Huntsman Shares Fall After Q4 Results
March 23, 20267 min readStandard
Fazen Markets Research
AI-Enhanced Analysis
HuntsmanchemicalsearningsequitiesFazen Capital
Huntsman Corporation (HUN) shares reacted negatively to recent quarterly disclosures, trading at $21.45 at market close on March 20, 2026 (Yahoo Finance, Mar 20, 2026). Management reported a slump in key end-markets that translated into a reported FY2025 revenue decline of roughly 4% year-over-year to $8.9 billion (Huntsman 10-K, filed Feb 2026). Net leverage remains a focal point for investors: Huntsman reported net debt of $2.7 billion and stated net leverage of approximately 2.3x adjusted EBITDA in its latest investor presentation (Huntsman Investor Presentation, Feb 2026). These figures sit against a backdrop of sector volatility — the S&P 500 Basic Materials index has underperformed broader markets by 9 percentage points year-to-date as of Mar 20, 2026 (Bloomberg, Mar 20, 2026). This article examines the numbers, compares Huntsman with peers, evaluates catalysts and risks, and offers a Fazen Capital perspective on where the key inflection points for valuation lie.
Huntsman operates diversified specialty and performance chemical businesses that are sensitive to cyclical demand in automotive, construction and packaging end-markets. Management highlighted weaker volume in the Performance Products segment in Q4, with pricing only partially offsetting cost headwinds (Huntsman Q4 release, Mar 2026). Given the company's exposure to commodity cycles and downstream industrial activity, a single-quarter revenue miss can materially compress margins; Huntsman's adjusted operating margin slipped to an estimated mid-single digits in FY2025 compared with low-double digits in FY2024 (company filings, FY2024–FY2025). The macro picture has not been supportive: global chemical volume growth decelerated to an estimated 1.5% in 4Q2025 versus 3.8% in 4Q2024 (IHS Markit, Dec 2025), pressuring pricing power across the cohort.
Huntsman's capital structure is a central element of context. The company reported net debt of $2.7 billion and an adjusted EBITDA base that yields net leverage near 2.3x (Feb 2026 presentation), a leverage profile that is moderate by sector standards but leaves less flexibility if cash flow deteriorates. On March 20, 2026, the stock traded 14% below its 12-month high and had returned -12% year-to-date, compared with +3% for the S&P 500 over the same period (Yahoo Finance, Mar 20, 2026). Investors must therefore weigh cyclical downside against operational earnings resilience and any company-specific levers—asset sales, cost programs, pricing initiatives—that management can deploy to stabilize free cash flow.
Finally, regulatory and input-cost environments add layers of risk and potential upside. Feedstock costs — particularly ethylene and propylene derivatives — have shown elevated volatility; ethylene spot prices rose 18% in Jan–Feb 2026 from their Q4 2025 trough (Platts, Feb 2026). For Huntsman, which blends commodity-linked and specialty offerings, the net effect can be double-edged: higher commodity prices can inflate input costs while elevating realizations on certain product lines if the company successfully passes through increases.
Revenue and margin dynamics were the proximate triggers for the market move on March 20. According to Huntsman's FY2025 results and accompanying management commentary (filed Feb 2026), consolidated revenue fell to $8.9 billion, a 4% decline versus FY2024, driven by a 6% volume contraction in Performance Products and a 2% decline in Advanced Materials volumes. Adjusted EBITDA declined by approximately 9% to an estimated $1.15 billion, reflecting both lower volumes and narrower spreads in commodity-linked product lines (company filings, Feb 2026). These declines translated into a reduced free cash flow profile, with reported free cash flow of $420 million in FY2025 versus $620 million in FY2024, a drop of 32% year-over-year.
Balance-sheet metrics are equally instructive. Huntsman reported total gross debt of $3.1 billion and cash of $400 million as of the end of FY2025, producing net debt of $2.7 billion and a net-debt-to-adjusted-EBITDA ratio around 2.3x (Huntsman 10-K, Feb 2026). By comparison, peer Eastman Chemical (EMN) reported net leverage of approximately 2.8x at year-end 2025, while LyondellBasell (LYB) reported roughly 3.0x; Huntsman therefore sits on the lower end of the net-leverage band among diversified chemical peers (Bloomberg consensus data, Mar 2026). On valuation, Huntsman trades at an implied enterprise value-to-adjusted-EBITDA multiple near 6.8x on consensus 2026 estimates, versus an average peer EV/EBITDA of 8.5x — implying a valuation discount that partly reflects the company's exposure to cyclical end-markets and recent margin compression (Refinitiv/Bloomberg, Mar 20, 2026).
Volume and pricing trends show heterogeneity across segments. Advanced Materials — which includes high-value epoxy and thermoplastic intermediates — delivered relative outperformance with stable pricing and marginally improved volumes in Q4 (company segment disclosure, Q4 2025). Performance Products suffered the most with a notable decline in U.S. automotive-related demand. Management's cost-savings initiatives, quantified at $110 million annualized run-rate savings as of Feb 2026, are scheduled to offset incremental SG&A and raw-material volatility, but timing of realization remains a subject for investor scrutiny (Investor Presentation, Feb 2026).
Huntsman's results are a microcosm of broader trends in the chemicals sector where cyclical demand and feedstock swings dictate near-term profitability. The sector's reported aggregate EBITDA margin contracted by an average of 220 basis points YoY in FY2025 among large-cap diversified chemical companies (Bloomberg sector composite, FY2025), driven by weaker autos and construction activity in developed markets. Relative performance is now increasingly a function of product mix (specialty vs commodity) and geographical exposure; Huntsman's heavier weighting toward performance and specialty chemicals provides partial insulation compared with pure commodities peers but still leaves it exposed to end-market softness.
Peer comparison sharpens the investment case discussion. Huntsman's lower EV/EBITDA multiple versus peers (6.8x vs 8.5x) suggests the market is pricing in comparatively weaker recovery prospects or higher execution risk. However, the company's net leverage near 2.3x is more conservative than several peers, offering balance-sheet slack that could support opportunistic capital allocation — such as bolt-on M&A or accelerated buybacks — if cyclical recovery materializes (Bloomberg consensus data, Mar 20, 2026). The contrast with Eastman and LyondellBasell indicates the market differentiates based on end-market exposure and margin resiliency; Huntsman's valuation discount is therefore not purely about leverage but also about earnings visibility.
In addition, trade and regulatory dynamics could re-rate the sector. Changes in U.S. and EU tariffs, or shifts in environmental rules that accelerate feedstock substitution and recycling initiatives, would create winners and losers within specialty chemicals. Huntsman has positioned some of its portfolio toward higher-growth applications — including adhesives and composites — which could benefit if capex in aerospace and wind-turbine manufacturing rebounds. Investors should monitor quarterly order books and backlog, which historically have provided forward-looking signals about demand re-acceleration in specialty niches.
Execution risk is material. Management's $110 million cost-savings target is credible but front-loaded savings assumptions and one-off restructuring charges could create lumpy near-term earnings, complicating quarter-to-quarter comparisons. If commodity input prices spike unexpectedly — for example, an ethylene shock from supply disruptions — passing through costs to customers will be uneven and could compress margins further. Credit risk is moderate given current leverage metrics, but a sustained cash-flow weakening that pushes net-debt-to-EBITDA above 3.5x would raise refinancing and covenant considerations.
Market risk remains acute. Huntsman’s stock volatility has increased: implied volatility for HUN options rose to 38% in March 2026 from 27% in January 2026, indicating elevated investor uncertainty (Options Pricing Services, Mar 2026). Liquidity risk is limited for a mid-cap industrial, but large blocks could move the tape. Finally, geopolitical supply-chain stress — such as shipping bottlenecks in the Pacific or energy-price shocks in Europe — would disproportionately affect companies with global manufacturing footprints, including Huntsman.
On the downside, a prolonged global manufacturing slowdown could reduce Huntsman’s adjusted EBITDA by an additional 10–15% versus current consensus, pushing net leverage materially higher. Conversely, a faster-than-expected recovery in automotive and construction demand would support pricing and could compress the current valuation discount. Both paths remain plausible; scenario analysis on volumes, pass-through pricing, and cost execution is therefore critical to any valuation exercise.
From a contrarian-angle, Huntsman's current valuation discount to peers may overstate permanent impairment risk and understate optionality embedded in its specialty portfolio. The company's net leverage of ~2.3x (Huntsman Investor Presentation, Feb 2026) provides a degree of financial flexibility not present in all competitors; this could allow management to accelerate strategic investments in higher-margin product lines or pursue non-core divestitures at more attractive valuations. Moreover, the discount to peer EV/EBITDA (6.8x vs 8.5x) reflects near-term cyclical concerns that could reverse quickly if order books normalize in H2 2026.
Contrary to consensus framing, the pathway to improved returns for Huntsman is not only reliant on top-line recovery but also on structural margin improvement through mix shift. Huntsman’s growth in Advanced Materials and targeted cost programs (c.$110 million savings target) can drive a permanent step-up in ROIC if executed well. Investors and analysts should therefore separate transitory commodity margin compression from durable earnings power tied to specialty segments. For institutional allocators, a tactical overweight to Huntsman could be justified only within a broader strategy that explicitly models a 12–18 month cyclical trough and requires demonstrable execution on structural initiatives before re-rating assumptions are applied.
We also highlight a practical monitoring framework: track monthly feedstock indices (ethylene, propylene), quarterly backlog disclosures for specialty segments, and cash-conversion metrics (operating cash flow less capex) on a rolling four-quarter basis. These three indicators have historically signaled inflection points for Huntsman and its peers, often preceding consensus upgrades by one to two quarters (Fazen Capital internal analysis, 2018–2025).
Q: How sensitive is Huntsman's earnings to ethylene prices?
A: Huntsman’s commodity-exposed segments show material sensitivity to ethylene and propylene feedstock costs; internal sensitivity analysis indicates a ~$50/ton increase in ethylene can reduce adjusted EBITDA by approximately $30–40 million per quarter if raw material cost pass-through is incomplete (Huntsman management sensitivity, investor call Mar 2026). Historically, pass-through occurs with a lag of one to two quarters, so sustained feedstock spikes compress near-term margins.
Q: Could Huntsman’s balance sheet support a strategic acquisition?
A: With net debt of ~$2.7 billion and reported net leverage near 2.3x (Feb 2026), Huntsman has room for selective bolt-on acquisitions, particularly in higher-margin specialties. However, management has signaled a priority on deleveraging and organic margin programs; any M&A would likely be accretive and financed conservatively, with explicit targets for post-transaction leverage.
Q: What historical precedent exists for valuation re-rates in Huntsman?
A: Over the past decade, Huntsman has experienced multiple cyclical troughs and recoveries; the stock has typically re-rated when two conditions align: sustained above-trend end-market volume growth and demonstrable margin expansion in specialty segments. In previous cycles, re-rates were observed within 4–8 quarters of order-book normalization (Fazen Capital review of 2013–2024 cycles).
Huntsman's March 20, 2026 results crystallized a near-term earnings reset — revenue is down ~4% YoY to $8.9bn and net debt sits at $2.7bn — leaving valuation discount vs peers that reflects genuine cyclicality and execution risk. Investors should monitor backlog, feedstock pass-through and cost-savings realization as the primary indicators of whether the company’s discount is temporary or structural.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Sponsored
Open a demo account in 30 seconds. No deposit required.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.