Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Aug 11, 2026
12 days ago · 100% complete
NOT DEPENDABLE This report predates a filing — its financial basis has been replaced.
Report generated: Aug 11, 2026 · Filing on record since: Aug 19, 2026 · 8 days after
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Valero Energy Corporation (VLO) — 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 2026-08-23): Designation Low · Gem Score -29 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 18 · Value -67 · Sentiment 10 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $340.27 vs $314.95 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 cap
  • extended-analysisthe core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memo
  • future-predictions — our forward price-band predictions
  • market-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.

Valero Energy Corporation

VLO NYSE
Energy · Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing
San Antonio, TX 78249, United States valero.com Updated Aug 10, 11:55am
Price
$312.09
Market Cap
$85.9B
Employees
9,785
Beta
0.55
Avg Volume
2,977,897
Last Dividend
$4.73
CEO
Mr. R. Lane Riggs

Valero Energy Corporation is an American energy company that focuses on manufacturing and marketing transportation fuels and petrochemical products. Headquartered in San Antonio, Texas and founded in 1980, Valero operates an extensive network of petroleum refineries, ethanol plants, and renewable diesel facilities across the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other international markets. The company’s core products include gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, distillates, asphalt and various petrochemicals, serving wholesale, retail, industrial and commercial customers in multiple regions. Valero’s business is organized into three main segments: Refining, Renewable Diesel and Ethanol, reflecting its presence in both traditional hydrocarbons and lower-carbon liquid fuels. Through these segments, Valero plays a significant role in global fuel supply chains, converting crude oil and other feedstocks into essential energy products that support transportation, industry and everyday economic activity. Its scale and integrated logistics make Valero one of the most prominent independent refiners and fuel manufacturers in the energy market today.

Runs with full report Generated: Aug 11, 2026 12:43am
Price Overview
Price at report time
$314.95
as of Aug 11, 12:40am (12d ago)
Change · Aug 11
+16.64 (+5.58%)
Day Range
$301.35 – $315.88
52-Week Range
$130.78 – $320.24
50-Day MA
$277.69
200-Day MA
$222.98
Volume
2,448,412.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 12d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 287,930,971.00
Float 286,041,536.00
Free Float 99.3%
High free float — 99.3% of shares trade freely, ~0.7% held by insiders/institutions
Very liquid — most shares trade freely. Low insider ownership can mean less management alignment, but makes large position sizing straightforward.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 12:50am (12d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Aug 9, 2026 4:05am (14d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
TD Twelve Data statement HEX SEC filing
Industry comparison last run: Aug 11, 2026 12:41am
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
41.23
Stock Price: $312.09
EPS (Diluted): 7.57
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
3.62
Stock Price: $312.09
Total Equity: $26.61B
Shares: 309,000,000
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
15.19
Market Cap: $85.89B
Total Debt: $9.21B
Cash: $4.69B
EBITDA: $6.34B
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$96.3B
Market Cap: $85.89B
Total Debt: $9.21B
Cash: $4.69B
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
4.4%
Gross Profit: $5.43B
Revenue: $122.69B
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
2.6%
Operating Income: $3.18B
Revenue: $122.69B
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
1.9%
Net Income: $2.35B
Revenue: $122.69B
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
8.8%
Net Income: $2.35B
Total Equity: $26.61B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
7.6%
Operating Income: $3.18B
Tax Rate: 25.3%
Equity: $26.61B
Total Debt: $9.21B
Cash: $4.69B
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
1.65
Current Assets: $23.21B
Current Liabilities: $14.11B
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
0.35
Short-Term Debt: $949.00M
Long-Term Debt: $8.26B
Total Debt: $9.21B
Total Equity: $26.61B
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$397.05
Revenue: $122.69B
Shares: 309,000,000
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$86.10
Total Equity: $26.61B
Shares: 309,000,000
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$18.85
Operating CF: $5.83B
CapEx: $0.00
Shares: 309,000,000
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
TD
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
1.5%
Last Dividend: $4.73
Stock Price: $312.09
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
59.8%
Dividends Paid: -$1.41B
Net Income: $2.35B
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Aug 11, 2026 12:41am
Compares VLO against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 9, 2026 4:05am (14d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $114.0B $176.4B $144.8B $129.9B $122.7B
Cost of Revenue $110.8B $159.6B $131.8B $125.1B $117.3B
Gross Profit $3.1B $16.8B $12.9B $4.8B $5.4B
Operating Expenses $999.0M $1.1B $1.1B $1.1B $2.3B
Operating Income $2.1B $15.7B $11.9B $3.8B $3.2B
Net Income $930.0M $11.5B $8.8B $2.8B $2.3B
EBITDA $4.5B $18.2B $14.6B $6.5B $6.3B
EPS $2.27 $29.05 $24.93 $8.58 $7.57
EPS (Diluted) $2.27 $29.04 $24.92 $8.58 $7.57
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 6, 2026 7:41am (17d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $4.1B $4.9B $5.4B $4.7B $4.7B
Total Current Assets $21.2B $24.1B $26.2B $23.7B $23.2B
Total Assets $57.9B $61.0B $63.1B $60.1B $58.0B
Current Liabilities $16.9B $17.5B $16.8B $15.5B $14.1B
Long-Term Debt $12.0B $9.2B $9.2B $8.1B $8.3B
Total Liabilities $38.1B $35.5B $34.5B $32.6B $31.4B
Total Equity $19.8B $25.5B $28.5B $27.5B $26.6B
Retained Earnings $28.3B $38.2B $45.6B $47.0B $48.0B
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 9, 2026 4:05am (14d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow $5.9B $12.6B $9.2B $6.7B $5.8B
Capital Expenditure -$2.5B -$2.7B -$1.9B -$2.1B
Free Cash Flow $3.4B $9.8B $7.3B $4.6B
Acquisitions (net)
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid)
Dividends Paid -$1.6B -$1.6B -$1.5B -$1.4B -$1.4B
Stock Buybacks -$27.0M -$4.6B -$5.1B -$2.9B -$2.6B
Net Change in Cash $809.0M $740.0M $562.0M -$595.0M $36.0M
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 9, 2026 4:05am (14d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth +54.8% -17.9% -10.3% -5.5%
Gross Profit Growth +436.8% -23.0% -62.8% +13.0%
Operating Income Growth +636.6% -24.4% -68.3% -15.3%
Net Income Growth +1,139.6% -23.4% -68.6% -15.2%
EBITDA Growth +300.5% -19.8% -55.2% -2.9%
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 6, 2026 7:41am (17d ago)
Date Dividend Declaration Record Payment
2026-07-31 $1.20
2026-05-21 $1.20
2026-02-05 $1.20
2025-11-20 $1.13
2025-07-31 $1.13
2025-05-20 $1.13
2025-01-30 $1.13
2024-11-20 $1.07
2024-08-01 $1.07
2024-05-30 $1.07
2024-01-31 $1.07
2023-11-16 $1.02
2023-08-02 $1.02
2023-05-22 $1.02
2023-02-13 $1.02
2022-11-16 $0.98
2022-08-03 $0.98
2022-05-11 $0.98
2022-02-02 $0.98
2021-11-17 $0.98
0Company Classification 1Industry Landscape 2Company Momentum 3Forward Projection 4aDCF Valuation 4bEarnings Power Value 4cAnchored PE 4dReverse DCF 4eRevenue-Based DCF 4fAnchored P/S 4gScenario Analysis 4hDividend Discount Model 4iBook Value Analysis 4jInsider Activity 4fCash Flow Quality 4gDebt Maturity Risk 4hMacro Environment 4iSector Intelligence 4jRevenue Confidence 4kSensitivity Analysis 4lSector Demand Cycle 5AI Investigation 5bThesis Evaluation 6Valuation Synthesis
computed not applicable not yet run 16 computed · 7 not applicable · 1 not yet run
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 11:15
15.7 : 1 recovery upside vs repeat-quarter downside
Recovery pays +157%; another quarter like the worst recent one costs 10%. Ratio 15.6:1.
CaseGrowthMarginFair valuevs price ($314.95)
Bull — recovery +16% 9.2% $808.81 +157%
Base — stabilizes +11% 8.0% $597.34 +90%
Bear — keeps slipping +5% 6.8% $430.47 +37%
Stress — last quarter repeats -2% 5.7% $283.40 -10%
The next quarters keep the trajectory of the worst recent matched quarter (ending 2025-09-30) — growth stays at -2.2% and margins bend by the same profit-vs-revenue ratio (×1.10). Stress is a trajectory, not a prediction — it answers "what if the ship's current heading simply continues," which history says is the case to respect.
Why this is appearing: this company files quarterly, so its recent trajectory could be measured rather than assumed — the engine matched Jun 2026, Mar 2026 against the same quarters one year earlier and found revenue +27.8% · operating income +7041.2% · net income +4087.4% year-over-year. That measured heading is what the stress case extends forward. Of those, the stress case extends the worst matched quarter — the one ending Sep 30, 2025 (revenue -2.1%, operating income +197.6% YoY) — not the average. Data measured through Jun 30, 2026 — this card recalculates automatically when the next quarterly filing is ingested. Companies without quarterly filings (many foreign listings) never show this card: with no measured trajectory, there is nothing honest to repeat.
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for VLO — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-11
The creme is there an opportunity here? Neutral
AI is not the variable that decides Valero — but AI-driven power and gas inflation is the one channel that touches the cost line, and the market is treating it as an unrelated story.
Exposure is genuinely low at 26: no entrant can convert cheap intelligence into a permitted coker, so entrant_compression sits at 84 and scarcity_migration at 74 — the physical asset gets relatively rarer as software gets free. The honest AI-lens finding is the cost side: with gross margin at 4.4%, energy is a large variable cost, and data-center load lifting Henry Hub and industrial power hits cash operating cost per barrel faster than optimization savings arrive. Watch disclosed cash opex per barrel against gas prices; everything else about this name is the refining cycle, not AI.
56
AI Position
Mildly favorable - insulated by physics, exposed via power costs
Cheap intelligence cannot reproduce a permitted deep-conversion refinery, so AI reaches Valero only as modest internal cost optimization and as an input-cost headwind from AI-driven power and gas demand — not as a threat to the business's reason for existence.
Exposure 26 Confidence 72 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

AI raises the relative value of hard-to-permit physical conversion and export logistics assets: as intelligence and software commoditize, scarcity migrates toward molecules, coking capacity and Gulf Coast dock access that no amount of cheap code can create.

Primary Pressure

AI data-center load is inflating US natural gas and industrial power prices — and natgas/hydrogen/electricity are among Valero's largest variable cash costs, so the AI boom shows up on the wrong side of Valero's income statement before it shows up on the right side.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 71
Demand for liquid transportation and jet fuel persists through the window, and AI is not the variable that ends it.
Fleet turnover, EV policy and global GDP — not machine intelligence — govern gasoline and distillate volumes; the only genuine AI channel is agentic logistics and routing optimization trimming fuel intensity per ton-mile, plus marginal substitution of business travel.
US gasoline and distillate demand trend · jet fuel volumes vs virtual meetings · freight fuel intensity per ton-mile · EV share of new light vehicles
relevance 55 · confidence 76
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 79
Molecules will still be made in crude units, cokers and hydrocrackers; software changes the dials, not the process.
The conversion of heavy sour crude into on-spec fuels is a thermodynamic and capital problem; AI improves yield and reliability at the margin but cannot substitute for the physical unit.
turnaround duration and frequency · unplanned downtime rate · yield of high-value products per barrel
relevance 45 · confidence 80
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 68
Cheap AI powers Valero's optimization rather than enabling anyone to copy it.
Refiners have run linear-programming crude-slate optimization for decades, so the incremental AI gain is real but bounded; crucially, no competitor can convert cheap intelligence into a new permitted refinery.
disclosed optimization/reliability savings · crude slate flexibility gains · catalyst and energy efficiency metrics
relevance 42 · confidence 72
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 47
Valero is not paid to absorb someone else's liability; safety and environmental risk sit on its own balance sheet.
Unlike compliance vendors, there is no customer-liability shield in the business model — regulatory and process-safety exposure is a cost Valero bears, and AI-assisted monitoring only mitigates it slightly.
process safety incident rate · RINs and emissions compliance cost · insurance and remediation accruals
relevance 14 · confidence 65
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 74
As information gets cheap, permitted conversion capacity and export logistics get relatively scarcer.
No new US greenfield refinery is coming, closures continue, and Valero's Gulf Coast complexity plus dock and pipeline access is precisely the kind of asset AI abundance makes more, not less, valuable.
net global refining capacity closures · Gulf Coast export volumes · complexity-driven capture rate vs benchmark cracks
relevance 70 · confidence 74
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 81
No customer can internalize refining, whatever intelligence costs.
Wholesale buyers, airlines and retailers cannot self-manufacture fuel; DIY dynamics are essentially inapplicable except in trading and hedging desks, which are already in-house at large buyers.
large-buyer direct import substitution · airline self-supply arrangements
relevance 12 · confidence 78
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 52
Agentic price shopping could thin branded retail and rack marketing spreads, but Valero is mostly wholesale.
If AI assistants route drivers and fleets to cheapest fuel, brand premium and retail margin erode; Valero's exposure is limited because the bulk of value sits in manufacturing and export, not forecourt pricing.
branded wholesale volume and premium · retail/marketing segment margin per gallon · fleet-card and agentic fuel procurement adoption
relevance 24 · confidence 62
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 53
Decades of process and trading data help internally but are not a monetizable or defensible asset.
Unit-level sensor and yield history improves predictive maintenance and blend optimization, yet every large refiner holds comparable data and vendors diffuse the models across the industry, so the advantage is shallow.
reliability metrics vs peer refiners · in-house vs vendor AI deployment · capture rate consistency across cycles
relevance 30 · confidence 60
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 61
In a fixed-capacity commodity industry, cost savings are retained by the low-cost operator — but they are small next to crack spreads.
Marginal price is set by the highest-cost refinery, so Valero keeps its own efficiency gains rather than competing them away; with gross margin at 4.4% on $123B revenue, however, a few hundred million of AI-driven cost relief is dwarfed by spread volatility.
cash operating cost per barrel trend · energy cost per throughput barrel · opex per barrel vs peer group
relevance 55 · confidence 65
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 57
The monetized unit — barrels throughput times crack spread — survives AI intact but decays with fuel demand.
AI neither dematerializes the barrel nor changes how it is priced; the durability question is transition-driven volume and margin cyclicality, which the industry's -8.3% revenue CAGR and margin compression already show.
throughput volumes by region · refining margin per barrel · renewable diesel segment contribution
relevance 60 · confidence 68
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 84
Cheap software creates zero new refiners; permits, capital and scale still gate entry.
The classic AI risk — collapsing build cost for a competitor — does not exist here; the credible threat is state-backed overseas mega-refineries, which is a capital and policy story, not an AI one.
new capacity startups in Asia/Mideast · US permitting environment · renewable fuel entrant economics
relevance 50 · confidence 78

AI Lens thesis

What the market may be underestimating

Downside -dridriven-margin-per-barrel.AAetainsavings.…net gcost inflation dominates.Watch cash operating cost per barrel versus Henry Hub.-lindriven optimization gains.spread between AI-era gas prices and refining cost per throughput barrel is the only material AI transmission channel.hether AI is a net cost or benefit.Ae's per-barrel cash cost trend against gas prices decides direction.Wether AI-driven optimization or AI-driven energy inflation dominates the per-barrel cost line.-dricheap intelligence.raraein-driven load lifts the marginal cost of refining, or whether Valero's own optimization offsets it.Wather AI-era power inflation exceeds AI-enabled optimization savings.theAI-era.-era power inflation exceeds AI-enabled optimization savings, visible in cash operating cost per barrel versus Henry Hub.hether AI-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings, visible in cash operating cost per barrel relative to Henry Hub.--era power in-driven power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds AI-driven optimization savings, visible in Valero's disclosed cash operating cost per barrel relative to natural gas prices.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.tt-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.--era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.-era power inflation exceeds optimization savings.

Outcome range spread 27

40Bear case
55Central case
67Bull case
Three headline numbers, deliberately never blended: Position (which way), Exposure (how much it matters at all), Confidence (how sure). The fingerprint asks every stock the same 11 questions so companies a sector label would lump together get told apart. Not an input to GEM/Coal or the Q/V/S lenses.
Claude Reading
Independent analyst synthesis · claude-opus-4-7 · generated 2026-08-11 00:49:22
Verdict Fairly valued near $312 with downside skew — synthesis's $227 target ignores the Q2 2026 margin inflection; realistic range $260-290, trim into strength and re-enter on cycle-fear pullbacks.

The most striking number in this file is the Q2 2026 print: $44.48B revenue and $3.72B net income at an 8.4% margin — that is not a trough quarter, that's a rip-your-face-off crack spread quarter. Sequential net income more than tripled from Q1 2026's $1.26B, and the trailing four quarters now sum to roughly $7.2B in net income, which puts a very different denominator under that headline 41x PE. On a Q2-annualized basis (~$14.9B NI) the stock trades at under 6x. The synthesis model is anchoring on stale trailing annual 2025 numbers ($2.35B NI, the worst year since 2021) and calling it overvalued at $313 with a $227 fair value — but the quarterly trajectory is screaming that 2026 earnings will crush 2025, and the market has clearly figured that out. That's why the stock is near highs despite "weak" TTM optics.

The synthesis, market-forces, and narrative modules are all effectively fighting the tape by using backward-looking margin data. "Value trap on cyclical recovery hopes" is a defensible frame when Q1 margins were 3.9% — it is much harder to defend when Q2 margins printed 8.4%, matching or exceeding what refiners saw in the 2022-2023 boom (2023 op margin was ~8.2%; 2022 was ~8.9%). The recovery isn't hoped-for; it's already in the P&L. Momentum stats showing -48.5% earnings CAGR and -5.5% revenue YoY are arithmetic artifacts of comparing against the 2022 peak and against a specific weak trailing window — they miss the QoQ inflection entirely. The rule-based classifier calling this "dividend income" at a 1.5% yield with a 60% payout ratio is also lazy; VLO is a cyclical cash-return machine, not an income vehicle.

The contrarian case against my own read: Q2 2026 could be the peak, not the new normal. Refining margins are notoriously mean-reverting, and one blowout quarter shouldn't be capitalized into forward multiples. Global refining capacity additions in Asia and the Middle East (Dangote, Al-Zour, Chinese teapots) are real and coming online; U.S. gasoline demand is structurally flat to declining; the LCFS credit crash has already gutted renewable diesel economics, and Valero's DGD JV is no longer the growth story it was pitched as in 2022. Balance sheet is fine but not fortress — $9.2B debt vs $4.7B cash, and $5.83B operating CF in 2025 with capex undisclosed here means FCF coverage of the ~$1.3B dividend + buybacks is tight in trough years. If Q2 was a Russia-sanctions/hurricane/maintenance-driven spike and Q3 reverts to $1B NI, the bear synthesis is right and $227 is where this trades. Insider activity isn't provided, which is a real gap — I'd want to know if management was selling into this print.

I partially dissent from the synthesis. The $227 DCF fair value assumes mid-cycle margins that Valero is currently earning well above, and the models are penalizing the stock for a trailing year that no longer describes the business. But I also don't think $312 is a screaming buy — it prices in Q2-like conditions persisting, which for a commodity refiner is a heroic assumption. Fair value on a normalized blend (weighting 2022-2026 average NI of ~$5B at a 12-14x cyclical multiple) lands closer to $260-290, which makes current price modestly rich but not the 28% overvaluation the synthesis claims. The right posture is fairly valued with a bearish skew: I would not chase here, I would trim into strength, and I would look to re-add on any margin-normalization pullback into the $240s. Anyone modeling this stock without weighting the Q2 2026 print is doing the wrong math; anyone extrapolating Q2 forward is doing dangerous math.

GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-08-11 00:49:37
Verdict Overvalued at $312 — the market is capitalizing a refining recovery as if upper-cycle earnings are durable; fair value looks closer to $230-$250 unless 2026 sustains $8B+ of annual earnings.

At $312, the market is paying a premium multiple for a refiner whose reported earnings power is still far below what would justify that price on the current numbers. The cleanest way to see it is annualized run-rate versus valuation. The last four quarters of net income sum to about $5.2B, which already benefits from a very strong 2026-06 quarter at $3.72B; that still leaves the stock at roughly 16-17x trailing quarterly-run-rate earnings for a business that earned $11.5B in 2022, $8.8B in 2023, then only $2.8B in 2024 and $2.35B in 2025. That is not a stable compounding profile deserving a defensive multiple; it is a margin-driven commodity processor. The balance sheet is good enough — net debt only about $4.5B against $26.6B of equity, debt/equity 0.35, current ratio 1.65 — but financial strength is not the same as valuation support when P/E is 41x on the latest annual result, EV/EBITDA is 15.2x, and ROIC is just 7.6%. For a refiner, those are rich numbers unless one assumes a sustained earnings snapback.

The raw quarterly progression does show a snapback, but it also shows why the stock feels ahead of itself. Revenue climbed from $29.9B in 2025-06 to $44.5B in 2026-06, and net income swung from $714M to $3.72B, with margin expanding from 2.4% to 8.4%. That is a real recovery, not accounting noise. Yet one great quarter after a long stretch of 0.9% to 3.9% margins does not prove a new base level of profitability. Annual revenue fell from $176.4B in 2022 to $122.7B in 2025, while net income fell almost 80% from $11.53B to $2.35B. Even if 2026 is materially better, the stock price implies the market is capitalizing something closer to peak-to-upper-mid-cycle economics, not the still-fragile recovery actually shown in the statements. Operating cash flow of $5.83B in 2025 was solid relative to $2.35B of net income, but without capex disclosed here I cannot give full credit to cash generation, and refining is not a low-reinvestment business.

What stands out most is the disconnect between quality and return. Valero is not distressed, and that matters. It likely deserves to trade above the worst trough multiples because its leverage is modest and it has survived the downshift in margins without balance-sheet strain. But investors are paying 3.6x book for a business that generated 8.8% ROE in 2025 and 1.9% net margin. That spread only makes sense if returns on capital are about to normalize much higher and stay there for more than a quarter or two. Maybe that happens, but the evidence in the annual numbers says earnings have been mean-reverting downward from extraordinary years, not settling into a structurally improved plateau. I do not think the “dividend/income” framing is useful here either: the yield is only 1.5%, payout ratio is already about 60% on depressed annual earnings, and the investment case clearly rests on cyclical earnings recovery rather than current income.

The best argument against my bearish read is straightforward: refining is a terrible business to value off trough accounting earnings, and the latest two quarters may be signaling that 2025 was the trough. If the June quarter’s $3.72B net income is even directionally representative of a tighter global refining environment, then annualized earnings power moves back toward $10B+, at which point $85.9B of market cap is not crazy. The market could also be rewarding scarcity value: capacity discipline, geopolitical dislocations, and resilient fuel demand can keep crack spreads elevated longer than traditional cycle models expect. On that view, the 41x P/E is a meaningless artifact of trough-year earnings, and the right lens is normalized cash generation across the cycle. The strong operating cash flow, low net leverage, and rapid quarter-on-quarter margin rebound are the data points a bull should hammer.

I weigh that differently because I need more than one blockbuster quarter to underwrite a premium valuation in a structurally cyclical industry. To change my mind, I would want to see at least two more quarters with net margins holding above 6% and quarterly net income consistently above $2.5B, which would demonstrate that 2026-06 was not just a spike. I would also want evidence that 2026 full-year operating earnings can clear $8B again without balance-sheet deterioration. If that happens, $312 could be supportable. If instead margins slip back toward the 2%-4% range that dominated 2024-2025, this stock is priced too high by a wide margin and belongs much closer to the low-to-mid $200s.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-08-11 00:50:28
Verdict Modestly overvalued at $312; fair value nearer $260–280 as Q2 2026 peak margins are already priced

The numbers describe a classic refining cycle caught mid-snapback, not a structural re-rating. Valero earned $11.53B in 2022 and $8.84B in 2023, collapsed to $2.77B in 2024 and $2.35B in 2025 as crack spreads imploded, then violently reversed: the four quarters through mid-2026 delivered roughly $7.2B of net income, capped by a $3.72B print in Q2 2026 on $44.48B of revenue and an 8.4% net margin that looks more like peak-cycle 2022 than the 2–4% trough that defined 2024–25. Annual revenue has still shrunk from $176B to $123B, and multi-year CAGRs remain ugly (−7.9% sales, −48.5% earnings), so the recovery is real but incomplete and highly margin-driven. The trailing PE of 41× is an accounting artifact of the 2025 trough; on current TTM earnings the multiple compresses to roughly 12×, and on a $10B run-rate implied by H1 2026 it is high-single-digits. Balance sheet quality is not in dispute—$9.21B debt against $4.69B cash, 0.35 debt-to-equity, 1.65 current ratio—and operating cash flow of $5.83B easily funds the business. What the market is paying $312 and an $86B enterprise for is the assumption that elevated cracks persist.

That assumption is already in the price. At 15× EV/EBITDA, 3.6× book, and a 1.5% dividend yield with a 60% payout, there is no margin of safety if spreads normalize toward mid-cycle. Gross margin for full-year 2025 was only 4.4% and operating margin 2.6%; one blowout quarter does not rewrite the through-cycle economics of a commodity refiner facing gradual gasoline demand erosion. The valuation engine’s ~$227–243 fair value is directionally correct even if it is a bit harsh given the earnings inflection—my own anchor sits nearer $260–280 once the new run-rate is blended with realistic mid-cycle cracks. Above $300 the stock is pricing multi-year tightness, capital discipline, and transition skepticism simultaneously; that is a crowded, fragile narrative, not a discounted cash-flow bargain.

The strongest counter-argument is straightforward: TTM earnings have already re-rated into the $7B zone, the balance sheet can support aggressive buybacks and dividends through a normal downcycle, and global capacity discipline plus residual geopolitical friction could keep complex refining margins above the miserable 2024–25 trough for several more years. On that view, 11–12× recovering earnings with fortress leverage is not expensive for the best-in-class U.S. refiner, and the 41× headline multiple is simply noise. I weigh this less heavily because Q2’s $44.5B revenue and 8.4% margin look like a spike, not a new floor; paying peak-cycle prices for peak-cycle earnings has historically been how refining investors lose money, and nothing in the multi-year revenue decline or the thin full-year 2025 margins suggests the cycle has been repealed.

Two consecutive additional quarters of net income above $2B, or sustained crack indicators that imply mid-cycle earnings power above $7B rather than $4–5B, would force a re-rating toward fairly valued or better. Conversely, a swift fade back toward 3% net margins or a clear break in U.S. gasoline demand would confirm the overvaluation and push fair value back under $240.

Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Each AI above independently stated a direction (undervalued, fairly valued, or overvalued) and how strongly it believes it (conviction, 0–5). We combine those into a Bull-Bear Index on a 0–10 scale: 5 is neutral, 10 is maximum bullish (undervalued at full conviction), 0 is maximum bearish. We compute the score ourselves with the same arithmetic for every seat — the models never grade their own bullishness — so the three are directly comparable. Δ shows how far each seat sits from the panel average of 2.7; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
Claude claude-opus-4-7 5.0
fairly valued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +2.3 vs panel · self: 4.0
GPT gpt-5.4 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -1.7 vs panel · self: 3.0
Grok grok-4.5 2.0
overvalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ -0.7 vs panel · self: 4.0
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), plus AI Impact (how the AI wave reshapes it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-08-11 10:03:47
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality — pass at price, wait for a dip 7/10
Solid refiner, clean books, real buyback — but I'm being asked to pay $317 for a late-cycle commodity business that every fair-value method pegs at $210-$277.
The cruxWhether current refining crack spreads are the new normal or a cycle peak that reverts — at $317 the tape has already voted 'durable,' and history says that's the wrong bet.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from VLO's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionShare Count Shrinking
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+18
Solid
edge √Σ 110 · risk √Σ 92 · conf 7/10

Valero's mechanical quality picture is clean: accruals at -4.7% of assets, OCF/NI of 2.67x, Beneish M of -2.92, and an Altman Z of 5.29 all say reported earnings are cash-backed and there is no distress signal. FCF has stayed positive across a violent cycle (3.40B in 2021, peaking at 9.84B in 2022, and still 5.83B in 2025), and the company used that cash to shrink diluted shares from 407M to 309M, a -6.7% CAGR, with buybacks running roughly 30x SBC. Liquidity is adequate: 4.69B cash against modest net debt of -4.52B, which is a rounding error versus 5.83B annual FCF.

Strengths 3
m70
Aggressive per-share concentration
Diluted shares fell from 407M to 309M (-24% over four years, -6.7% CAGR) with buyback-to-SBC of ~2954%. Per-share value is being actively protected.
m65
Clean earnings quality
OCF/NI 2.67x, accruals -4.7% of assets, Beneish M -2.92, Altman Z 5.29 - no mechanical red flags. Cash conversion is real.
m55
Cycle-tested FCF generation
FCF stayed positive every year including trough years - 3.40B in 2021 and 5.83B in 2025 despite margin compression - funding the buyback without leverage escalation.
Concerns 3
m65
No structural margin - pure crack-spread exposure
Op margin swung 1.9% -> 8.9% -> 2.6% across 2021-2025. This is a price-taker in a commodity spread; earnings are structurally volatile with limited pricing power.
m55
Sharp earnings compression
Net income fell from 11.53B (2022) to 2.35B (2025), an 80% decline as margins normalized. Revenue also down 30% from peak, showing operating leverage cuts both ways.
m35
Net debt position, not a cash fortress
Net debt of -4.52B; cash of 4.69B is only 5.5% of market cap. Balance sheet is a constraint in a downcycle, not a cushion.
This is a well-run refiner, not a great business. The accounting is clean, the buyback is real and material (-6.7% share CAGR is genuine per-share value creation), and management clearly runs the cycle with discipline. But the underlying economics are what they are - margins that go from 9% to 3% based on crack spreads, and net income that falls 80% peak-to-trough. I grade the business quality as Solid: everything management controls looks good, but the sector's structural volatility caps how high I can go. In a fortress-quality frame, no commodity price-taker gets above the mid-60s regardless of how well it is operated.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Refining capacity utilization and turnaround schedule in 2025 10-K
  • Debt maturity ladder and any near-term refinancing needs
  • Renewable diesel (DGD) segment economics post-BTC changes
  • Capex allocation between maintenance and growth/transition projects
  • Dividend coverage assumptions in a sustained low-crack environment
Valuation / Mispricing
-67
Rich
edge √Σ 27 · risk √Σ 107 · conf 7/10
Price $315 vs deserved ~$243 (EPV $210, DCF $277) - roughly 25-30% overvalued; no margin of safety, negative one. attractive below $235.00

The composite fair value sits at $243 and the signal-adjusted FV at $227, implying roughly 25-28% downside from $314.95. The DCF ($277) is the most generous method and still 12% below spot, while the EPV floor of $210 - which is the right anchor for a cyclical refiner - implies a third of the current price is essentially a cycle premium. Earnings quality is high so no haircut is warranted, and the business is Solid (score 18), which supports paying up to but not through mid-cycle intrinsic value.

Cheap signals 2
m22
Real buyback provides some per-share tailwind
-6.7% share count CAGR is genuine and lifts deserved value modestly, but not enough to close a 25%+ gap to composite FV.
m15
Clean earnings quality, no haircut
High earnings quality (score 3) means deserved value is not marked down for accounting concerns - but that just validates the composite, doesn't lift it above price.
Rich / priced-in 3
m72
Price above every fair-value method
$314.95 sits above the DCF ($277), composite ($243), signal-adjusted ($227), and EPV floor ($210). When even the generous method says -12%, the stock is not cheap on any lens.
m68
Late-cycle refiner at cycle-premium multiple
Narrative flags cyclical-late-stage; industry net income falls ~80% peak-to-trough. Paying 50% above the EPV floor for a business whose earnings power halves in a downturn is the textbook cyclical trap.
m40
Renewable diesel optionality already in the tape
Bull case leans on renewables and capital returns, both well-known and reflected in a $86B market cap. Little residual optionality left to underwrite.
I don't see the mispricing here - if anything the gap runs against you. Every method I've been handed says fair value is $210-$277 and I'm being asked to pay $315 for a late-cycle refiner whose earnings can drop 80% in a downturn. The business is Solid, the buyback is real, the books are clean - none of that makes 25-30% of overvaluation disappear. I'd want it below ~$235 (a modest premium to composite FV, discount to DCF) before it's interesting, and closer to the $210 EPV floor to get genuinely excited. Today it's Rich.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Current crack spread levels vs 10-year mid-cycle average - is Q4 margin guide normalizing?
  • Renewable diesel segment EBITDA contribution and BTC/45Z credit assumptions in consensus
  • Buyback pace vs FCF at mid-cycle earnings (not TTM peak) - is the return of capital sustainable through a downturn?
  • Management commentary on 2025-2026 capacity additions industry-wide (supply discipline is the bull thesis)
General Sentiment
+10
Tailwind
tail √Σ 79 · head √Σ 69 · conf 6/10

The immediate pressure on VLO is positive: peer Marathon Petroleum just beat on strong refining margins and is up 18% in three months, which reinforces the 'refining margins stay elevated' story that VLO trades on. News flow highlights VLO's sizable buyback completion and solid Q2 print, keeping the cash-return narrative alive. The tape is risk-on and VIX is calm, which lets cyclicals hold gains rather than get sold on any wobble. With a low beta of 0.55, VLO is not whipped around by the macro tape; the dominant force here is sector-specific narrative and peer-group momentum, both currently pushing up. That said, the narrative is explicitly flagged as fragile and late-cycle, with the stock trading at a meaningful premium to mid-cycle fair value. Analyst tone in the news set is balanced-to-cautious (the 'finely balanced' framing on the buyback piece), and the archetype is cyclical-late-stage with low cult coefficient - meaning there is no fanatical bid to defend the name if crack spreads roll. Higher rates and a stretched market PE are background headwinds, but they hit high-beta story stocks harder than a 0.55-beta refiner throwing off cash. Net: a real but not decisive tailwind, riding a hot refining tape with a narrative that could crack if margins normalize.

Tailwinds 3
m55
Peer refining prints reinforce the story
MPC beat on strong refining margins and is up 18% in three months; that read-through lifts VLO's narrative that elevated crack spreads persist.
m45
Buyback + cash-return narrative live
News highlights a completed sizeable buyback alongside Q2 results, which keeps the 'fortress refiner returning cash' story intact and gives holders a reason to sit tight.
m35
Risk-on, low-vol tape suits a low-beta cyclical
VIX 15.5 and a calm risk-on regime let a 0.55-beta refiner hold gains; there is no forced-selling pressure on this profile right now.
Headwinds 3
m50
Narrative is fragile and late-cycle
Archetype is cyclical-late-stage with fragile durability and low cult - no fanatical holder base to defend the name if crack spreads roll or the energy transition narrative reasserts.
m40
Analyst tone flagging 'finely balanced'
Coverage framing the post-buyback setup as finely balanced signals sell-side is not adding conviction here, capping upside from tone alone.
m25
Rates/valuation macro backdrop
10y at 4.65% and market PE 26 are ordinary crosswinds for a low-beta cash-generative refiner - real but not the dominant force.
Net leans tailwind, but not strong. The refining tape is hot right now - MPC's beat and rally is the biggest force acting on VLO through peer read-through, and the buyback news keeps the cash-return story fresh. Working against that: the narrative itself is explicitly fragile and late-cycle, analyst tone is balanced not bullish, and there is no cult bid to catch the stock if crack spreads normalize. Because VLO is low-beta, the macro tape barely registers either way. I read this as a modest tailwind driven almost entirely by sector momentum and buyback optics, with the awareness that a single quarter of margin normalization would flip this to a headwind quickly.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Crack spread trajectory into Q3 - any rollover flips the peer-momentum tailwind fast
  • Whether sell-side target revisions post-Q2 skew up or stay flat (tone confirmation)
  • Energy sector relative strength vs S&P - a rotation out of energy would hit VLO despite low beta
  • Any renewable diesel margin commentary that reignites the transition-risk bear
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
AI Impact
+36
Mildly favorable - insulated by physics, exposed via power costs
opp √Σ 63 · thr √Σ 0 · conf 7/10
AI opportunities 7
m23
Underlying Need Persistence
Demand for liquid transportation and jet fuel persists through the window, and AI is not the variable that ends it.
m26
Solution Persistence
Molecules will still be made in crude units, cokers and hydrocrackers; software changes the dials, not the process.
m15
Intelligence Commoditization
Cheap AI powers Valero's optimization rather than enabling anyone to copy it.
m34
Scarcity Migration
As information gets cheap, permitted conversion capacity and export logistics get relatively scarcer.
m7
Customer DIY Preference
No customer can internalize refining, whatever intelligence costs.
m12
AI Margin Conversion
In a fixed-capacity commodity industry, cost savings are retained by the low-cost operator — but they are small next to crack spreads.
m34
Entrant Compression
Cheap software creates zero new refiners; permits, capital and scale still gate entry.
AI threats 0

None surfaced.

AI is not the variable that decides Valero — but AI-driven power and gas inflation is the one channel that touches the cost line, and the market is treating it as an unrelated story. Exposure is genuinely low at 26: no entrant can convert cheap intelligence into a permitted coker, so entrant_compression sits at 84 and scarcity_migration at 74 — the physical asset gets relatively rarer as software gets free. The honest AI-lens finding is the cost side: with gross margin at 4.4%, energy is a large variable cost, and data-center load lifting Henry Hub and industrial power hits cash operating cost per barrel faster than optimization savings arrive. Watch disclosed cash opex per barrel against gas prices; everything else about this name is the refining cycle, not AI.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • net global refining capacity closures
  • Gulf Coast export volumes
  • complexity-driven capture rate vs benchmark cracks
  • throughput volumes by region
  • refining margin per barrel
  • renewable diesel segment contribution
  • US gasoline and distillate demand trend
  • jet fuel volumes vs virtual meetings
The structural effect of the AI wave on this specific business over the next ~5 years — demand, cost leverage, moat, barriers to entry, position in the AI stack. The reality beneath the AI story, not the story's market pressure (General Sentiment owns that) — and not a call on the business today or the price.
Growth Outlook
not run

This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.

The forward growth verdict — is the business itself likely to grow (next 2 quarters / year 1 / years 2–3), judged against its category and against printed expectations. The full horizon ladder + creme renders on the Growth Outlook card above. Not a call on the price (Valuation owns that) or the tape (Sentiment owns that).
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure), AI Impact (structural ~5yr AI exposure), and Growth Outlook (the forward growth verdict). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Price Prediction
Lower -10.5% v0.6.0 View full prediction →

When we made this prediction on Aug 11, 2026, VLO was $314.95. We expect it to be $282.00 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $235.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 11, 2026.

Price when predicted$314.95
Our estimate for Feb 2027$282.00-10.5%
Great value below$235.00
Price history shown (6 Months)

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.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for VLO. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
v1.1.562 · 9b2927c4 · 2026-08-22 16:52:06