch Olivier | Open Market Sale | 27.5.2026 | 1,366,328 | -25,000 | $56.99 |
| de La Chevardiere Patrick | Open Market Sale | 7.5.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | $54.33 |
| de La Chevardiere Patrick | Open Market Sale | 7.5.2026 | 16,953 | -2,000 | $54.33 |
| Gassen Steve Matthew | Open Market Sale | 1.5.2026 | 20,000 | -20,000 | $56.16 |
| Narayanan Vanitha | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 3,428 | +3,428 | — |
| Gassen Steve Matthew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.5.2026 | 21,980 | -21,980 | — |
| Gassen Steve Matthew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.5.2026 | 11,399 | +11,399 | $41.47 |
| Leupold Samuel Georg Friedrich | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 3,428 | +3,428 | — |
| HACKETT JAMES T | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 5,450 | +5,450 | — |
| de La Chevardiere Patrick | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 3,428 | +3,428 | — |
| Sheets Jeffrey Wayne | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 3,428 | +3,428 | — |
| Gassen Steve Matthew | Open Market Sale | 1.5.2026 | 33,379 | -33,379 | $56.19 |
| Moraeus Hanssen Maria | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 3,428 | +3,428 | — |
| Gassen Steve Matthew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.5.2026 | 21,980 | +21,980 | $38.75 |
| Galuccio Miguel Matias | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 3,428 | +3,428 | — |
| Gassen Steve Matthew | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 1.5.2026 | 11,399 | -11,399 | — |
| Coleman Peter John | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 3,428 | +3,428 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
55,077,331 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 55,956,633 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
46.2% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 43.6% 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