For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Dow Inc. (DOW) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-09-11): Designation Low · Gem Score -72 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality -58 · Value -80 · Sentiment -2 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $19.81 vs $29.44 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Dow Inc.
DOW NYSEDow Inc. is a materials science and chemical manufacturing company that develops products and solutions for packaging, infrastructure, mobility, and consumer applications. The company’s portfolio includes plastics, performance materials, coatings, silicones, and industrial intermediates used by manufacturers across a wide range of industries. Dow Inc. operates through segments focused on Packaging & Specialty Plastics, Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure, and Performance Materials & Coatings, supplying inputs used in adhesives, sealants, construction materials, industrial systems, and protective coatings. Its products support downstream customers in sectors such as consumer goods, automotive, construction, electronics, and food and specialty packaging. Headquartered in Midland, Michigan, Dow Inc. plays a significant role in global supply chains as a large-scale provider of essential chemical and materials solutions.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): -3.70
Total Equity: $17.52B
Shares: 711,600,000
Total Debt: $18.16B
Cash: $3.82B
EBITDA: $3.98B
Total Debt: $18.16B
Cash: $3.82B
Revenue: $39.97B
Shares: 711,600,000
Revenue: $39.97B
Revenue: $39.97B
Revenue: $39.97B
Total Equity: $17.52B
Tax Rate: 2.7%
Equity: $17.52B
Total Debt: $18.16B
Cash: $3.82B
Current Liabilities: $9.18B
Long-Term Debt: $17.85B
Total Debt: $18.16B
Total Equity: $17.52B
Shares: 711,600,000
Shares: 711,600,000
CapEx: -$2.48B
Shares: 711,600,000
Stock Price: $29.44
Net Income: -$2.44B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Sep 5, 2026 3:08am (32d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $55.0B | $56.9B | $44.6B | $43.0B | $40.0B |
| Cost of Revenue | $44.2B | $48.3B | $39.7B | $38.4B | $37.4B |
| Gross Profit | $10.8B | $8.6B | $4.9B | $4.6B | $2.5B |
| Operating Expenses | $1.6B | $1.7B | $1.6B | $1.6B | $1.4B |
| Operating Income | $9.1B | $6.9B | $3.3B | $3.0B | $1.1B |
| Net Income | $6.4B | $4.6B | $660.0M | $1.2B | -$2.4B |
| EBITDA | $12.0B | $9.6B | $5.9B | $5.9B | $4.0B |
| EPS | $8.44 | $6.32 | $0.82 | $1.57 | $-3.70 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $8.38 | $6.28 | $0.82 | $1.57 | $-3.70 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Sep 5, 2026 3:00am (32d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $3.0B | $3.9B | $3.0B | $2.2B | $3.8B |
| Total Current Assets | $20.8B | $20.5B | $17.6B | $16.6B | $18.1B |
| Total Assets | $63.0B | $60.6B | $58.0B | $57.3B | $58.5B |
| Current Liabilities | $13.2B | $11.3B | $10.0B | $10.3B | $9.2B |
| Long-Term Debt | $14.3B | $14.7B | $14.9B | $15.7B | $17.8B |
| Total Liabilities | $44.3B | $39.4B | $38.9B | $39.5B | $41.0B |
| Total Equity | $18.7B | $21.2B | $19.1B | $17.9B | $17.5B |
| Retained Earnings | $20.6B | $23.2B | $21.8B | $20.9B | $16.8B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Sep 5, 2026 3:21am (32d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $7.0B | $7.5B | $5.2B | $2.9B | $1.0B |
| Capital Expenditure | -$1.5B | -$1.8B | -$2.4B | -$2.9B | -$2.5B |
| Free Cash Flow | $5.5B | $5.7B | $2.8B | -$26.0M | -$1.4B |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$129.0M | -$228.0M | -$114.0M | -$125.0M | $0 |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | -$259.0M | -$121.0M | -$250.0M | -$83.0M | -$334.0M |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | -$1.0B | -$2.3B | -$625.0M | -$494.0M | $0 |
| Net Change in Cash | -$2.1B | $907.0M | -$892.0M | -$785.0M | $1.7B |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Sep 5, 2026 3:08am (32d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +3.5% | -21.6% | -3.7% | -7.0% |
| Gross Profit Growth | -20.5% | -43.0% | -5.6% | -45.0% |
| Operating Income Growth | -24.6% | -52.8% | -7.0% | -62.3% |
| Net Income Growth | -27.6% | -85.8% | +82.0% | -303.5% |
| EBITDA Growth | -19.4% | -39.2% | +0.9% | -32.8% |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Sep 1, 2026 1:18am (36d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-29 | $0.35 | — | — | — |
| 2026-02-27 | $0.35 | — | — | — |
| 2025-11-28 | $0.35 | — | — | — |
| 2025-08-29 | $0.35 | — | — | — |
| 2025-05-30 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2025-02-28 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2024-11-29 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2024-08-30 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2024-05-31 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2024-02-28 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2023-11-29 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2023-08-30 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2023-05-30 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2023-02-27 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2022-11-29 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2022-08-30 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2022-05-27 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2022-02-25 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2021-11-29 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
| 2021-08-30 | $0.70 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — upside vs downside from this company's own quarters
Computed 2026-09-06 19:06A +1σ run of quarters pays -248%; a −1σ run costs 100%. Ratio -2.5:1 (μ -7.2%, σ 6.3% floored by sector, 16 pairs).
Older method (repeat-worst-quarter): 2.0 : 1
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($29.44) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | -3% | 17.3% | $86.73 | +195% |
| Base — stabilizes | -7% | 15.0% | $65.78 | +123% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | -10% | 12.8% | $48.38 | +64% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | -6% | -6.8% | $0.00 | -100% |
| Upside — a +1σ run of quarters (v2) | -1% | -6.8% | $-43.59 | -248% |
| Stress — a −1σ run of quarters (v2) | -13% | -6.8% | $0.00 | -100% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-09-05 03:30The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.
Claude Reading
The raw tape here is uglier than the "turnaround" framing lets on. Revenue has slid from $56.9B (2021) → $43.0B (2024) → $40.0B (2025), and the 2026 Q1 print of $9.79B annualizes to roughly $39B — still declining, not troughing. More importantly, quarterly net income has gotten *worse* as revenue supposedly stabilizes: Q2'24 +$439M, Q3'24 +$214M, then a string of losses culminating in Q4'25 at -$1.36B and Q1'26 at -$533M. That is not a cycle bottoming; that is margin structure deteriorating even as top-line decline moderates. Gross margin collapsed from 19.6% (2021) to 6.3% (2025) and operating margin from 16.6% to 2.9%. For a commodity petrochemical producer, that's the signature of Chinese ethylene/polyethylene overcapacity eating the marginal ton — the bear case, not the bull.
The balance sheet is where the "deep value" label starts to look aspirational. $18.16B debt vs $3.82B cash, against operating cash flow of just $1.03B and *negative* $1.45B FCF after $2.48B capex. The $2.80/share dividend on $29.44 (4.76% yield) costs roughly $2.0B/year and is uncovered by FCF by a wide margin — management is funding the dividend with the balance sheet. That's a capitulation catalyst the Market Forces model correctly flags as a required precondition. Debt/equity at 1.04x looks manageable until you notice equity is being actively eroded by losses ($2.44B annual NI loss = ~14% of the $17.5B equity base gone in one year). Two more years like 2025 and the covenant conversation becomes real.
Where I diverge from the synthesis: the $14.47 DCF floor feels mechanically punitive. DCF on a trough-earnings cyclical always looks apocalyptic — that's a known failure mode of the method. Mid-cycle Dow did ~$6B EBITDA; at a normalized 6x EV/EBITDA and current net debt of ~$14.3B, equity value would be ~$21.7B or ~$30/share — essentially the current price. So the market isn't pricing "distress-exit," it's pricing "mid-cycle eventually returns, but no premium for it." The synthesis model's -50.8% overvaluation call over-weights trailing DCF; the thesis-eval score of -2 (essentially balanced) is closer to right than the synthesis verdict of "overvalued." That said, the contrarian bull needs to answer why 2025-2026 margins are structurally *below* prior troughs (2015-16, 2019-20 didn't produce sustained negative EBIT), and the honest answer is Chinese capacity additions of 15-20Mt of ethylene since 2020 have permanently shifted the cost curve. That's the bear point weighted 75/100, and I think it's underweighted if anything.
Contrarian read a careful skeptic would push: dividend cut is not a bull catalyst here, it's a symptom — and when it comes (I'd give it >50% probability within 12 months given FCF math), the stock likely trades to $20-22 before basing, because the yield-buyer marginal holder disappears. Conversely, if management preempts with a cut *and* aggressive asset sales (the Sadara stake, European assets already under review), you get the capitulation setup where $22-24 becomes a defensible entry with genuine 2027 mid-cycle upside to $40+. The data is thin on one critical dimension: we don't have segment-level margin trajectory, so we can't distinguish whether Packaging & Specialty Plastics is holding up while Industrial Intermediates collapses (fixable) or whether the whole portfolio is impaired (not fixable at current capacity). I'd also flag that "quarterly trend: accelerating" in Revenue Confidence is misleading — sequential Q4→Q1 growth from $9.46B to $9.79B is seasonal, not a trend break; YoY Q1 is -6.1%.
Net: I partially agree with the synthesis direction (overvalued) but strongly dissent on magnitude. Fair value isn't $14 — it's $22-25 accounting for optionality on cycle recovery and asset value, with $30 requiring either a dividend cut removing the overhang plus visible margin stabilization, or a genuine Chinese capacity rationalization signal. At $29.44 you're paying mid-cycle multiples for trough-of-trough earnings with a dividend that shouldn't exist at current cash generation. Not a short (too much cycle optionality, too much dividend-support buying), but not ownable until either the dividend gets right-sized or the price comes to you sub-$25.
GPT Reading
Dow looks cheap on the wrong metrics and not obviously cheap on the right ones. At $29.44 the equity is worth $21.3 billion, but enterprise value is closer to $35.6 billion once you add $18.2 billion of debt and subtract $3.8 billion of cash. Against that, 2025 generated just $1.14 billion of operating income and only $1.03 billion of operating cash flow, with free cash flow negative $1.45 billion after $2.48 billion of capex. That is the core problem: this is not a temporary earnings optics issue where depreciation or one-off charges obscure cash generation. The business is currently failing to earn its capital base. Revenue has slid from $56.9 billion in 2022 to $40.0 billion in 2025, a 30% drop in three years, while gross profit collapsed from $8.56 billion to $2.53 billion and gross margin from roughly 15.0% to 6.3%. For a capital-intensive chemical producer, a 6% gross margin is not a platform for equity upside; it is a warning that the asset base is under-earning.
The quarterly pattern does not yet support a clean turnaround either. Yes, the most recent quarter improved sequentially: revenue rose to $9.79 billion from $9.46 billion and net loss narrowed to $533 million from a brutal $1.36 billion in the prior quarter. But on a year-over-year basis Q1 2026 revenue was still down 6.1% from $10.43 billion, and profit remained negative versus a $307 million loss a year earlier. Looking across the last eight quarters, revenue has drifted from $10.92 billion to $9.79 billion while net margins swung between +4.0% and -14.4%, with five losses in the last six reported quarters. That is not stabilization in any economic sense; it is a weak-volume, weak-spread business with occasional accounting relief. The “deep value turnaround” framing can be seductive here because price-to-sales is only 0.52x and price-to-book 1.2x, but those multiples are not low enough to compensate for a business producing negative earnings, negative free cash flow, and just 3.5% ROIC.
The dividend is the other hidden issue. A 4.8% yield sounds supportive, but with free cash flow at negative $1.45 billion, that payout is not being funded by internally generated surplus. A cyclical stock can be bought through trough losses if the balance sheet is conservative and capex is optional. Dow has neither luxury. Net debt is about $14.3 billion, debt-to-equity is just over 1.0x, and the company still has to spend materially to maintain and upgrade a large manufacturing footprint. That makes the equity highly exposed to “one more year” of poor spreads. If the cycle snaps back hard, the earnings torque is real; we know this company made $6.41 billion in net income in 2021 and $4.64 billion in 2022. But paying nearly $30 today means underwriting a fairly robust normalization while current data still show deterioration. On my read, the stock is trading more like a mid-cycle asset than a trough asset, even though fundamentals remain trough-like.
The best case against my view is straightforward: chemicals are cyclical, not linear, and Dow has already shown it can earn billions when spreads normalize. If 2025 was the trough, then today’s valuation can compress quickly on recovered EBITDA without much revenue growth. Revenue has not collapsed in the last few quarters so much as flattened around a $9.5-10.1 billion quarterly run rate, and Q1 2026 did improve sequentially from Q4 2025. At 0.88x EV/revenue and 1.2x book, bulls can argue you are buying replacement-cost assets at a discount with substantial operating leverage. They will also point out that current ratio near 2.0x and $3.8 billion of cash mean this is stressed, not distressed. I take that seriously. My issue is that a cyclical recovery thesis usually works best when the stock discounts severe distress. Here the equity still carries a $21 billion market cap despite three straight annual revenue declines, 2025 net losses of $2.44 billion, and negative free cash flow. The balance sheet is good enough to survive, but survival is not the same as undervaluation.
What would change my mind is evidence that this is becoming a cash flow recovery, not just a quarter-to-quarter earnings bounce. Specifically, I would want to see at least two consecutive quarters with positive net income and operating cash flow running at a pace comfortably above capex, ideally annualizing above $2.5-3.0 billion. I would also want gross margin to move decisively off the 6.3% annual trough toward 9-10% and quarterly revenue to return to year-over-year growth rather than merely sequential stabilization. If Dow can show that while holding net debt roughly flat and preserving the dividend without balance-sheet strain, then $29 would look more defensible and possibly cheap. Until then, the stock looks like a cyclical recovery story whose price is ahead of the evidence.
Grok Reading
Dow’s numbers describe a multi-year collapse, not a garden-variety chemical trough. Revenue has slid from $56.9B in 2022 to $39.97B in 2025—a 30% wipeout—while gross profit cratered from $8.56B to $2.53B and operating income from $6.89B to $1.14B. The 2025 net loss of $2.44B and free-cash-flow burn of $1.45B (opex cash flow only $1.03B against $2.48B of capex) arrive with $18.16B of total debt and just $3.82B of cash. Quarterly run-rate has settled in a $9.5–10.1B band with four of the last five quarters in the red; the sole positive print ($62M in Q3 2025) was a rounding error. At $29.44 the equity still commands a $21.3B market cap, 1.20× book and 0.52× sales, with EV/EBITDA near 8.9×. That is not a distressed clearance price for a business whose ROE is –14%, ROIC 3.5%, and whose gross margin has compressed to 6.3%. The market is still capitalizing a recovery that the income statement has not begun to deliver.
The prior models’ $14–15 DCF floor is directionally right even if the precise number is harsh: you are paying roughly a full turn of book for negative economic returns and funding a 4.8% dividend out of a balance sheet that is already levered 1.0× equity while FCF is negative. Chinese overcapacity looks structural in the commodity chains Dow still dominates; three consecutive years of top-line contraction and a –5.4% revenue CAGR are consistent with permanent share loss and price discipline failure, not a clean inventory cycle. Interest coverage on sub-$1.2B of operating income against that debt load is thin; another year of current run-rate keeps refinancing and covenant risk live. I read the stock as overvalued on through-cycle cash generation—closer to the mid-teens to low-twenties on normalized mid-cycle power than to $29—unless margins re-expand in a way the last twelve quarters give no evidence of.
The strongest counter-argument is classic deep-cycle mean reversion. Book equity of $17.5B and a sub-1× sales multiple have historically marked buyable troughs in chemicals; EV/EBITDA of 8.9× is not egregious if 2025 operating income of $1.14B is the trough and mid-cycle earnings can reclaim even half of the $3–6B operating range of 2021–23. Liquidation or sum-of-parts arguments put a hard floor somewhere north of the pure DCF, and the dividend has not yet been cut, which keeps income mandates bid. A smart opponent would also note that cost programs and portfolio pruning could restore FCF faster than revenue recovers, and that a synchronized global re-acceleration would re-rate the entire group. I weigh that less heavily because the gross-margin collapse (from nearly 20% peak to 6%) and the persistence of negative FCF while still distributing cash look more like structural impairment than temporary pain; the “cycle bottom” call has already been early for several years.
I would flip to constructive on two hard prints: sequential revenue stabilization above $10.5B with gross margin back above 11–12%, and a return to sustainably positive free cash flow (north of $1B) without a dividend cut that signals distress. Evidence that Chinese capacity is being rationalized—rather than still being added—would also matter. Until those show up, $29 is paying for a narrative recovery the cash flows refuse to confirm.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Dow's operating results have deteriorated sharply across the four-year window. Revenue has fallen from $54.97B (2021) to $39.97B (2025), gross margin has compressed from 19.6% to 6.3%, and operating margin from 16.6% to 2.9%. Net income swung from $6.41B to a $2.44B loss, and free cash flow has gone from $5.51B to -$1.45B. This is a textbook commodity chemicals down-cycle, but the depth and duration (three consecutive years of margin compression) suggests structural pressure (energy costs, oversupply, weak polyethylene/olefin pricing) on top of cyclicality. Earnings integrity itself looks clean: OCF/NI of 2.52x, accruals -4.5% of assets, Beneish M at -2.4 - no signs of cosmetic accounting. The problem is real, not fabricated. Balance sheet is the pinch point: net debt of ~$14.4B against $3.82B liquid cash, Altman Z of 1.64 in the distress zone, and only ~10.5 quarters of runway at current burn. Management is a net repurchaser (share count -1.3% CAGR to 711.6M) which is disciplined for per-share value but questionable given the leverage and negative FCF - buybacks are being funded with debt or cash reserves, not earnings. No forensic red flags on earnings quality, but the durability question is live.
Verify before trusting this (6)
- Debt maturity wall and covenant terms - when do near-term maturities hit and are there coverage covenants at risk?
- Dividend policy sustainability given negative FCF - is the payout being funded by debt?
- Segment-level margins (Packaging and Specialty Plastics vs Industrial Intermediates vs Performance Materials) to isolate where the pain concentrates
- Capex profile and whether any large growth projects (e.g., Path2Zero) can be deferred to preserve cash
- Ethane/naphtha cost position and any structural changes in feedstock advantage
- Any pending asset sales or JV monetizations that could shore up liquidity
The composite fair value sits at $15.17 (signal-adjusted $14.47) with DCF at $9.11 and an EPV floor of $17.87 - every method screams the $29.44 print is roughly double deserved value. Even if I generously anchor on the EPV floor of ~$18 (which assumes normalized earnings power the company is currently nowhere near delivering), the stock is ~60% too expensive. The bull case requires a synchronized global chemicals recovery plus margin normalization plus deleveraging, and the market appears to already be paying for that outcome in full. Layer on the Shaky quality read - 6.3% gross margins, FCF turned deeply negative, ~$14B net debt, Altman in distress zone - and deserved value should be haircut, not marked up, for cyclical and balance-sheet risk. A commodity producer in a trough with leverage does not deserve a premium to EPV; it deserves a discount. The ~7% dividend yield is likely propping up the price, but with FCF negative that yield is being funded by the balance sheet, which is not a durable support. This is a turnaround bet priced as if the turnaround has already happened.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Management guidance on 2025 volume/price recovery and specific end-market signals (packaging, construction, auto)
- Dividend sustainability commentary and any hint of a cut - would reset the floor
- Deleveraging plan and asset-sale proceeds vs debt maturity wall
- Segment-level margin trajectory to see if the trough is actually inflecting or still deepening
The tape is mildly risk-on (VIX 14.5, S&P near highs) but DOW's low 0.42 beta means the market regime barely moves this name either way. What is actually pressing on the stock is the narrative: a turnaround-bet story with strong intensity, freshly reinforced by news flow flagging a 30% YTD rally, cost cuts, and feedstock advantages. That is a real sentiment tailwind, and analyst/press tone has clearly turned constructive on operational execution. However, durability is flagged as fragile - this is a story stock right now, and story stocks with commodity-chemical underpinnings can flip fast on any demand data point. Rates at 4.77% and a stretched market PE are a structural headwind for cyclicals like Dow, but that pressure is being overwhelmed in the short term by the recovery narrative. Net-net, the non-fundamental push is upward, but on thin ice - the same story that lifted it can crack on one bad PMI print or ethylene margin update.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Ethylene/polyethylene spread data and any Q3 pre-announcement - the single biggest crack risk to the turnaround narrative
- Sell-side target revisions following the 30% YTD move - are estimates chasing price or leading it
- Global PMI prints and China demand signals that underpin the 'demand normalizes' bull thesis
- Dividend coverage commentary - any hint of cut risk would instantly flip sentiment
This is a supply-cycle problem dressed as a demand problem. The world added enormous ethylene/polyethylene and polyurethane capacity in China and the Middle East into a period of soft industrial demand and high real rates; global operating rates fell and integrated margins compressed industry-wide (-6.3pp operating, -7.1pp net over three years). Dow's exposure is unavoidable — it sells molecules priced off global marginal cost — but its US ethane feedstock position and integration place it above the marginal producer, which is why it is losing less than the industry. The rebalancing mechanism is real but slow: capacity closures (Dow's own European shutdowns are part of it) plus demand normalization tighten the market, but consensus industry views put that no earlier than 2027. Meanwhile high long rates suppress the construction/auto/durables demand that the higher-margin infrastructure and coatings segments need. So the honest world read: the floor is being built through cost removal and industry curtailment, not through a demand upswing that anyone can yet point to.
When we made this prediction on Sep 5, 2026, DOW was $29.44. We expect it to be $23.10 by Mar 2027, and we consider it great value under $16.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Sep 5, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.
Post-Report Due Diligence NOTES
Evidence for a closer look, not a verdict — no score or designation on this page has been changed by it. Items marked material are ones where a conclusion above moves to the other side of the price.
cost_of_capital
flips down 25%