Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Materials · ·
$64.90
▼ $0.53 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/17 03:30 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/16/2026
News analyzed: 09/17/2026
Market Cap
$20.97B
Day Range
$63.52 - $65.51
52-Week Range
$41.58 - $83.94
Beta
—
Next Earnings
29.10.2026
LYB is a stock from the Materials sector — Mining, chemicals, and metals — the raw materials that feed other industries, sensitive to commodity prices.
+23.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/29 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.02
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -1.4% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
82/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
90/100
Analog Quality
-4.6%
Median 40D Outcome
59/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
40%
+3.3% … +5.6%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
60%
-9.2% … -5.0%
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, 40% (95% CI 20%–64%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of -2.9%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
3 occurrence(s) · 67% historical success
Echo #2 — Trend Acceleration
5 occurrence(s) · 60% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 27% (11%–52%) | -0.7% | -5.5% … +1.1% | +0.1% |
| 10D | 40% (20%–64%) | -0.8% | -5.5% … +3.2% | +0.1% |
| 20D | 40% (20%–64%) | -2.9% | -7.5% … +3.6% | +0.4% |
| 40D | 27% (11%–52%) | -4.6% | -15.3% … +1.0% | +0.2% |
| 60D | 27% (11%–52%) | -5.0% | -14.2% … +1.1% | -0.2% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-09-01 | 82/100 | Consolidation | +3.0% | +30.5% |
| 2023-09-05 | 80/100 | ✓ Uptrend | -5.0% | -4.8% |
| 2024-03-08 | 80/100 | Uptrend | +4.9% | -4.6% |
| 2022-05-16 | 80/100 | Uptrend | -9.2% | -14.9% |
| 2022-03-03 | 80/100 | Consolidation | +3.0% | +17.3% |
| 2019-03-07 | 79/100 | Consolidation | +5.8% | -10.8% |
| 2023-07-21 | 78/100 | Consolidation | +6.1% | +1.8% |
| 2021-08-30 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -5.5% | -8.3% |
| 2024-08-20 | 78/100 | Consolidation | -2.7% | -13.6% |
| 2021-01-19 | 78/100 | Uptrend | +4.3% | +14.2% |
| 2022-06-06 | 78/100 | Uptrend | -21.7% | -24.4% |
| 2025-03-05 | 77/100 | Consolidation | -7.3% | -25.9% |
| 2024-04-29 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -2.9% | -5.0% |
| 2023-04-28 | 76/100 | Consolidation | -7.7% | +0.4% |
| 2025-09-12 | 76/100 | Downtrend | -18.7% | -23.4% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLB (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
48
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
26
Quality
47
Value
50
Momentum
64
Risk
54
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
31
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
SCANNING LYB...
Recent media coverage of LyondellBasell has centered on its strong financial performance and market positioning. The company’s Q2 earnings significantly exceeded expectations, driven by favorable industry conditions, reinforcing its "Buy" rating at $63. Additionally, reports suggest LyondellBasell is among early bidders for Shell’s potential $8 billion U.S. chemicals business sale, further highlighting its undervalued stock status with a 46.88% year-to-date return. The focus remains on its recovery and strategic opportunities in the chemicals sector.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about LyondellBasell. News trend score: 74. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
14
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
40
Fundamentals
31
Technical
64
Valuation
50
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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)
+8%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+19
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for LYB suggests a **narrative-driven confirmation bias** as the dominant psychological force, with traders selectively validating a positive story despite deteriorating fundamentals (revenue decline, shrinking margins). The stock’s outperformance relative to peers (+1.7% vs. -0.1%) hints at herding into a perceived relative safe haven, though weak momentum and neutral RSI (54) undermine enthusiasm. The absence of panic or euphoria signals stability, but the key question remains: *Will traders sustain participation despite deteriorating fundamentals, or will confirmation bias weaken as reality gaps widen?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 03:43 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"LyondellBasell Industries (LYB) drew fresh attention after a report linked it to early stage bids for Shell’s U.S. chemicals business"
"Q2 results far exceeding expectations due to favorable market conditions"
📈 9D 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
Benjamin Graham — 76/100
🔴 Weakest match
Philip Fisher — 7/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for LYB reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. Benjamin Graham’s Enterprising Investor approach fails due to insufficient valuation data, while his Defensive Investor still finds it attractive, suggesting a nuanced valuation perspective. Meanwhile, growth-focused thinkers like Philip Fisher and Peter Lynch dismiss it outright—Fisher for lacking quality/growth traits and Lynch for not meeting his 'growth-at-a-reasonable-price' threshold—highlighting their preference for high-growth or fundamentally strong stocks. On the other end, cyclical or macro-oriented investors like Howard Marks (market cycle) and Samuel Nelson see it as mid-cycle, implying it’s neither a panic buy nor a bubble, whereas trend-following traders like Jesse Livermore and Jack Schwager reject it entirely, viewing it as either a negative trend or lacking a clear setup. The efficient-market camp (Malkiel/Bogle) and volatility-sensitive investors (Housel) further complicate the picture, questioning whether active selection adds value or if the stock’s volatility would deter patient holders.
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 97
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 76
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 70
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 60
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 59
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 59
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 50
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 43
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 38
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 25
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 22
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)
🔴 21
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 7
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (6 bullish · 3 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.
Medium 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
8.5%
Operating Margin
-1.4%
Net Margin
-2.4%
EBITDA Margin
3.2%
ROE
-7.3%
ROA
-2.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.34
Cash
$3.44B
Total Debt
$226.00M
Current Ratio
1.77
Debt/Equity
0.02
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 24.8.2026 | $0.690 |
| 1.6.2026 | $0.690 |
| 31.5.2026 | $0.690 |
| 2.3.2026 | $0.690 |
| 1.3.2026 | $0.690 |
| 1.12.2025 | $1.370 |
| 30.11.2025 | $1.370 |
| 25.8.2025 | $1.370 |
| 24.8.2025 | $1.370 |
| 2.6.2025 | $1.370 |
| 1.6.2025 | $1.370 |
| 10.3.2025 | $1.340 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 12 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
ChartMill · 15.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Barchart · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
24/7 Wall St. · 13.9.2026
Yahoo · 13.9.2026
Fintel · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Kiplinger · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
Zacks · 2.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 25.8.2026
ChartMill · 25.8.2026
LyondellBasell (LYB) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
LYB currently scores 48/100 (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.
LYB's technical score is 64/100, which currently reads as bullish — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Debt/equity: 0.02; Current ratio: 1.77; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -1.4% (negative); Net margin: -2.4% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time.
Yes — LYB has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karlin Bridget E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 615 | +615 | — |
| Karlin Bridget E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 30.6.2026 | 73 | -73 | $52.65 |
| KAMSKY VIRGINIA A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 30.6.2026 | 100 | -100 | $52.65 |
| KAMSKY VIRGINIA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 561 | +561 | — |
| KAMSKY VIRGINIA A | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 10,383 | +561 | — |
| KAMSKY VIRGINIA A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 30.6.2026 | 10,283 | -100 | $52.65 |
| Karlin Bridget E | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 7,320 | +615 | — |
| Karlin Bridget E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 30.6.2026 | 7,247 | -73 | $52.65 |
| Benet Lincoln E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 1,410 | -1,410 | $69.72 |
| AIGRAIN JACQUES | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 575 | -575 | $69.72 |
| Buchanan Robin W.T. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 1,247 | -1,247 | $69.72 |
| CHASE ANTHONY R | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 540 | -540 | $69.72 |
| FARLEY CLAIRE S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 565 | -565 | $69.72 |
| Dudley Robert W. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 708 | -708 | $69.72 |
| Griffin Rita E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 639 | -639 | $69.72 |
| KAMSKY VIRGINIA A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 593 | -593 | $69.72 |
| Karlin Bridget E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 521 | -521 | $69.72 |
| Hanley Michael Sean | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 540 | -540 | $69.72 |
| Manifold Albert Jude | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 689 | -689 | $69.72 |
| KAMSKY VIRGINIA A | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 9,822 | -593 | $69.72 |
| AIGRAIN JACQUES | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 37,534 | -575 | $69.72 |
| FARLEY CLAIRE S | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 26,341 | -565 | $69.72 |
| CHASE ANTHONY R | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 13,603 | -540 | $69.72 |
| Buchanan Robin W.T. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 22,165 | -1,247 | $69.72 |
| Benet Lincoln E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 22.5.2026 | 13,381 | -1,410 | $69.72 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
13,950,743 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 12,337,210 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
63.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 59.8% 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