It is still a relative value compared to the rest of the market, at a little less than a 12 PE (market is over 16 PE). Dividend is steady. It's not that cyclical and it doesn't have a particularly high beta. It's the kind of steady stock you just leave in your portfolio and let its steady dividends compound.
If you are a football fan, a good analogy is that teams that focus on only the passing game, and not on running, defense, or special teams, can be exciting to watch but they rarely win championships or even playoff games. But if you've got a good defense and a good running game, you can usually make the playoffs even with mediocre passing. Olin is one of those boring stocks with a good defense and a good running game. It's not exciting. But low beta, dividend-paying stocks bought at the right times are how Warren Buffet got rich, and he's a Superbowl-winning investor by just about any measure.
i'm in the same boat as you are. blackrock, vanguard and other big funds own oln for whatever reason. i guess if its good enough for them, and the dividend holds, then its good enough for me. i still buy the dips if it gets deep into the 21's to average in.
I have owned OLN for 6 years. I received the 3.5% to 4.0% dividend faithfully. In the interest environment we are in, that's a nice steady return. I suppose. But I've been watching other steady companies fly by with a higher and higher share price. And these aren't wild speculative plays: JCI, PPG, to name two. ( I own neither) Olin is in a commodity business (chlor alkali) and a discreet part manufacturing business (ammo). Both are really tough from an operational standpoint. You have to be flawless in execution, which I'm sure they are. But the risks can be daunting. So I ask, why should I continue owning this stock, when there are other nice options out there. Any thoughts are welcome, if there is a catalyst I'm missing, please, let me know. GTLA.