Skip to main content
Preview

Research from Friday’s close · next update overnight after Monday’s close

Radar
GLW

GLW Research brief

Corning Inc.

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$123.31(−4.32%)

Sagehood’s view on GLW

Corning Inc. · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

42Bearish50 is balancedScore change −8 since 2026-10-29, from 50 to 42; view changed from Neutral to Bearish. Compare the two recordsConfidence 55 · It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.Confidence across the 100 names in this research run: 45 to 70, median 55.
How to read this score

Dated research brief

WhyGLW screens bearish because net debt to EBITDA of 1.31 exceeds a 0.67 sector median and the drawdown is −51.7%. The unresolved risk is that revenue rose 18.8% with a 3.1-point margin expansion.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case for the company is that margins are expanding and cash conversion is above the sector median.
Break conditionFrom the financial specialist: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median with a negative operating-margin change would break the expansion claim.Tests that specialist’s reading, not this page’s whole Bearish view.

Sagehood does not check this condition automatically. See research limitations below.

Valuation range

No model fair value · the discounted cash flow model declined

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($28.30) and the peer-multiple estimate ($131.06) were 4.6 times apart. The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.

Close $123.31 (recorded) on 2026-10-30; estimates use fundamentals to 2026-09-30.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)
Bear
$13.50
Base
$28.30
Bull
$67.10

The model’s own grid cells, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Against peers

Information Technology
MultipleGLWGroup medianPercentile
P/E (TTM)49.92×29.89×77th
P/S6.06×7.08×37th
P/B7.86×8.35×40th
FCF yield2.29%2.61%37th
Score details & research limitations9 unavailable fields
Conditions Sagehood can check on its ownNot available in this run. A written break condition is not an automated check; this run does not provide a source-linked rule Sagehood can verify on its own.

Where the break condition comes from: Sagehood research took this condition from the financial specialist. It tests that specialist’s own reading, so it does not say everything that would change this page’s Bearish view.

How to read this research

The score expresses the published research view. 50 is balanced.

Bullish, Neutral or Bearish beside the score is the direction of that view, set by the research from the score: 65 and above is Bullish, 45 to 64 Neutral, 44 and below Bearish.

Confidence is how well the evidence supports this view, not which way it points: Sagehood research is asked to keep it no higher than its most confident specialist, and lower when the specialists disagree or much of the evidence is weak. It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.

Source verification checks the identity and origin of evidence. It does not prove that a claim is correct or that an investment will succeed.

Valuation estimates depend on their inputs and assumptions. They are not guaranteed future prices.

Retrospective research looks back at an earlier period. It is not a verified record of a decision made then using only information available then.

Unavailable is not zero. Read the adjacent reason: information may be missing, unverified or deliberately withheld.

How Sagehood works

The session this view is fixed to

Close$123.31 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day−4.32%
First eligible market session2026-11-02

Recorded score context

Specialist source coverage7 of 10 specialists have a verified source on this run. 3 do not.
Score reconciliationThe 7 specialist contributions shown add up to the weighted starting point this score was built from.
Change since the last accepted run50 on 2026-10-29 → 42 on 2026-10-30 (−8 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.
The run this is compared withResearch of 2026-10-29

Not in this run: Run-specific score definition, Confidence band, Horizon, Why the score changed, Today's unexplained move and Blockers.

What this was built from

Filing cited in the evidenceNot recorded on this card. The newest filing on record is under Key financials, and recent filings are listed under SEC filings.
Peer set27 names in Information Technology, listed with how they were chosen under “Valuation & peers”. The peer-implied median is under “Valuation & peers”.

Not in this run: Company profile date and Standing disclosure.

Not available in this run

9 fields are unavailable. Each is identified with its reason above; missing information is not zero or a negative research signal.

Price context

· adjusted close $123.31

−45.8% from 2026-06-25

Recent price-basis check: 2026-10-02 to 2026-10-30 (20 sessions). Economic comparability outside this window remains unchecked.

GLW adjusted close
Adjusted price · USD · viewing 2026-06-25 to 2026-10-30

Selected 2026-10-30. GLW adjusted close. Continuous series. $123.31 US dollars.

90 daily adjusted-price observations through 2026-10-30, ending at the 2026-10-30 research date. The final point is a dated final close. Shown for context, not point-in-time research evidence: the research used the prices recorded with it.

Use the arrow keys on the chart to step through observations.

Published score history

2026-07-23 to 2026-10-30 · 37 publications

Each point is a verified published score. The line breaks where the research method changed (4 methods, numbered in the order they were first used), so scores are not joined across methods. Hollow points were published after their decision window (retrospective).

Every published score and confidence
Research dateScoreViewConfidenceMethod
2026-10-3042Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2950Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2842Bearish50Method 4
2026-10-2744Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2638Bearish50Method 4
2026-10-2335Bearish50Method 4
2026-10-2236Bearish44Method 4
2026-10-2142Bearish50Method 4
2026-10-1636Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-0945Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-0752Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-0250Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-0151Neutral45Method 4
2026-09-3048Neutral48Method 4
2026-09-2948Neutral48Method 4
2026-09-2846Neutral48Method 4
2026-09-2546Neutral52Method 4
2026-09-24 · retrospective46Neutral52Method 4
2026-09-2346Neutral52Method 4
2026-09-1847Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-16 · retrospective45Neutral44Method 4
2026-09-09 · retrospective50Neutral66Method 4
2026-09-0445Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-01 · retrospective40Bearish45Method 4
2026-08-31 · retrospective48Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-2848Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-26 · retrospective49Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-24 · retrospective48Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-20 · retrospective49Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-19 · retrospective49Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-1452Neutral60Method 2
2026-08-1352Neutral63Method 1
2026-08-0755Neutral63Method 1
2026-08-0655Neutral63Method 1
2026-08-0456Neutral63Method 1
2026-07-3144Bearish79Method 1
2026-07-2341Bearish50Method 1

Specialists

7 of 10 published specialist analyses are available.

Each specialist’s view is shown as the published research recorded it; supporting detail appears only when it was recorded with that same view.

3 unavailable

GLW research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Bullish

Corning's trailing-twelve-month revenue of $17,719 million rose 18.8% and trailing-twelve-month operating margin of 16.5% expanded 3.1 percentage points, with free cash flow conversion of 1.14.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: trailing-twelve-month revenue was $17,719 million, up 18.8% year over year, and trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 16.5% with a 3.1 percentage point operating-margin expansion and a 0.8 point gross-margin expansion. Free cash flow conversion was 1.14 versus the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, and net debt to EBITDA was 1.31 against the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median.

Why it matters now

Expanding gross and operating margins alongside 18.8% trailing-twelve-month revenue growth and free cash flow conversion above the sector median imply improving operating leverage, though net debt to EBITDA of 1.31 above the sector median and a 101-day cash conversion cycle absorb capital.

What could change the view

Countercase: The read would be wrong if the margin expansion reflects one-time pricing rather than durable mix, and interest coverage is not available, so the leverage burden behind the 1.31 net debt to EBITDA is unmeasured. Falsifier: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median with a negative operating-margin change would break the expansion claim.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
65
Evidence confidence
70
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
9.10
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.21
Weighted contribution
13.72
Business driver
Trailing-twelve-month revenue was $17,719 million, up 18.8% year over year, and trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 16.5% with a 3.1 percentage point operating-margin expansion and a 0.8 point gross-margin expansion. Free cash flow conversion was 1.14 versus the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, and net debt to EBITDA was 1.31 against the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median.
Mechanism
Expanding gross and operating margins alongside 18.8% trailing-twelve-month revenue growth and free cash flow conversion above the sector median imply improving operating leverage, though net debt to EBITDA of 1.31 above the sector median and a 101-day cash conversion cycle absorb capital.
Countercase
The read would be wrong if the margin expansion reflects one-time pricing rather than durable mix, and interest coverage is not available, so the leverage burden behind the 1.31 net debt to EBITDA is unmeasured.
Contributions & coverage details

Specialist contributions

Each specialist’s recorded numbers, in the usual specialist order, as recorded: nothing is re-ranked or recalculated. Weights and contributions show two decimals; hover for the exact value.

Financial specialist

Bullish

Score
65
Evidence confidence
70
Weight in the score
0.21
Weighted contribution
13.72

Risk specialist

Bearish

Score
28
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.10
Weighted contribution
2.86

Sector specialist

Bearish

Score
33
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.13
Weighted contribution
4.21

SEC filings specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.04
Weighted contribution
1.91

News specialist

Neutral

Score
52
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.14
Weighted contribution
7.30

Price-trend specialist

Bearish

Score
35
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.28
Weighted contribution
9.74

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
54
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.10
Weighted contribution
5.51

Published specialist analyses unavailable: Valuation specialist, Geopolitics specialist, Social-media specialist. No specialist result is inferred.

  • Valuation specialist: The valuation specialist did not vote on this run because the valuation model declined to give a fair value: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($28.30) and the peer-multiple estimate ($131.06) were 4.6 times apart. The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.
  • Geopolitics specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.
  • Social-media specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.

How this insight was formed

Each specialist view shown here is checked against the published research files. Sagehood research combined those views into the one Research Score above.

Evidence & method

Inspect the reasoning, source records and valuation behind this dated view.

Sagehood research reasoningSpecialist reasoning, selected statements and filing context
Accepted publication2026-10-30 researchNext eligible session 2026-11-02point-in-time

GLW: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

42

Bearish50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

Financial specialist

Bullish

Specialist score 65Evidence confidence 70
What the specialist sees

Trailing-twelve-month revenue was $17,719 million, up 18.8% year over year, and trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 16.5% with a 3.1 percentage point operating-margin expansion and a 0.8 point gross-margin expansion. Free cash flow conversion was 1.14 versus the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, and net debt to EBITDA was 1.31 against the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median.

Why it matters

Expanding gross and operating margins alongside 18.8% trailing-twelve-month revenue growth and free cash flow conversion above the sector median imply improving operating leverage, though net debt to EBITDA of 1.31 above the sector median and a 101-day cash conversion cycle absorb capital.

What argues against it

The read would be wrong if the margin expansion reflects one-time pricing rather than durable mix, and interest coverage is not available, so the leverage burden behind the 1.31 net debt to EBITDA is unmeasured.

This specialist’s break condition: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median with a negative operating-margin change would break the expansion claim.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 45.26. Sagehood research’s adjustment was −3.26. 50 on 2026-10-29 → 42 on 2026-10-30 (−8 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.

Evidence Sagehood research weighed

These selected claims are evidence Sagehood research weighed, not a reconstruction of the numeric adjustment.

Claims as this research published them. Sagehood confirms each claim and its support were published together with this research. That is not an independent check, and it does not prove the claim is accurate or predict future performance.

  1. Financial specialist

    Same statement as under “What the specialist sees” above.

  2. Risk specialist

    Corning shows twenty-day annualized volatility of 58.7 against sixty-day annualized volatility of 64.5 with a stable trend, drawdown from the one-year high of −51.7 versus maximum one-year drawdown of −51.7, one-year large daily-move count of 86, and worst five-day return over one year of −28.0.

  3. Price-trend specialist

    Close $123.31 is 20.6% below 200-day average and 16.6% below 50-day average, with a death cross 9 days old; the 1-year channel slope is 100.0% per year and the 90-day slope is −60.2% per year.

Sagehood research decision

The investment case, main risk and break condition are the ones shown under Sagehood’s view at the top of this page.

Recorded break condition
Break condition as kept in the decision trail

A later reading showing TTM operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median with a negative operating-margin change would break the expansion claim.

Evidence & sourcesClaim-support availability, filing-context links and research method

GLW: This run has no checked links from its claims to their evidence. The specialists’ writing is shown as recorded, and no missing evidence is filled in.

Accepted research

Research dated 2026-10-30.

How this research was made

This research is AI-generated and is not investment advice.

Research date
2026-10-30
Valuation & peersInput limits notedFair-value cells, peer multiples and the inputs behind the range

Valuation: the model declined to give a fair value

Against the 2026-10-30 close of $123.31 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-09-30.

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($28.30) and the peer-multiple estimate ($131.06) were 4.6 times apart.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)

The discounted cash flow grid cells this run nominated, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Bear
$13.50−89% vs close
Base
$28.30−77% vs close
Bull
$67.10−46% vs close

The bear case sits more than 5× from the close: an extreme scenario, shown as the model computed it.

Implied by the median of 3 peer-median multiples: $131.06 (+6.3% vs close)

Peers: the 27 Liquid 100 names in Information Technology that this run priced. Companies outside the Liquid 100 are not in the set.

The 27 names

AAPL, AMD, APH, AVGO, CRM, CRWD, CSCO, DELL, GEN, HPE, HPQ, INTC, KLAC, LRCX, MCHP, MRVL, MSFT, MU, NOW, NVDA, ON, ORCL, PLTR, QCOM, SMCI, SNDK, WDC.

Multiples against the peer group

Information Technology · 27 companies in the group

Sector median includes AVGO, whose per-share figure failed the share-basis check in this research.

  • Price to earnings (trailing twelve months)49.92×

    Peer median 29.89× · middle half 19.24× to 45.53× · 77th percentile of the group

  • Price to sales6.06×

    Peer median 7.08× · middle half 4.55× to 12.88× · 37th percentile of the group

  • Price to book7.86×

    Peer median 8.35× · middle half 6.41× to 15.99× · 40th percentile of the group

  • Free cash flow yield2.29%

    Peer median 2.61% · middle half 1.33% to 5.43% · 37th percentile of the group

This run declares Enterprise value to EBITDA and computes no value for it, for this company or for its peer group.

Evidence limits: 3 valuation inputs required conservative handling: another valuation input required conservative handling; depreciation and amortization were available but not used because this version does not compute an EV/EBITDA multiple.

Includes the currently displayed specialist or comparison, not every specialist. Dates and limitations remain attached.

Sagehood research is for general information. It is not individualized investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

Corning Inc. (GLW) research | Sagehood