Skip to main content
Preview

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

Radar
INTC

INTC Research brief

Intel

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$65.76(−28.58%)

Sagehood’s view on INTC

Intel · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

30Bearish50 is balancedScore change −5 since 2026-10-29, from 35 to 30; view unchanged at 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

WhyIntel's bearish read is driven by a tier-1 guidance shock that produced a −26.8% excess move, with bad-news days followed by underperformance 13 against bad-news days followed by outperformance 2. The unresolved risk is that the −53.3% drawdown already equals its one-year maximum and peers imply $136.1.This view cites the peer-implied figure, whose sector median this page flags. See Valuation & peers.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case for the company is that the selloff may already price the bad news.
Break conditionFrom the news specialist: A later close showing the guidance item's excess return back inside the band of 0.5% would break the confirmed-negative read.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 close ($65.76) was 43.8 times the model’s cash-flow estimate ($1.50), and no other valuation method came within 3 times of that estimate (the peer-multiple estimate was $136.10). The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.

Close $65.76 (recorded) on 2026-10-30; estimates use fundamentals to 2026-09-26.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)
Bear
$0.40
Base
$1.50
Bull
$12.70

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
MultipleINTCGroup medianPercentile
P/S5.58×7.08×33rd
P/B2.91×8.35×8th
FCF yield1.13%2.61%22nd
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 news 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$65.76 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day−28.58%
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 run35 on 2026-10-29 → 30 on 2026-10-30 (−5 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 $65.76

−50.5% from 2026-06-25

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

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

Selected 2026-10-30. INTC adjusted close. Continuous series. $65.76 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
2026-10-3030Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2935Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2840Bearish50Method 4
2026-10-2745Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-2646Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2345Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2240Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2145Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-1638Bearish45Method 4
2026-10-0938Bearish50Method 4
2026-10-0747Neutral40Method 4
2026-10-0250Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-0155Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-3049Neutral58Method 4
2026-09-2949Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-2849Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2548Neutral58Method 4
2026-09-24 · retrospective49Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2351Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-1851Neutral65Method 4
2026-09-16 · retrospective50Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-09 · retrospective51Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-0449Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-01 · retrospective48Neutral55Method 4
2026-08-31 · retrospective56Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-2856Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-26 · retrospective56Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-24 · retrospective56Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-20 · retrospective55Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-19 · retrospective56Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-1460Neutral60Method 2
2026-08-1360Neutral60Method 1
2026-08-0759Neutral60Method 1
2026-08-0658Neutral60Method 1
2026-08-0459Neutral60Method 1
2026-07-3145Neutral63Method 1
2026-07-2347Neutral53Method 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

INTC research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Neutral

Intel's trailing-twelve-month revenue of $59,892 million grew 12.1%, below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, but quarterly growth accelerated to 20.9% and operating margin expanded 7.4 percentage points. Trailing-twelve-month operating margin of 2.9% still trails the 23.2% sector median.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: trailing-twelve-month revenue was $59,892 million with trailing-twelve-month revenue growth of 12.1% versus the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, and quarterly revenue growth over the last four quarters was −4.1%, 7.2%, 25.4% and 20.9%.

Why it matters now

Accelerating revenue growth and a 7.4 percentage-point operating-margin expansion support the recovery read, but the 2.9% trailing-twelve-month operating margin remains far below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and the 17.0% share growth is a material dilution qualification.

What could change the view

Countercase: The read would be wrong if the reported operating margin of 2.9% proves a one-off and the next filing shows it back near the 23.2% sector operating-margin median, or if the 17.0% share growth reflects a financing event rather than dilution. Falsifier: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median would break the margin-recovery claim.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
50
Evidence confidence
80
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
10.40
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.21
Weighted contribution
10.45
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

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
80
Weight in the score
0.21
Weighted contribution
10.45

Risk specialist

Bearish

Score
22
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.09
Weighted contribution
1.95

Sector specialist

Bearish

Score
30
Evidence confidence
62
Weight in the score
0.12
Weighted contribution
3.74

SEC filings specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.03
Weighted contribution
1.66

News specialist

Bearish

Score
28
Evidence confidence
70
Weight in the score
0.15
Weighted contribution
4.33

Price-trend specialist

Bearish

Score
28
Evidence confidence
75
Weight in the score
0.30
Weighted contribution
8.44

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
54
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.09
Weighted contribution
4.78

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 close ($65.76) was 43.8 times the model’s cash-flow estimate ($1.50), and no other valuation method came within 3 times of that estimate (the peer-multiple estimate was $136.10). 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

INTC: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

30

Bearish50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

News specialist

Bearish

Specialist score 28Evidence confidence 70
What the specialist sees

The 2026-10-29 guidance item 'Intel Shares Plunge More Than 20% on Weak…' from The Wall Street Journal carried tone −2 and one-day return relative to SPY −26.8 percentage points, while material-news net tone printed −0.13 with bad-news days followed by underperformance 13 and bad-news days followed by outperformance 2.

Why it matters

A tier-1 guidance shock that produced a −26.8% excess move confirms the negative flow, and the 2026-10-29 8-K under items 2.02,9.01 corroborates that a hard event occurred in-window.

What argues against it

The read would be wrong if the plunge already discounts the weak PC outlook and later filings show demand stabilizing, but the 83-day gap to the next earnings date leaves no near-term catalyst to test that.

This specialist’s break condition: A later close showing the guidance item's excess return back inside the band of 0.5% would break the confirmed-negative read.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 35.35. Sagehood research’s adjustment was −5.35. 35 on 2026-10-29 → 30 on 2026-10-30 (−5 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. News specialist

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

  2. Price-trend specialist

    Close 65.76 is 53.3% below the 52-week high of 140.94 and 24.3% below 200-day average; the 1-year log channel slopes 286.7% per year with fit R² 0.73, and the 90-day slopes −27.1% per year with fit R² 0.06.

  3. Risk specialist

    Vol20d is 107.8% against sixty-day annualized volatility 83.9% with a rising trend, drawdown from the one-year high is −53.3% equal to largest one-year drawdown −53.3%, one-year large daily-move count is 90, downside beta 3.67 exceeds SPY beta 3.35, and worst five-day return over one year is −24.4%.

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 close showing the guidance item's excess return back inside the band of 0.5 percent would break the confirmed-negative read.

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

INTC: 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 $65.76 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-09-26.

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the close ($65.76) was 43.8 times the model’s cash-flow estimate ($1.50), and no other valuation method came within 3 times of that estimate (the peer-multiple estimate was $136.10).

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
$0.40−99% vs close
Base
$1.50−98% vs close
Bull
$12.70−81% vs close

The bear, base, and bull cases sit more than 5× from the close: extreme scenarios, shown as the model computed them.

Implied by the median of 2 peer-median multiples: $136.10 (+107% 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, GLW, HPE, HPQ, 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)Not computed in this research

    Peer median 31.38× · middle half 19.66× to 48.38×

  • Price to sales5.58×

    Peer median 7.08× · middle half 4.55× to 12.88× · 33rd percentile of the group

  • Price to book2.91×

    Peer median 8.35× · middle half 6.43× to 15.99× · 8th percentile of the group

  • Free cash flow yield1.13%

    Peer median 2.61% · middle half 1.75% to 5.43% · 22nd 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: 14 valuation inputs required conservative handling: another valuation input required conservative handling; tax expense is not among this research’s inputs; 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.

Intel (INTC) research | Sagehood