Nike’s story has always been about getting bigger, relentlessly, every cycle. To the bulls: winning; to the bears, at what cost?

But under Elliott Hill who came back as CEO in late 2024, is deliberately getting smaller where it got sloppy. That reset has a cost, and they have been paying for it in margin. While the top line has roughly stopped falling, Tuesday’s report will show whether cost has peaked.

Nike runs about $46.3B of revenue a year, down from a $51.4B peak in FY24. It sells two ways, through wholesale partners like Foot Locker and Dick’s and through its own stores and apps, NIKE Direct, and leans most on North America at $19.6B, with EMEA, Greater China, and Asia Pacific and Latin America behind it. Footwear is about two-thirds of the brand, apparel most of the rest, with a shrinking Converse ($1.7B) on the side.

The “Win Now” plan runs on a few moves, each deliberately bad for this year’s numbers. Hill is pulling back the classic franchises (Air Force 1, Dunk, Air Jordan 1) Nike had been flooding into the market; resetting NIKE Direct and digital away from constant promotions toward full price; rebuilding the wholesale relationships the prior regime walked away from; and putting marketing behind sport rather than cutting it.

The unwind rebuilds brand health at the cost of near-term sales, and above all, margin. Consolidated gross margin has gone 44.6% in FY24 to 42.7% in FY25 to 40.2% in Q3 FY26. Management has guided Q4 down another 25 to 75 basis points, landing near 39.9%, lower than any year in over a decade. For contrast, lululemon, a premium model still runs near 56.6%.

So heading into Tuesday, here’s what we’re watching:

• Gross Margin and Tariffs. The Q3 release pinned the 130-basis-point margin drop “primarily due to higher tariffs in North America,” and the Q4 guide bakes in roughly 250 basis points of tariff drag. The math is noisy: management flagged a tariff-refund benefit that lands in Q4 and reverses in FY27, so if margin beats the ~39.9% guide, we will look to see whether a refund is overstating it. Management’s plan bakes in margin expansion starting in Q2 FY27.

• Greater China. China used to be the profit center but its nine-month segment EBIT has fallen from $1,298M to$1,035M year-on-year, down 20%. This is against a quarterly peak near $973M in early 2021. Management guided China revenue down about 20% again in Q4 on deliberate cleanup. There are brand-heat problems there (Anta, Li-Ning) but fixes are not fully in Nike’s control. We will watch whether the decline is decelerating -- seeing that calendar 2026 is the worst of it matters more than the Q4 figure.

• Wholesale versus Direct. The clearest sign the reset is working will come from how these channels split. In Q3, wholesale grew 5% while NIKE Direct fell 4%. For full-year FY25, Direct dropped 12.7% to $18.8B against wholesale’s softer 6.8% decline to $25.9B. These data points show that direct-to-consumer model is going the wrong direction, but if we see wholesale staying positive, that could be a sign that retail partners are re-buying the brand.

• Cash. Nike pushed marketing to a record $4.69B in FY25, up 9.4% even as revenue fell, spending into the downturn rather than cutting. At the same time it nearly stopped buying back stock: just $146M in the first nine months of FY26

  versus $2.79B a year earlier, with operating cash flow roughly halved to $3.7B. One possibility is a buyback restart, which would signal management thinks the cash trough is behind it.

• Footwear. Footwear fell 11.7% to $29.5B in FY25 while apparel held up better at

  down 5.9% to $13.0B. Footwear is where the classic-franchise pullback bites hardest. We will look to see if it turns less negative as new running and basketball product replaces the cut volume.

Consensus for Q4 is about $10.85B of revenue, down roughly 3%, and near $0.11 of EPS against Q3’s $0.35. The stock sits near $45, down about 44% from its $80 high last August, and RBC, JPMorgan and Stifel have all cut targets toward $47 to $50 on a slower-than-hoped turnaround.

The most important thing Tuesday will be the FY27 margin framing: if the Q2 FY27 inflection holds and wholesale stays positive, the floor is near. If the FY27 guide slips or the tariff drag widens, we would expect the bill to grow before it shrinks. It is also Matthew Friend’s last quarter as CFO; David Denton, lately Lowe’s CFO, takes over August 17, so watch how the handoff is framed.

All data sourced via Revelata’s deepKPI from NIKE’s 10-K, latest 10-Q, and quarterly 8-K press releases, with additional context from analyst reporting and regulatory filings.

Darden Restaurants reports its fiscal fourth-quarter and full-year results on Thursday before the market opens. runs eleven brands across four reporting segments. Olive Garden is the largest, with $5,212.9M in FY25 sales. LongHorn provides the business’s growth story at $3,025.5M. Meanwhile, Fine Dining includes The Capital Grille, Ruth’s Chris, and Eddie V’s, and is ‘s smaller, higher-margin segment at $1,304.8M. Brands like Cheddar’s, Yard House, and Chuy’s sit in an Other Businesses segment.

The big picture for is that sales growth comes from two places: more customers, or a higher average check, and the relationship between those two is complex.

(Note: this week, our article is accompanied by a full operating model. Use it to model future scenarios, understand how really works, and see how deepKPI can automate the most advanced investment analysis available)

First, take Olive Garden. They reported positive same-restaurant sales in every quarter this year, but guest counts have been heading the other way. Traffic ran +2.8% in the first quarter, +1.7% in the second, and then slipped to -0.4% in the third, even though the reported comp held at +3.2%. Last quarter, they relied on pricing and menu mix to prop up sales while traffic slipped. Meanwhile, LongHorn had no such problem. Its comp climbed from +5.5% to +5.9% to +7.2% over the same three quarters, and it did it while earning a record 19.3% restaurant margin, up from 18.4% a year ago.

The most important number Thursday is Olive Garden’s guest count. A positive comp built on slightly negative traffic would show that Olive Garden is continuing to lean on price to keep sales in line, while running the risk of driving customers away faster or more permanently. Their new Uber Direct delivery channel is an attempt to steer around this risk, and attention-grabbing management commentary on that channel may reflect inherent worry about damage being done to foot traffic.

LongHorn is the second thing to watch, mostly because it can’t keep lapping itself. What’s being tested is how much of Darden’s growth can safely come down to a single brand. If LongHorn keeps accelerating, it suggests that Darden’s scale and buying power can take an ordinary steakhouse and compound it for years, which is supports the argument for owning eleven brands under one roof and continuing to buy more.

Fine Dining is easy to skip over but is worth a closer look. Segment profit there fell to $174.1M over the first nine months from $179.6M a year earlier, even though segment sales grew. If fourth-quarter profit is down year over year again, two quarters of falling fine-dining profit would mandate a closer look at operational dynamics. For example, are high-end diners pulling back as steak costs go up? How would those effects be expected to impact Longhorn, given the importance of growth in that segment?

Two technical points will shape how the headline looks. First, FY26 has an extra 53rd week, and it lands in the fourth quarter, so reported sales and EPS will look inflated against a normal comparison. Management has said that week is worth roughly 2% of full-year sales growth and about $0.25 of adjusted EPS. Second, Darden is winding down Bahama Breeze, closing or converting all 28 locations. It’s a small brand, but a related closing or impairment charge could complicate the move from GAAP to adjusted earnings.

Consensus sits at about $3.64 in adjusted EPS and $3.73B in revenue for the quarter. Darden’s updated full-year guidance calls for adjusted EPS of $10.57 to $10.67, including that $0.25 from the extra week, with same-restaurant sales growth around 4% and capital spending of $750 to $775 M. Citi recently raised its target to $245 with a Buy, and the analyst median is near $225.

Just bring unlimited pasta and breadsticks back, foot-traffic problems solved.

All data sourced via Revelata’s deepKPI from Darden’s latest 10-Q, 10-K, and quarterly 8-K press releases, with consensus and price-target context from analyst reporting.

Cracker Barrel trades on familiarity: the image of a rocking chair on a porch and the familiarity that travelers seek when pulling off the interstate. And they sure blew up that image last August when they modernized their “Old Timer” logo and started doing the same to stores.

The backlash was immediate but the brand paid a steep price. reports fiscal third-quarter results after the close on Tuesday, and the major question is whether the traffic they drove away has started to come back.

For background, Cracker Barrel runs one integrated concept: a full-service country restaurant with a gift shop bolted to the front. Restaurant sales were $694.3M last quarter, about 79% of the total, with retail the other 21% at roughly. The gift shop is almost entirely impulse buys by restaurant guests on the way out, so when diners stopped coming, the shelves bled even faster than the dining room. The store base has been flat at about 656 units, which makes Tuesday’s earnings a same-store story instead of a growth story.

CEO Julie Masino, two years into a multi-year turnaround, is working three levers at once: win guests back on food and value rather than gimmicks, now that the rebrand is reversed and the remodels paused; reduce costs through restructuring and lighter advertising during the second half of the year; and maintain enough cash on the balance sheet, having already slashed the quarterly dividend from $1.30 to $0.25 a share and pulled back on store spending.

Heading into Tuesday, here’s what we’re watching:

• Traffic. Comparable restaurant guest traffic fell -10.1% last quarter, worse than the -2.7% it lapped, and a +3.4% average check came nowhere close to covering it, leaving restaurant comps at -7.1%. Q3 laps the weakest stretch of last year, when traffic fell 5.6%, so the year-over-year figure should improve almost mechanically. We expect to see a solid bump in traffic to verify that the brand damage has been contained and the impact receding.

• Retail Margin And Tariffs. Retail cost of goods jumped to 56.8% of retail revenue from 53.4% a year earlier, on lower initial margin from tariffs plus markdowns and shrinkage. With a meaningful slice of merchandise still sourced from China, watch whether retail gross margin steadies or keeps slipping; another 200-plus basis points of give-back would meaningfully impact country-store economics.

• The June 15 Maturity. The remaining $150M of 0.625% convertible notes come due June 15, days after results land. With $495.8M of revolver availability and a fresh litigation cash infusion, paying it is not in doubt. We are instead interested in how they fund it and what it does to the 2.8x leverage ratio. The 2030 notes sit far out of the money -- the stock (low $30s) is nowhere near the $72.23 price at which the 2030 notes would turn into shares, turning those notes into debt the company has to pay back in cash. So the thing to worry about is whether Cracker Barrel can repay and refinance its debt.

• Operating Income. Q2 operating income was $463K, barely above zero, after a -$32.8M operating loss in Q1. produced $366.7M of operating income in fiscal 2021 and just $55.0M in fiscal 2025. Q3 also carries a one-time gain of about $47M from an interchange-fee litigation settlement. One needs to strip it out and watch whether operating profit clears zero on its own to differentiate between a slow recovery and a real balance-sheet problem.

The most important number Tuesday is underlying traffic, stripped of the easy lap and the settlement. The bull case is that casual dining is in a traffic upswing, with Chili’s running +2.7% traffic and Texas Roadhouse +7.1% comps in roughly the window Cracker Barrel ran -10.1%. The comps argue that the wound was self-inflicted and therefore fixable. The bear case is poor management: that the brand just spent more than $1B in market value communicating to customers that it no longer understands them, and the team that caused that will struggle to restore credibility meaningfully in just two quarters.

All data sourced via Revelata’s deepKPI from Cracker Barrel’s fiscal 2025 10-K and second-quarter fiscal 2026 10-Q, with additional context from the company’s 8-K earnings releases, analyst reporting, and regulatory filings.

The question above – is Google undervalued? – is both a hot topic in investing forums that generates fervent, Rorschach-inspired debate, and typical of the types of investigations everyday investors take on before making a trade.

It’s also a great practical test of the state of AI for everyday investing. In particular, we want to figure out if today’s AI can help investors surface genuine insight and put reliable data behind its claims. With platforms like offering AI assistance for trades, it is timely.

First the methods, then the answers.

So, does AI unlock new insight?

Our tests start with Claude Opus 4.8, Anthropic’s most powerful publicly-available model. We asked Claude out-of-the-box about and examined what analysis it performed, where it sourced its data, and ultimately how useful the answer was.

Claude started by polling aggregator websites. These sources quoted P/E against ’s 10-year average and against the sector. Claude also pulled price targets that represented an average of sell-side ratings – these came pre-averaged: MarketBeat’s roll-up of a “41-analyst” consensus in one pass, a “Strong Buy” average near $429 in another. Claude cited two fair-value figures, one from Simply Wall St. and one from a Peter Lynch-style formula, representing retail-facing models returned on the first page of a web search.

Taking the price targets as an example, we noted that we didn’t have any access to the analyst list, the dates, or the averaging method behind the “consensus” targets. We also observed that Claude’s two passes over the subtask did not agree on the final number. This means that, like lots of the data pulled from the open web, Claude’s analysis rested on signpost numbers without much insight about what went into them or, critically, what was left out of the calculation. For this first analysis, we found that all Claude’s numbers were pulled from such secondary sources.

(Aside: for those following Broadcom earnings, the impact of sourcing analyst targets from the web played out in real time. Within 15 minutes of earnings, CNBC and Reuters had revenue as a miss, while WSJ and Yahoo Finance had it as a beat. Woe to the AI algo trader who isn’t careful…)

Claude’s ultimate answer was a competent summary of the web consensus. It gave an explanation with the same three bull legs and the same bear risks one would expect to find from headlines and the better forum posts. Our takeaway is that it genuinely makes the work of forum-lurking casual investors faster. But a corollary is that it does not by default deploy the type of analysis and modeling techniques professional investors use, or access the data from which they build company valuations. In these ways, out-of-the-box Claude does little to bring professional investors’ sophistication to the rest of us.

So, we asked Claude again and this time gave it access to 10 years of operational KPIs, SEC filing text, segment and competitor summaries via deepKPI, a purpose-built MCP server available to any investor.

With this information, Claude went far far deeper. First, it started by breaking down segments (Cloud, Services, Other Bets), cash-flow and capex history, share count and tax rate, and management commentary to analyze ‘s operating history. It dove into line items like remaining performance obligation, traffic acquisition cost, and revenue per employee to assess where the company is today and align that with its history. It also offered to pull deepKPI data into a spreadsheet to create a typical institutional-grade operational model, though we stopped short of that for the purpose of this article.

Let’s get concrete about valuation:

The distilled web opinion was that, with Alphabet near $389 and a trailing P/E around 29 against a 10-year average of 27 in a sector closer to 35, it is cheap-ish versus the group and a bit rich versus its own history. Sell-side targets ranged from $412 to $443, though two fair-value models were $112 apart on the same stock. The result was familiar bull legs and bear risks, and a wash on the under/over valued question, which is where we observe forums like r/valueinvesting ending up.

Once we added in deepkpi’s data, Claude was able to do a much deeper analysis of the health of the company against peers and historic norms. For example, the web answer leaned on EV to free cash flow being north of 70, which was categorized by a screener as expensive. But when we dug into the filings, the numbers were reframed: 2025 free cash flow was about $73B and already flat while earnings boomed, and the AI build out is causing 2026 capex to roughly double, $91B → $175 - 185B, while pulling free cash flow toward $15 - 25B. So 72x shouldn’t be taken as a verdict on how expensive the company is, but instead as a snapshot of a company in-motion while it makes a massive bet on the future. Per our recent article, this bet is both the largest among peers and the least risky relative to the core businesses. This changes the interpretation of that number entirely.

The deepKPI-powered analysis also went into the levers of ’s core business. It noted Cloud’s contracted backlog went $108B → $157.7B in a single quarter. 2.0x → 2.7x of segment revenue. With most of it recognized over the past 24 months, this served as evidence that Cloud has the potential to hold 30%+ growth in the upcoming years. Claude also compared segment margins near 24% to AWS and Azure, two hyperscaler peers, and noted that their margins were better: in the low 30s. This suggested attainable and meaningful room for profit optimization, another sign pointing to the go-forward health of the business.

Claude surfaced two more important levers from the operational data that were not in the web consensus. The first was what pays to get traffic to ads: a lot when they run on network sites, and a little when they run on ‘s own properties like Search, YouTube, and Gmail. That business is shifting more towards properties, by 2 percentage points on a $265B ad base, showing that profit is growing and has room to do more. The other lever was productivity. Revenue per employee has begun climbing after years of being flat. This matters because the data-center buildout will turn into years of depreciation expense that eat at their margins, and rising output per worker pushes margins back the other way. This is another suggestion that is taking steps to buttress its core business while it sees its AI investment through to fruition.

Taken together, the operational analysis suggested that Cloud is under-earning its peers and has a healthy backlog to power it through the process of closing that gap, the ad business is getting more profitable, and output per employee is rising. Claude + deepKPI concluded that “better than its multiple suggests” is best answered with a model that allows us to test these levers.

As retail investors, we can invest that time, or make an educated guess, but the things that drive our bet are very clear: cloud efficiency versus peers, ad channel mix, and employee efficiency. This level of insight and understanding is far more concrete and clear than our summary of web debate and does bring a testable level of insight to the original question that is not obvious simply from browsing forums.

Our conclusion is that AI models are powerful interpreters of filings and data for retail investors, but one must take steps to guide them away from secondary web data and towards primary source data such as deepKPI’s KPI timeseries and filings markdowns. But, especially as AI services drive the price of access to data and analytical tools down – from $10,000+ per seat for incumbent services like Daloopa to $20/month, or free for some uses for deepKPI – the long-established gap between retail investors and professional investors is meaningfully changing. And quickly.

All numbers above were sourced via Revelata’s deepKPI, which gives you one-click auditing on every datapoint and integration into Excel, Claude, ChatGPT, OpenClaw, or your agent via API. You should try it yourself.

Subscribe now

Costco’s story has always been the membership flywheel: pay $65 a year, fill a pallet-sized cart, come back every other week, renew at the highest rate in American retail. Thursday after the close brings Q3 FY26, and the central question is whether the existing US base is still growing.

For background, Costco runs three geographic segments: United States ($49.9B Q2 FY26 revenue, ~72% of the company), Canada ($9.3B, ~13%), and Other International ($10.4B, ~15%). Revenue has two components: (1) net sales (Q2 FY26 $68.2B), comprised of core merchandise (foods & sundries, non-foods, fresh foods; ~81% of revenue) and warehouse ancillary and other businesses (gas, pharmacy, optical, food court, travel; Q2 FY26 $12.1B, ~17% of revenue); and (2) membership fees (Q2 FY26 $1,355M, ~2% of revenue). The high-margin annual membership fee is roughly half of operating income (Q2 FY26 $2,606M), which is what allows Costco’s merchandise to run at razor-thin operating margins.

Management is pulling three levers in parallel. First, a September 2024 membership fee hike that’s still feeding fee growth as it laps. Second, an accelerated warehouse build-out, weighted to the back half of FY26. Third, a digital channel that’s outpacing in-store growth.

So heading into Thursday, the single most important sentence will be whatever the CFO says about underlying US sales growth. That’s still the engine driving the model, even as the warehouse build-out and digital channel scale. Five things to watch:

• US Comparable Sales ex-FX and Gas. The cleanest read on the core American shopper went from +9% in Q2 FY25 to +6% in Q2 FY26. The March 5-week ran +6.2%, April +8.0% (with Easter helping by 1.5 points, so roughly +6.5% on a clean basis). Look for Q3 at or above +6.5% to confirm core US demand is holding.

• Membership Renewal Rates. Worldwide slipped from 90.5% to 89.7% YoY in Q2 FY26, and US/Canada from 93.0% to 92.1%. Management attributes the drift to a higher mix of online sign-ups renewing at a slightly lower rate. Focus on US/Canada at 92.1%, the core member base: Q-o-Q slippage decelerated to just 10 bps in Q2 FY26 from 30-50 bps a quarter earlier, so anything wider than 10 bps says the deterioration is reaccelerating.

• Membership Fee Revenue Growth. Fees grew +14% in Q2 FY26, with 35% from the September 2024 fee hike (5% hike + 9% organic from sign-ups and Executive mix). The hike contribution fades ~40% in Q3 as the comp period laps more post-hike months, giving ~12% central case (3% hike + 9% organic). Above the central case, sign-ups are accelerating beyond the 9% baseline; below, organic is weakening.

• Capital Spending Cadence. First-half capex was $2,815M (78% US at $2.2B), with 12 warehouses opened. The 2H plan is 21 openings: 10 US, 4 Canada, 6 Other International (Japan, Korea, Mexico, Sweden, Spain), plus a US relocation. 2H spend of roughly $3.7B hits the $6.5B FY26 guide as the heaviest 6-month spend in Costco history. Dollars chase the US base, but back-half openings are half international. Watch the international 6 landing on schedule; slippage signals the long-runway thesis is harder than guidance implies.

• Digital Comparable Sales. Digital grew +22% ex-FX in Q2 FY26, ran +22.5% in the March 5-week, then slipped to +18.4% in April. The April step-down likely partly reflects Easter calendar (more in-store buying when Easter falls late) rather than just saturation, but Q3 will tell. Sustained 20%+ keeps digital as a credible third growth lever; lower means the flywheel is decelerating faster than the supporting app data (+63% Q2 app visits) would predict.

All data sourced via Revelata’s deepKPI from Costco’s 10-K, latest 10-Q, and monthly 8-K sales releases, with additional context from analyst reporting and regulatory filings.

Subscribe now

American Eagle (AEO) runs two main apparel brands: the namesake American Eagle chain and the body-positive intimates and activewear brand Aerie. American Eagle sells jeans, t-shirts, and casual wear out of mall stores, while Aerie sells intimates, sleepwear, and activewear (under an OFFLINE sub-line).

The story has always been about denim and the back-to-school floor, with Aerie as the side project. In Fiscal 2025 that changed when Aerie grew $1.94 billion in revenue, up 12% year-over-year, while the American Eagle brand mostly stood still at $3.41 billion, up less than 1%. The surprising result is that the Aerie segment’s $345.9 million operating income is now within striking distance of American Eagle’s, despite Aerie being just over half the revenue size.

Strategically, AEO faces a few real problems. First, Abercrombie & Fitch is winning.
ANF‘s FY25 operating margin was 13.3% against AEO’s GAAP 4.1% on similar revenue, and Hollister grew net sales 15% in FY25 against Aerie’s 12%. American Eagle was the dominant teen mall denim brand for most of the 2000s and 2010s but Hollister has taken that position, and the AE brand has stopped growing, which puts all the consolidated growth pressure on Aerie. Second, the tariff regime keeps moving: IEEPA was struck down in February, the Section 122 replacement expires in late July, and there’s no clear successor. Third, after a heavy capital return year, cash plus short-term investments are down from $454 million two years ago to $239 million.

Management’s strategy in Fiscal 2025 was to lean into Aerie. The company opened 14 net new Aerie stand-alone locations to 332 while closing 24 American Eagle stores to 805, with more Aerie and OFFLINE openings planned for Fiscal 2026. Meanwhile, the company absorbed $130 million of gross tariff pressure, with $50 million in Q4 alone, dragging full-year gross margin down 270 basis points to 36.5%. In a show of confidence, AEO bought back stock at its trough, spending $201.8 million on an Accelerated Share Repurchase that delivered 18.4 million shares at an average price of $10.86.

With this backdrop, here’s what we’re watching:

• Aerie’s Exit Rate. Aerie comp went from negative in Q1 FY25 to +23% in Q4 FY25, with full-year comp of +9%. Listen for Aerie comp at +10% or better, and interpret anything below mid-single-digit as a suggestion that the engine has lost compounding.

• American Eagle Returning. AE brand comp was flat for FY25 with a +2% Q4 print, the first positive comp in over a year. Watch for +3% or better and segment operating margin moving back toward the 18% the brand ran at in FY24.

• The Tariff Lap. Q1 guidance includes roughly $30 million of net tariff pressure and assumes “2025 IEEPA guidelines” that the Supreme Court struck down on February 20, replaced same-day by a Section 122 10% global tariff. Look for references to refunds, which would be upside to the $20 to $25 million operating-income guide, but more importantly, any color on what happens when Section 122 expires in late July.

• Inventory Math. Ending FY25 inventory was $702 million, up 10% on revenue growth of 4%, with units up just 3%. That dollar gap represents tariff cost capitalized into inventory. If we see inventory growth above 6% year-over-year on the Q1 balance sheet, it may be a signal that more markdowns are coming.

• Capital Return Pacing. Cash plus short-term investments fell from $454 million at FY23 end to $239 million at FY25 end. AEO has 49 million shares remaining authorized through February 2029. Watch for whether the buyback shifts from ASR-style blocks to a steady open-market pace given the lower cash balance.

Consensus is $1.2 billion of revenue (+8.5%); management guides $20 to $25 million of operating income against a $85.2 million GAAP operating loss in Q1 FY25. The stock sits near $16.58; TD Cowen cut its price target from $19 to $18 (Hold) on May 18. For FY26 AEO guides $390 to $410 million of operating income, roughly 80% expected in the second half.

We’ll pay particular attention to what management says about Aerie’s April-May trend and any clarity on tariff refunds. The bull case is a back-half rip, while the bear case is that the American Eagle brand has stalled structurally and Hollister will keep stealing the teen oxygen.

All data sourced via Revelata’s deepKPI from American Eagle Outfitters’ 10-K, latest 10-Q, and quarterly 8-K press releases, with additional context from analyst reporting and peer SEC filings.

Subscribe now

GAP, the storied San Francisco grunge-rock clothier, today houses four apparel brands: Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, and Athleta. Its story over the past decade is one of stagnation, and so CEO Richard Dickson has been staging a two-year turnaround to return it to its former heyday as pop-culture tastemaker.

To-date, his eight consecutive quarters of positive comparable sales suggest progress. Athleta is the exception, where comps went +5%, +5%, then -8% and -11% in the four most recent quarters. Thursday, May 28 brings the Q1 fiscal 2026 report, and from this we will get a read out both on Gap’s trajectory and, just as important for many watchers, indicators of the overall macro environment.

The composition of fiscal 2025’s $15.37B net sales show the role of each brand to GAP. More than half of their net sales, 56%, comes from Old Navy $8.66B, the value engine.

Gap’s eponymous brand’s $3.50B contributes 23%, while Banana Republic $1.92B is 12% and Athleta $1.22B is 8%. Margins aren’t disclosed by brand, but Old Navy runs lower margin on bigger volume while Banana Republic and Athleta sit at premium prices. Athleta’s revenue has fallen from a $1.48B peak in fiscal 2022 to $1.22B, a 17.6% drop in three years, while Old Navy grew 5% over the same window and Banana Republic gave back 9%.

Management frames the turnaround strategy in the latest 10-K as an effort to fix fundamentals first while “thoughtfully seeding growth accelerators that will scale over time.” The latter includes beauty, accessories, the Fashiontainment platform (Gap’s trademarked name for its influencer/creator marketing program plus celebrity-tie-up campaigns -- yikes). Operationally, the playbook does three things at once: 1) Holds Old Navy as the value brand; 2) Reprices Gap brand upward, e.g. by pulling back on discounting for two consecutive quarters while accelerating comps from +3%/+3% in fiscal 2024 to +5% in Q1 fiscal 2025 and +7% in Q3; and 3) Bringing in new leadership for the two broken brands, first with Athleta in the second half of fiscal 2025, and then Banana Republic with new CEO Donald Kohler on May 19, 2026.

Fiscal 2025 came in at what Dickson called “one of our highest gross margins in the last 25 years,” suggesting this strategy is a good one. Heading into Thursday, here’s what we’re watching:

• Old Navy Comps. Old Navy comps ran +3% in Q1 fiscal 2025, accelerated to

  +6% in Q3, and held at +3% in Q4. Macro cuts both ways here: wage softness can hurt the lower-income core or help via trade-down from higher-income shoppers. We will look for Q1 comp at +3% or better. If it is above +5%, that suggests the trade-down narrative is winning, while below +2% says volume contraction is.

• Gap Brand Discounting Discipline. Gap brand Q4 comp was +7% on top of +7% the prior year. Management called out elasticity as they’d cut promotional discounts, increased average price per item, and saw unit volume hold, showing that they have pricing power. Gap brand sits in the middle of the income curve, so it may be the victim if we see trade-down via Old Navy. Strategic success would mean another quarter of disciplined discounting with specific revenue mentions of the fragrance and accessory launches. Strategic failure would show up as promotional intensity creeping back up.

• Athleta Slowing the Slide. Revenue stepped down from $329M in Q1 fiscal 2024 to $308M in Q1 fiscal 2025 and $257M in Q3. New leadership is in place, and Dickson called the brand a “work in progress” that is “re-architecting the assortment.” A Q1 comp better than the -8% year-ago base would suggest the decline is moderating. Worse than the -11% Q3 trough would mean the slide is still accelerating, and the rebuild is behind plan.

• A $313M Settlement Footnote. Q1 reported numbers include a $313 million net legal-settlement gain due to credit card interchange litigation and a $50 million charitable contribution. Together these add roughly $0.51 of one-time items and bring reported EPS to about $0.90, a 76% jump from last year’s $0.51 that will dominate wire headlines. The adjusted (operating) figure strips those items out: consensus is around $0.39, which is a 24% year-on-year decline driven by tariff drag. The settlement is unrelated to apparel performance but will muddle the operating read unless stripped out.

• The Tariff Math. Management guided Q1 gross margin down 150 to 200 bps off the 41.8% Q1 fiscal 2025 base, with 200 bps attributed to net tariffs, implying Q1 GM of roughly 39.8% to 40.3%. Ending inventory of $2.21B was up 6.8% YoY against 1.9% sales growth, partly because tariff costs got capitalized into inventory. Listen for Q1 GM at or above 39.8-40.3%, sourcing-diversification language (Vietnam, Indonesia), and whether the Supreme Court’s IEEPA ruling and the pending refund question reshape the FY26 plan.

Consensus is $3.52 billion in revenue (+2%) and $0.39 adjusted EPS, with reported EPS near $0.90. The stock trades near $23, off the $30.69 consensus target after gapping from $27 to $24 on March 6 when the fiscal 2026 outlook landed heavier on tariffs than expected. The fiscal 2026 guide is 2-3% sales growth, gross margin flat to up slightly versus 40.8%, adjusted EPS of $2.20 to $2.35 (vs. $2.13), and capex of about $650 million, up 38% from $470 million.

The most important comments on Thursday will be on Athleta and whether the full-year GM guide holds at 200 bps of Q1 tariff drag. If Athleta’s comp improves sequentially and Q1 GM lands at or above 40.3%, the story stays on the rails. Meanwhile, if both go the other way, the fiscal 2026 EPS guide would be at risk.

All data via Revelata’s deepKPI from Gap Inc.’s 10-K, latest 10-Q, and quarterly 8-K press releases, with additional context from analyst reporting and market data.

Subscribe now

This is Part 4 of a four-part series on the SpaceX IPO. Part 1 valued SpaceX’s operating businesses at approximately $1T against an IPO target of $1.75T to $2.0T. Part 2 examined what the additional $1T premium buys. Part 3 took a close look at what the S-1 said and didn’t say.

At this point, a reasonable question to ask is: what’s the purpose of our analysis?

What’s the point?

SPCX will trade in the near-term largely on the conviction that Musk’s track record of operational improbabilities will continue. So you might wonder why do this analysis at all if fundamentals won’t matter.

We can learn something about how and when fundamentals will matter by looking at Tesla. For well over a decade, TSLA traded at valuations untethered to automotive peers, on a Musk-led narrative about vehicle electrification, autonomy, and energy. Analysts who anchored on automotive multiples were correct on the math, but wrong on the price for years at a stretch. What’s instructive is that TSLA moved through three distinct stages: narrative won decisively for years, followed by a period in which narrative and fundamentals coexisted in tension with each other. Finally, fundamentals became the dominant pricing force, with a permanent Musk premium baked in, which is where TSLA is today.

SPCX will likely follow the same path, but it’s a bit more complicated than TSLA. Tesla was always a car company and the market always knew what business it was valuing. SpaceX hasn’t quite figured out what it is yet: Starlink earns cash today and the Space segment is the brand, but AI is what will drive near-term growth. So, is it a space company or is it an AI company? Or, somehow both?

Our analysis helps by putting a spin on the usual IPO investor questions of (a) whether to enter; and (b) when to exit. Both questions now have to be answered relative to a declared company persona. Anyone who buys SPCX at IPO is implicitly underwriting one persona over the other, or paying for the optionality of holding both. What should then drive an exit decision follows from knowing which one attaches. So, if you believe in the AI thesis, you should watch how the AI-segment disclosure gaps evolve: Anthropic ramp schedule, compute capacity and utilization, customer concentration, RPO growth, and the realized economics of orbital compute, if those satellites are ever launched. On the other hand, if you believe in the space thesis, you’d be watching the evolution of a different set of data points, primarily: Starship launch and production costs and third-party commercial demand. Either way, SpaceX is asking investors to take a narrative bet and a persona bet at the same time, with a disclosure that makes both hard to price.

We put together this four-part analysis in just a day using Revelata’s deepKPI. You can do this kind of work yourself by signing up for our free tier. No credit card required.

Subscribe now

This is Part 3 of a four-part series on the SpaceX IPO. Part 1 valued SpaceX’s operating businesses at approximately $1T against an IPO target of $1.75T to $2.0T. Part 2 examined what the $1T premium on top of the valuation ostensibly buys.

We now turn our attention to the prospectus itself.

Part 3: A Close Reading of the S-1

Disclosure Choices

The S-1 quantifies certain operational metrics but leaves a striking number of peer-standard disclosures absent. For a company controlled by an operator with a long history of selective disclosure, the absences are worth examining individually and pricing in, because each one says something about which numbers SpaceX preferred not to make public. The most material gaps are cataloged below. Where possible, we note what is missing, what comparable peers disclose, and the likely direction of impact if SpaceX disclosed the same thing.

The disclosure gaps roughly fall into two clusters: AI-segment commercial commitments (Items 1-3) and traditional satcom unit economics (the rest). Investors looking to test the AI growth thesis will find the first cluster more material.

1. Named customers above 10% of revenue. Rocket Lab discloses a Government Customer at 28% of revenue and MDA Corporation at 23% in FY2024. CoreWeave discloses Microsoft at 67% of FY2025 revenue. While SpaceX does disclose that 20% of its FY2025 revenue came from U.S. federal agencies in aggregate, there are no other disclosures of customer concentration, beyond qualitative commentary. Since peers do disclose customer concentration and even revenue splits, it’s possible that SPCX’s customer concentration is unflattering to its growth story.

2. Segment-level remaining performance obligations. CoreWeave discloses $60.7B of RPO at FY2025 year-end, grown four times in a single year. SpaceX, with the $45B nominal Anthropic contract and NASA/NSSL commitments, likely has comparable or larger RPO. Disclosure would force the customer-concentration disclosure that the S-1 currently avoids. The likely direction is unflattering for the same reason as Item 1.

3. AI segment power capacity, RPO, and customer commitments. SpaceX discloses the Anthropic deal (reported elsewhere as ~300MW) at a headline level but does not provide CRWV-style breakdowns: total contracted power, committed-contract-percentage-of-revenue, or customer-by-name contract values. CRWV publishes all three, which allows investors to back into capacity utilization. With AI segment capex running at $30B annualized against $3.2B in revenue, these proxies would tell investors whether the build-out is keeping pace with bookings (CRWV-style) or running ahead of bookings (speculative build).

4. Starlink subscriber mix. Iridium and EchoStar disclose subscriber composition (commercial versus government, for instance). SpaceX discloses only a single Starlink subscriber number. The mix among consumer broadband, enterprise, government Starshield, and Mobile is unclear. The direction is genuinely ambiguous: an enterprise-heavy mix would flatter ARPU and margin; a consumer-heavy mix would suggest the $66 ARPU is increasingly residential and increasingly price-sensitive.

5. Starlink churn. EchoStar sufficient subscriber metrics each period that let you back into churn, whereas SpaceX discloses only ending balance. For a business with rapidly declining ARPU, churn disclosure would clarify whether the subscriber growth is healthy or whether the gross adds are partly offsetting departing customers. The likely direction is unflattering.

6. Subscriber acquisition cost and terminal subsidy. EchoStar discloses subscriber acquisition costs of $195 million in FY2024, implying approximately $240 per gross add. Starlink kits are subsidized in many international markets, but the magnitude is invisible in the S-1. The likely direction is unflattering: aggressive international subsidies imply long payback periods at the $66 ARPU level.

7. Geographic revenue split. ASC 606 typically requires this disclosure for public companies. We know Starlink operates in 164 countries. A U.S.-heavy mix would flatter ARPU and margin; an international-heavy mix would expose FX risk and lower ARPU. The absence of disclosure may also reflect sensitivity at the country level, since Starlink has unique exposures in markets including Russia, Iran, and China.

8. Starshield revenue line item. Starshield is the explicitly defense-focused product but is not broken out from Connectivity revenue. Classified-work caveats provide some explanation for non-disclosure, but the product itself is openly discussed. If small, disclosure would deflate the implied DoD relationship while reassuring investors that consumer Connectivity is the engine. If large, disclosure would dominate the government-revenue concentration story.

9. Service vs. equipment gross margin split. Iridium discloses service and equipment margins separately. SpaceX provides Connectivity EBITDA margin (64%) on a blended basis. Peer cable and satcom service businesses run 70%+ service margins. While equipment is likely a drag, given terminal subsidization, disclosure would clarify whether unit economics improve as the subscriber base matures.

10. Starship unit economics and breakeven case. The S-1 says SpaceX’s growth strategy is “highly dependent on the successful development and scaling of Starship” but provides no information related to target launch and production costs. RKLB at least provides metrics that allow you to back into these numbers. However, since Starship is still under R&D, the absence may reflect genuine engineering uncertainty.

11. Fairness-opinion process for related-party transactions. Major related-party transactions (see next section) were all entered into pre-IPO. The S-1 does not describe an independent board review or fairness-opinion process. Disclosure would either confirm there was no such process (strongly unflattering) or describe one that exists (which would presumably already be disclosed if so). The likely direction is unflattering.

The Competitor the S-1 Does Not Foreground

The S-1’s competitive risk-factor language is generic, mentioning Amazon only in passing when in fact Amazon has assembled a vertically integrated stack that maps directly to SpaceX: Blue Origin provides launch services, Project Kuiper provides LEO connectivity, Amazon Web Services provides compute infrastructure. Amazon’s strategic investment in Anthropic provides frontier AI exposure. The four pieces correspond to SpaceX’s three segments, plus its largest AI customer relationship.

Amazon’s trajectory here is visible in their SEC disclosures even though this activity is not reported as a separate segment. Prepaid satellite launch deposits stood at $6.9 billion at December 31, 2025. And though only a small fraction is likely for Kuiper, AWS property and equipment additions totaled $96.5 billion in FY2025, exceeding SpaceX’s total consolidated revenue by five times and dwarfing SpaceX’s AI segment capex. Blue Origin holds 27 New Glenn launches contracted for Kuiper, representing $2.7 billion of direct contracted value, plus $4.7 billion of additional Kuiper launches via ULA’s Vulcan rocket and a $2.4 billion award under NSSL Phase 3 Lane 2. Together these disclosures describe a competitor with the capital, the launch contracts, and the strategic intent to challenge Starlink across the same markets. On a five to ten year horizon, the competitive landscape likely resolves toward a duopoly between SpaceX and Amazon, not a SpaceX monopoly. The S-1 does not engage with this directly.

Related-Party Arrangements

The S-1 catalogs a rich list of related-party transactions:

• xAI is Musk’s AI startup, founded in 2023 and headquartered in San Francisco. It built Grok, a large language model that competes with ChatGPT and Claude. In March 2025, it was valued at $80B when it acquired X (formerly Twitter), valued at $33B, in an all-stock deal. In February 2026, SpaceX acquired xAI in an all-stock transaction at a $250 billion implied valuation. For both transactions, Musk sat on both sides of the table. The S-1 does not disclose any independent fairness-opinion process, which is unusual for a related party M&A (in contrast to Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity), especially one that completed just a few months before the S-1 filing and now anchors a meaningful part of the IPO valuation. We also note that SpaceX had a $4.94B recorded loss related to the xAI merger.

• Valor Equity Partners is a private equity firm founded by Antonio Gracias, a SpaceX board member and 7.3% Class A shareholder. Across three separate lease agreements, Valor has agreed to provide xAI with compute equipment in exchange for $20.2B in aggregate cash payments over the lifetime of the leases. Already, $885M was paid in FY2025 and $857M was paid in just January and February of 2026, a run rate above $400M per month. This arrangement commits roughly 5% of SpaceX’s current operating cash flow on an ongoing basis to a director’s firm.

• Tesla sold SpaceX $144M of goods and services in FY2025, a thirty-six-fold increase from $4M in FY2024. xAI separately bought $506M from Tesla in FY2025, but just $34M in January and February 2026 (annualized, $205M). The S-1 describes these as priced at terms “no less favorable to SpaceX than those generally available to unaffiliated third parties under similar circumstances” but does not describe an arm’s-length benchmarking process, what goods and services are being bought, nor whether they are contractually recurring. In other words, SpaceX/xAI buys from Tesla at material scale, but the spend is lumpy and purpose unclear, which means investors cannot evaluate whether the relationship is being managed in shareholders’ favor.

• Macrohard and Terafab are joint ventures with Tesla announced in March 2026. Macrohard is positioned as an agentic AI platform intended to compete with Microsoft’s enterprise software business. Terafab is a chip manufacturing initiative with Tesla and Intel. The S-1 states that “we and Tesla have not finalized a variety of details relating to our collaboration, including, but not limited to, financial terms, intellectual property rights, and the ultimate term of our collaboration.” In other words, SpaceX has entered into significant strategic collaborations with a public company controlled by its CEO, before agreeing to the economic terms. Protection for public-shareholder interests in this arrangement is limited.

• Anysphere (operating as Cursor) is an AI coding assistant startup with no Musk affiliation. In April 2026, SpaceX entered into an agreement with Cursor, wherein SpaceX provides Cursor with GPU capacity (in exchange for data/IP) and SpaceX has a call option to acquire Cursor at a $60 billion implied equity value. If SpaceX terminates the option agreement, Cursor receives a $1.5 billion termination fee plus an $8.5 billion deferred services fee, totaling $10 billion of contingent exposure for SpaceX. The Cursor commitment is smaller in absolute terms than the Musk-affiliated commitments above, but it adds to a pattern of large pre-IPO commitments.

In total, at least $35B of pre-IPO commitments ($4.94B of recorded loss on the xAI acquisition, $20.2B of guaranteed payment obligations to a director’s firm, and $10B of contingent Cursor exposure), against $30B-34B of FY2026E consolidated revenue. The pre-IPO related-party commitments amount to roughly one year of consolidated revenue, and locks in risk to public shareholders. The corporate opportunity waiver (discussed next) makes this an ongoing concern rather than a one-time inventory. Future opportunities can continue to be directed to Musk-affiliated entities without legal duty to SpaceX.

Governance Items

Three features of the governance package materially affect public-shareholder rights.

1. Musk holds 85.1% of voting power pre-IPO through Class B Common Stock, which carries 10 votes per share. This modestly dilutes after the IPO, but the concentration still sits at the high end of dual-class structures (Meta is approximately 56% post-IPO; Snap was approximately 89% at its IPO). Combined with the Texas reincorporation (see #3 below), the SpaceX dual-class is more management-friendly than Delaware-based dual-class peers.

2. The SpaceX charter includes a corporate opportunity waiver, which explicitly permits Musk and his affiliates to direct future business opportunities (acquisitions, technologies, customers) to other ventures without offering them to SpaceX first. Most public companies impose at least a duty of disclosure on such opportunities. SpaceX does not, which is exactly what allows the related-party pattern to continue post-IPO.

3. SpaceX made the deliberate choice to reincorporate in Texas in 2024, likely so that it could include mandatory arbitration provisions in its IPO. These provisions require investors to resolve federal securities claims through private arbitration rather than in court. The practical effect is to eliminate class-action lawsuits and to remove the deterrent that litigation forces through discovery and settlement. The SEC significantly changed its long-standing policy in September 2025 to allow mandatory arbitration provisions in IPO charters. While Delaware law prohibits these clauses, Texas allows them; SpaceX’s 2024 reincorporation in Texas positioned it to use the newly available structure as soon as the SEC policy permitted. The combined effect of the reincorporation and the arbitration clause is that the standard post-IPO enforcement pathways available to public investors are materially weaker with SpaceX than with public peers.

We could not find a historical dual-class mega-cap IPO that had all of these governance features simultaneously. Investors should price this into the IPO.

Strategic Event Timing

The AI segment is doing most of the heavy-lifting in our FY2026 projection (see Part 1). For a company whose origin and brand are anchored in space and connectivity, having the AI segment carry the growth story is already unusual. What makes the position even more unusual is the timing of the events that built the AI segment to its current form:

• February 2026: xAI merger completed

• March 2026: Macrohard (agentic AI) and Terafab (AI chip) joint ventures announced, terms not finalized

• April 2026: Cursor agreement signed

• May 2026: Anthropic compute commitment announced

Each event contributes to the prospectus narrative, but are too recent for audited annual financial statements.

SpaceX’s thesis connecting the Launch and Connectivity segments to AI rests primarily on future deployments of AI compute satellites, for which the company has yet to disclose any prototypes, let alone commercial-scale operation. Aside from that single linkage, which is itself aspirational, the AI segment is operationally distinct from the rest of SpaceX. So, skeptics will likely see SpaceX as a space and connectivity company that timed four large AI-related events into the months immediately before its IPO, and is now relying on that segment’s projected growth rate to anchor its valuation in a hot AI cycle. The SpaceX and xAI merger, in particular, could have been consummated at any point over the prior two years, since Musk controlled both.

Coming in Part 4…

Regardless of fundamentals or disclosure quality, SPCX will not trade like an ordinary company in the near term. In many ways, the company has yet to figure out whether it is a space company or whether it is an AI company. In Part 4, we talk about how despite these uncertainties and dynamics, prospective investors can think about whether to enter, and when to exit, in a more principled way.

We put together this four-part analysis in just a day using Revelata’s deepKPI. You can do this kind of work yourself by signing up for our free tier. No credit card required.

Subscribe now

This is Part 2 of a four-part series on the SpaceX IPO. In Part 1, we valued SpaceX’s operating businesses at approximately $1 trillion under the most flattering operational-peer multiples, against an IPO target of $1.75 to $2.0 trillion. The $1T gap between the two can only be filled by businesses SpaceX has not yet built at commercial scale.

Let’s look more carefully at that premium.

Part 2: What the Premium Pays For

AI Segment Expansion

SpaceX absorbed xAI in February 2026 at a $250B implied valuation in an all-stock transaction with both parties under Musk’s common control. This formed SpaceX’s AI segment, which is the largest single piece of the premium and the one with the clearest near-term test. For FY2025, the segment generated $3.2B of revenue against an operating loss of $6.4B. Q1 2026 capital expenditures alone, which pulled up SPCX GPU installed capacity from 0.8GW to 1.0GW, were $7.7B. Annualized, the run rate would be above $30B, and would bring SPCX capacity closer to CRWV’s 3.1GW. This build-out bet means the segment must grow approximately ten-fold to justify the capex.

The Anthropic compute agreement is the central argument that this growth is achievable. Signed just this month (May 2026), the contract provides for payments of $1.25B/mo through May 2029 (CNBC, Anthropic statement), with Anthropic taking the entire Colossus 1 capacity. At full ramp the contract generates $15B of annual run-rate revenue, which is roughly four times the entire FY2025 AI segment. For now, this customer concentration, and the proviso that either party may terminate on 90 days’ notice, renders the AI growth thesis somewhat brittle. However, the risk is roughly comparable to CRWV’s due to the latter’s customer concentration in Microsoft. Furthermore, we anticipate Anthropic to ramp on (or even ahead of) schedule, as compute capacity is their number one bottleneck.

Starship at Commercial Scale

Starship is positioned in the S-1 as the deployment vehicle for Starlink’s next-generation V3 satellites, the launch vehicle for orbital AI compute satellites, and more aspirational ventures such as carrying cargo for lunar missions and eventual transport for Mars. The argument is that Starship at full reusability could reduce the cost to reach orbit so much that businesses that are economically infeasible today (orbital data centers being the most prominent) would become viable.

However, as of the S-1, Starship has flown just 11 test flights with no commercial payload delivered, against R&D spending of approximately $3B per year. Most of the expected Starship use is internal SpaceX work, primarily Starlink V3 deployment and AI compute satellite constellations, while the commercial demand pipeline for Starship is small. The named third-party commercial contracts are the Astrolab FLEX rover, Sky Perfect’s Superbird-9 satellite, and Starlab’s planned single-piece space station launch.

Interestingly, the S-1 only gives qualitative commentary on SpaceX’s book of U.S. government business, despite the high probability that NASA and DoD/Space Force contracts qualify them as major customers. But here, investors should look to Boeing’s Starliner program as a cautionary parallel for such fixed-price space-systems contracts. Starliner has accumulated over $1 billion in cumulative reach-forward losses on a $4.2 billion fixed-price contract. SpaceX’s Starship-related NASA contracts (including the Human Landing System for Artemis) are similarly fixed-price. If Starship encounters multi-year delays or fails to reach an economical launch cost, the fixed-price exposure could create losses on a similar scale.

Coming in Part 3…

Investors considering the SpaceX premium narrative should take a close look at what the S-1 says and declines to say. Part 3 walks through the disclosures that are missing from the prospectus, the competitor SpaceX does not really talk about, the related-party arrangements with other Musk companies, and the governance features that may materially weaken public-shareholder rights compared to peer mega-cap IPOs.

We put together this four-part analysis in just a day using Revelata’s deepKPI. You can do this kind of work yourself by signing up for our free tier. No credit card required.

Subscribe now

TL;DR -- SpaceX, whose origin is in space launch and satellite connectivity, has done four AI deals in the four months before its IPO. We present a rough framework for thinking about the largest IPO ever.

SpaceX prices its IPO on June 11 and begins trading under the SPCX ticker on June 12 at a targeted $1.75 to $2 trillion valuation, the largest initial public offering in history. Hot on the heels of the Cerebras IPO in May and possibly ahead of other marquee IPOs that have been teased by OpenAI and Anthropic later this year, there is ample investor interest. Let’s see what you’d actually be buying.

SpaceX is a complex of three lines of business that are at different stages of maturity and integration with each other. Its existing operating businesses, valued generously against the most flattering operational peers we can identify, suggest an enterprise value of approximately $1 trillion. The $1T premium on top of that valuation prices lines of business that SpaceX has yet to prove at commercial scale, and some that are simply aspirational.

It’s a given that SPCX won’t trade like a regular stock because of the Musk-driven narrative. But it’s still necessary to have a framework to understanding the company. This piece is the first in a four-part series that takes a data-driven approach to SpaceX’s S-1:

• Part 1 (this piece): A valuation of SPCX’s operating businesses

• Part 2: What an investor must believe to support the IPO price

• Part 3: A close reading of the S-1, and what’s NOT disclosed

• Part 4: Underwriting the split personality

Part 1: What the Operating Businesses Are Worth

Note: Throughout, unless otherwise stated or linked, all SpaceX numbers are from the S-1.

Space Segment

The Space segment launches cargo into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). It looks like a slow-growth business on the surface, with revenue growing from $3.56B (FY2023) to $4.09B (FY2025), roughly 7% per year. Q1 2026 revenue was $619M, down 28% YoY. Considered in isolation, the segment appears to be stalling, but underneath is a more nuanced story.

Total Falcon launches actually grew from 96 (FY2023) to 165 (FY2025), with launch infrastructure growing every year. What’s absorbing the additional capacity is Starlink; internal Starlink launches grew from 63 to 122 across the same period, while customer-paying launches are down slightly from 45 (FY2024) to 43 (FY2025). In other words, Space segment revenue is capped by whatever capacity is left over, after Starlink takes its share. Management makes it explicit that this will continue: “Space revenue growth to continue to be lower than total company revenue growth”.

Starship (the successor platform to Falcon) development sits inside this segment and is the main reason segment EBITDA moved to -$351M in Q1 2026 from $224M a year earlier. Starship R&D ran at $930M in Q1 alone, and $3.0B across FY2025, meaning the segment is spending most of what it earns on a vehicle that has yet to deliver a commercial payload.

Connectivity Segment (Starlink)

Starlink is a satellite internet service that operates a constellation of 9,600 LEO satellites, especially designed to reach remote and rural locations that have low fiber-optic or cable internet penetration. It is the only SPCX segment that has significant scale, rapid growth, and positive segment economics:

• As of March 31, 2026, it served 10.3M subscribers across 164 countries.

• Segment revenue grew from $3.87B (FY2023) to $11.4B (FY2025), roughly tripling in two years.

• Segment Adjusted EBITDA grew faster, from $1.6B to $7.2B during the same period, with the margin climbing from 41% to 63%. Q1 2026 ran at a 64% EBITDA margin.

This growth has come with deliberate ARPU compression, which dropped from $99/mo in FY2023 to $66/mo in Q1 2026. Per management, ARPU is expected to continue its decline, as international expansion brings lower-priced tiers into the subscriber mix. Even though EBITDA margin growth in Q1 2026 tells us that incremental international subscribers are contributing positive marginal cash flow, even at lower prices, Q1 EBITDA margin YoY is negative, suggesting that the rate of growth is slowing. So, while Starlink remains the only SpaceX segment with at-scale unit economics today, it is unlikely to be the segment that drives near-term forward growth, as our FY2026 projections below show.

AI Segment

The AI segment did not exist in its current form three months ago, though it now accounts for most of the FY2026 revenue growth and a meaningful share of the IPO premium. Revenue was $2.96B in FY2023, declined 11.5% to $2.62B in FY2024 on X advertising weakness after Musk’s 2022 acquisition, and recovered 22.2% to $3.20B in FY2025. However, the recovery was driven by X and Grok subscription growth of $0.37B and data licensing of $0.09B, not by advertising rebound.

Segment Adjusted EBITDA followed a steeper decline. It was $1.2B in FY2023, $0.35B in FY2024, and -$1.24B in FY2025. Q1 2026 ran at -$0.61B of EBITDA against $0.82B of revenue. The deterioration reflects the build-out of AI compute infrastructure to support xAI training. Accordingly, capex grew from $0.46B (FY2023) to $12.7B (FY2025), and Q1 2026 alone consumed another $7.7B (annualized, the run rate is above $30B).

In May, SpaceX inked a deal with Anthropic. The current $0.82B of quarterly revenue represents the pre-Anthropic base of X advertising plus Grok subscriptions. The size of the AI segment going forward depends almost entirely on how the deal with Anthropic ramps.

FY2026 Revenue Estimates

Below is our estimate of SPCX FY2026 revenue, built from the segment-level disclosures and operating metrics in the S-1.123

The total consolidated 2026 revenue range of $30B to $34B implies growth of 60% to 82% from FY2025. Almost all of this would come from Anthropic in the AI segment, whereas Connectivity grows meaningfully but at a decelerating pace from FY2025 and Space is essentially flat.

Peer Multiples

We restrict the peer set to public companies whose operations are directly comparable to a SpaceX segment.

A few notes about this peer set:

• The mature satellite communications cluster (Iridium, Viasat, EchoStar) fall into a narrow band of 3.17x to 7.35x. These are slow-growing or declining businesses, and the band represents the floor for subscriber-based satellite connectivity. Iridium has 2.5 million subscribers in satellite voice and IoT. EchoStar’s Hughes consumer broadband business has 0.7 million subscribers and is shrinking. Viasat is a more apt comparison because it operates across consumer broadband, government satcom, maritime, and aviation, but every one of these sub-segments is mature: government satcom grew 5.6% year-over-year for the nine months ended December 2025, maritime declined 3.8% over the same period, and consumer broadband subscribers fell 44% in 18 months.4

• The direct-to-cell scarcity peers trade dramatically higher. Globalstar at 35.39x reflects the Apple Emergency SOS partnership and the recently announced acquisition by Amazon. AST SpaceMobile at 120.82x is pre-revenue pricing on 50 MNO partnerships and a constellation that is still being deployed.

• Rocket Lab at 73.16x and CoreWeave at 5.85x are each the only public pure-play in their respective segments, but the multiples are very different because the competitive set around each is very different. Rocket Lab has no comparable public launch peer and earns a scarcity premium. In contrast, CoreWeave competes with hyperscaler (AWS, GCP, Azure) compute subsegments, private peers including Nebius and Lambda, and a growing list of AI infrastructure providers. Its multiple is further pressured by Microsoft customer concentration of 67%.

The general pattern is that the multiples scale inversely with the number of comparable companies. This is why our Connectivity scarcity multiple ends up much higher than our AI scarcity multiple even though Connectivity is not a better business than AI infrastructure, based on the fundamentals.

Valuation: Peer Ceiling and Peer Floor Cases

Applying these multiples to our 2026 revenue projection produces two scenarios that bound what disciplined peer-multiple analysis can support.

The Peer Ceiling Case uses the highest defensible operational-peer multiple for each segment. Connectivity gets Globalstar’s 35.4x, anchored on the direct-to-cell scarcity premium.5 Space gets Rocket Lab’s 73.16x, anchored on the pure-play launch scarcity. AI gets 12x, a 2x premium to CoreWeave that reflects SpaceX’s vertical integration across rockets, satellites, compute, and a frontier AI model.6 Together, the total enterprise value implied is approximately $1.02T.

The Peer Floor Case uses more conservative multiples. Connectivity is valued at 5.0x, the average of Iridium, Viasat, and EchoStar. Space is valued at 5.0x, a defense-prime-style multiple; the absence of a mid-range peer between mature satcom and Rocket Lab at 73x makes this a judgment call. AI is valued at 6.0x, i.e., CoreWeave’s multiple rounded up. This configuration gives a total enterprise value of approximately $177B.

Both cases fall well short of the $1.75T to $2.0T IPO target.

Coming up in Part 2…

Sophisticated private secondary buyers in late 2025 were already paying a partial scarcity premium ($800 billion). The February 2026 xAI merger marked SpaceX up to the full Peer Ceiling level of $1T. The IPO target then asks public investors to pay another 75% or more on top of that for businesses that SpaceX has not yet built at commercial scale. We’ll examine those next. We’ll examine those next in Part 2.

We put together this four-part analysis in just a day using Revelata’s deepKPI. You can do this kind of work yourself by signing up for our free tier. No credit card required.

Subscribe now

DE has spent two years in one of the deepest agriculture-equipment downturns of the past decade.

Equipment Operations net sales fell from a fiscal 2023 peak of $55.6B to $38.9B in FY25, a 30% decline in two years. Diluted EPS fell from $34.63 in FY23 to $18.50 in FY25, a 47% drop. When Deere reported Q1 FY26 in February, CEO John May said the company believes “2026 represents the bottom of the current cycle.”

Management raised the FY26 net income guide from $4.0-4.75B to $4.5-5.0B at the same time. When Deere reports Q2 FY26 next Thursday morning, the question will be whether the Q1 evidence holds up across a second quarter of data, or whether the floor is still moving.

Deere operates four reportable segments.

Production & Precision Agriculture (PPA) ($17.3B in FY25, 45% of equipment net sales) sells row-crop tractors, combines, and the precision-ag stack to large grain and cotton growers.

Small Agriculture & Turf (SAT) ($10.2B in FY25) sells utility tractors, hay and forage equipment, and turf machinery to smaller producers and commercial landscapers.

Construction & Forestry (CF) ($11.4B in FY25) sells earthmoving, forestry, and roadbuilding equipment, including the Wirtgen Group.

Financial Services (FS) ($890M of net income in FY25, up 28% YoY) finances retail sales, dealer inventory, and leases for the equipment segments.

The cyclical reset hit all three equipment segments hard. PPA operating profit fell from $7.00B in FY23 to $2.67B in FY25, a 62% decline. SAT operating profit fell from $2.47B to $1.21B over the same period, and CF operating profit fell from $2.70B to $1.03 B. Management has held R&D spending at $2.31B in FY25, up from $2.18B at the FY23 peak, signaling that the precision-ag, autonomy, and “Solutions as a Service” strategy is being funded through the cycle rather than cut.

The FY26 outlook frames a divergent recovery: large-ag industry demand in the U.S. and Canada is guided down another 15-20%, but SAT and CF segment net sales are guided up roughly 15% each as construction activity, infrastructure spending, and small-ag replacement demand turn.

So heading into Thursday, here’s what we’re watching:

• CF Backlog and Volume. CF backlog grew from $2.2B at FY24 year-end to $3.8B at FY25 year-end, up 73%, the cleanest leading indicator that the cycle has turned. Q1 FY26 CF net sales were $2.67B, up 34% YoY. We’re watching for Q2 CF net sales above $3.2B and segment op margin of 10% or better.

• PPA Margin. Q1 FY26 PPA net sales were $3.29B, up 3% from Q1 FY25, but segment operating profit fell to $139M from $338M a year ago, an op margin of 4.2% down from 10.6%. The FY26 outlook is for PPA net sales down 5-10% with margin still under pressure. We’re watching for Q2 PPA op margin at 12% or better, which would suggest the margin trough is in even as volumes stay weak.

• SAT Recovery. Q1 FY26 SAT net sales were $2.17B, up 24% YoY, and operating profit was $196M, up 58%. The FY26 guide is for SAT net sales up 15%. We’re watching for Q2 SAT net sales growth of 15% or better, with op margin holding above 10%.

• Financial Services Net Income. FS net income hit $890M in FY25, up 28% from $696M in FY24, the highest annual result since FY21 and a meaningful offset to the equipment downturn. Provision for credit losses was $278M, roughly flat with FY24’s . We’re watching for Q2 FS net income above $220M with provision under $80M, which would suggest the captive finance arm is staying healthy even as dealers carry elevated used inventory.

• FY26 Guide Update. Deere raised the FY26 net income guide from $4.0-4.75B

  to $4.5-5.0B at Q1. We’re watching for another raise, with the bull case mid-point moving toward $5.25-5.50B if Q2 SAT and CF print at or above guide.

Q2 FY26 consensus is roughly $5.71 in EPS, and the stock sits about 15% below its all-time high heading into the report. The number to watch is the FY26 guide. If Deere raises to $4.75-5.25B or higher, and Q2 segment data confirms that CF and SAT are recovering while PPA margin stabilizes, the “bottom of the cycle” call gets validated.

All data via Revelata’s deeepKPI from Deere’s fiscal 2025 10-K, Q1 FY26 10-Q, and quarterly press releases.

Subscribe now

WMT has spent three years telling investors that operating income will grow faster than sales. Their argument is that higher-margin businesses like advertising, paid memberships, and third-party marketplace fees will scale much faster than the low-margin retail base. As the revenue mix shifts, the overall operating margin should expand.

But, in fiscal 2026, on a full-year basis, that didn’t happen.

Consolidated gross margin expanded just 8 bps, operating expenses deleveraged 20 bps, and consolidated operating margin contracted 13 bps. The margin expansion showed up only in Q4, when operating income grew 10.8% on sales of 5.6%. When Walmart reports Q1 FY27 next Thursday morning, the question is whether that Q4 result was the machine finally kicking into gear, or whether the full-year shape is the true read.

Walmart generates revenue across three reportable segments: Walmart U.S. ($483B in FY26, supercenters, neighborhood markets, and Walmart.com), Walmart International ($132B in FY26, 18 countries including Flipkart and PhonePe in India), and Sam’s Club U.S. ($93B in FY26, membership warehouse clubs). Underneath the retail layer, three higher-margin businesses have indeed scaled fast: consolidated membership fee revenue hit $4.4B in FY26 (+15.8%), Sam’s Club membership and other income hit $2.5B (+8.7%), and global advertising hit $6.4B (+46%), now anchored by the VIZIO acquisition that closed in late FY25 for $1.9B.

Management has leaned harder on these levers, and their FY27 guide reflects continued confidence in them. The expect net sales +3.5-4.5% (cc), adjusted operating income +6.0-8.0% (cc), adjusted EPS $2.75-$2.85, capex ~3.5% of sales, and a fresh $30B share repurchase authorization announced with Q4 results.

So heading into next Thursday, here’s what we’re watching:

• Walmart U.S. Comp Mix. Walmart U.S. comp sales grew 4.3% in FY26, of which eCommerce contributed 4.3 points, meaning physical-store comp contribution rounded to zero for the year. Wall Street consensus is +3.9% comp in Q1. We’re watching for the eCommerce share of comp to hold above 60%, with any positive contribution from brick-and-mortar as upside.

• Global Advertising. Global advertising grew 46% to $6.4B in FY26. Walmart Connect (U.S.) grew 41% in Q4 ex-VIZIO, meaning the underlying business is growing nearly as fast as the consolidated number. We’re watching for global advertising at +25% or better and Walmart Connect U.S. (ex-VIZIO) at +30% or above, since Q1 FY27 is the first quarter where VIZIO is partially in the prior-year base.

• Membership Fee Revenue. Consolidated membership fee revenue grew 15.8% to $4.4B in FY26, the recurring-revenue floor that anchors the Walmart+ and Sam’s Club Plus subscriber bases. We’re watching for membership fee growth above +12% and any disclosure of Walmart+ subscriber count or attach rate.

• The Operating-Leverage Wedge. Q4 FY26 produced operating income +10.8% on sales +5.6%, but the full-year FY26 produced a 13 bps margin contraction.

  WMT’s recent announcement that they will lay off or relocate roughly 1,000 corporate workers is a small operational signal but still too small at 0.05% of total headcount to move the FY27 margin math on its own. The Q1 FY27 guide is for op income +4-6% on sales +3.5-4.5%. We’re watching for actual Q1 op income at the high end or above, with commentary on the structural sources of leverage (ad-tech mix, fulfillment economics, membership recurring).

• Walmart International Reversal. Walmart International operating margin fell from 4.5% to 3.9% in FY26, and segment op income declined to $5.10B from . This structural twist muddied the consolidated picture. We’re watching for management commentary on what drove this decline and whether it is bouncing back.

Consensus for Q1 FY27 is roughly $165-167B in net sales and adjusted EPS in the $0.63-$0.65 range, in line with company guidance. The number to watch is operating income growth versus sales growth. The Q1 guide is sales +3.5-4.5% and op income +4-6%, a gap of 50 to 150 basis points. If op income lands at the high end and International margin starts to recover, the FY27 +6-8% adjusted operating income guide stays on track. If op income lands at the low end and International margin stays compressed, the FY27 guide is at risk.

All data via Revelata’s deepKPI, which gives you one-click auditing on every datapoint and integration into Excel, Claude, ChatGPT, OpenClaw, or your agent via API. Sign up for the free tier. No credit card necessary.

Subscribe now

YETI’s story has been one of growth. At least, until 2025.

After a decade of expansion from $424M (FY18) to a $1,094M peak (FY24), it was then that its Drinkware business flattened and fell 0.8% to $1,086M. When YETI reports Thursday morning, the question will be whether international and category diversification can keep carrying the business, especially in the face of tariff headwinds.

Yeti generates revenue through Drinkware, Coolers & Equipment ($748M, 40% of FY25 sales, covering hard coolers, soft coolers, bags, cargo, and outdoor-living gear), and a small Other category ($34M, 2%) of apparel and ice substitutes. The Rambler tumbler scaled the company past $1B in revenue, with Drinkware mix peaking at 62% of sales in FY23 before stepping back to 58% in FY25.

Management’s response has been to diversify across three axes: 1) Manufacturing, from China Reliance to sourcing from Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Mexico, and Poland; 2) Geographic expansion into Australia, Europe, and Japan (launched Q2 FY25); and 3) Category extension through acquired brands like Mystery Ranch in technical bags, Butter Pat in cookware, Helimix in shaker bottles, Powered Cooling in active cooling.

So heading into Thursday, here’s what we’re watching:

• Drinkware Growth. Q4 FY25 Drinkware grew 6%, the best result in over a year, with US Drinkware flat and international carrying it. Q1 FY26 is a clean 13-week comparable (Q4 had 14 weeks). We’re watching for total Drinkware at mid-single digits or better, with US Drinkware specifically returning to growth.

• International. International grew +25% in Q4 FY25, +16% on the year, now 19% of full-year sales up from 4% in FY19. Japan sits in the prior-year comparison base for the first time. We’re watching for international growth holding above +15%.

• The Tariff Margin Math. Q4 FY25 adjusted operating margin compressed 250 bps on tariff costs. Full-year gross margin went from 58.1% to 57.4%, a 70 bps step-down. The FY26 guide assumes another 200 bps of incremental tariff drag and still expects flat operating margin, requiring about 200 bps of underlying expansion from supply chain and selective pricing.

• US Performance. US sales fell to $1,474M from $1,490M in FY24, the first US decline on record. Wholesale sell-through outpaced sales into the channel in Q4. We’re watching for US back to positive growth and commentary on Drinkware promotional pressure.

• Capital Return. FY25 generated $212M of free cash flow against $297.6M of buybacks, drawing down cash. FY26 plans $100M of buybacks against

  $200M+ FCF, leaving room for M&A.

Consensus is $374M of revenue (+6.6%) and $0.17 adjusted EPS (down 45% on tariffs); the stock sits near $41.50. For FY26 management guides 6-8% revenue growth, 14.4% adjusted operating margin (flat YoY), $200M+ free cash flow, and $100M of buybacks against the $297.6M returned in 2025. The most important sentence Thursday will be whatever management says about US Drinkware. The EPS may look ugly on tariffs; the structural read is in everything else.

All data via Revelata’s deepKPI are from YETI’s fiscal 2025 10-K and quarterly 8-K press releases.

Subscribe now

UA reports Q4 and full-year fiscal 2026 tomorrow at 6:55 a.m. ET. Consensus is for revenue of about $1.17B (down ~1% YoY) and a loss of two cents per share. The stock trades around $6.43 against an average analyst price target of $7.73, with Truist, Barclays, and BofA all raising targets to $8 after the Q3 print and UBS the most aggressive at Buy with an $11 PT.

Kevin Plank returned as CEO in April 2024, five years after stepping aside, and immediately announced a turnaround predicated on moving upscale: shrink the top line on purpose in exchange for higher gross margins. This would involve exit wholesale, killing DTC discounting, selling MapMyFitness, separating the Curry Brand, and narrowing strategic focus to North America. To do this, he hired Eric Liedtke from Adidas to run brand and Yassine Saidi from PUMA to run product. The goal was to be smaller, but richer.

He’s not running it alone. Prem Watsa’s Fairfax Financial disclosed a 22.2% stake in early January, making Fairfax the largest shareholder. The position is roughly 42 million shares of non-voting Class A stock, which means Watsa has put chips on Plank without seeking governance influence. Plank’s also brought in a new CFO, Reza Taleghani (formerly Samsonite CFO, who led that company’s profitability transformation), who joined in February. Dave Bergman stays through 2027 for the handoff.

For FY25 (year ended March 31, 2025) the math worked. Though revenue fell 9.4%, gross margin climbed 180 bps to 47.9%, the second-highest annual print in the company’s history.

But then Q3 FY26 broke the story. Revenue fell another 5.2%, and this time gross margin fell 310 bps with it to 44.4%, the lowest quarterly print in two years. Tariffs took 200 bps, North America discounting took the rest. The thesis only works if margins hold.

So heading into tomorrow, here’s what we’re watching:

• Gross Margin. Full-year FY26 guidance is for gross margin to decline ~190 bps, which after a 9-month YTD of 46.6% implies Q4 lands around 44%. The Street already expects Q3 wasn’t a one-quarter blip. If management frames Q3 as a tariff-driven trough with margin re-accelerating from here, the premium reset thesis may still have life. If they recalibrate the long-term margin algorithm down, “premium reset” will start to look like “managed decline”

• North America. Plank narrowed his strategic focus to NA in the FY25 10-K. Q3 NA fell 10.3% to $757 M. Full-year guidance now calls for NA to be down ~8%, which means Q4 needs to be down mid-to-high singles to make the math work. The real read, though, is wholesale-vs-DTC mix: in Q3, wholesale shrank faster (-6.4%) than DTC (-3.9%), with DTC e-commerce down 7% but DTC stores only down 2%. That means full-price store traffic was holding up better than discount-driven channels. If Q4 keeps that pattern, the brand-elevation thesis has legs. Instead, if wholesale stabilizes while DTC accelerates downward, then the consumer is voting against full-price product.

• International. EMEA in Q3 was $316M, up 6%, with EMEA operating income up 17% to $49 M. Latin America revenue was up nearly 20%, though LATAM operating income actually fell 44% in the quarter on higher product input costs, marketing, and bad debt expense. This means the LATAM growth comes at a temporary cost. EMEA is now guided to ~9% growth for the year, and APAC’s full-year decline guide just improved from high-singles to ~6%. There’s a real business here that doesn’t show up in the North America narrative, and the long-run mix shift toward international changes the comp set entirely. On Holding, Hoka, and Asics all trade at premium multiples on international-heavy mixes. UA still trades like a struggling US wholesale brand.

• The restructuring math. Plank’s 2025 Restructuring Plan started at $70-90M in May 2024, was raised to $140-160M that September, then raised to $255M on November 13, 2025. The last increase included separating the Curry Brand ($69.7M of non-cash contract termination cost in Q3 alone). $224M of the $255M has been incurred through Q3; the rest is supposed to land in Q4. The questions tomorrow: is it actually done? And does management finally quantify the run-rate savings the restructuring is supposed to generate?

• Marketing spend. Q3 marketing spend was down 12.6% YoY, and it’s running at 10.5% of revenue versus 11.4% a year ago. Plank is pulling marketing dollars while pulling revenue dollars. The bullish read is that brand health is strong enough to coast, and Plank told the Q2 call that brand awareness among 18-34 year-olds went from “the mid-sixties just six months ago to over eighty percent today,” crediting the “We Are Football” campaign. The bearish read is they’re protecting EBIT because the business can’t absorb restructuring charges AND maintained brand investment. We’ll look to tomorrow’s FY27 marketing posture will tell us which it is.

The single most important sentence in the call will be whatever management says about the FY27 gross margin trajectory and the FY27 EPS number. UBS's Jay Sole expects guidance of $0.25-$0.30 per share with the high end implying low-single-digit revenue growth. If they signal margin reaccelerates and EPS lands in that range or better, the reset thesis is intact and Fairfax's 22% bet starts looking smart. But if they don't, one might read performance as Plank spending eighteen months selling a managed decline.

Subscribe now

TL;DR -- The IPO essentially prices in fully successful execution. The lock-up calendar and the natural earnings cycle commit Cerebras to a read-out on execution within just two earnings cycles. The bet is narrow and time-bounded.

Cerebras Systems filed its Form S-1/A on May 4, 2026, and is expected to price its IPO around May 13 at $115-125 per share. At the top of the range, the offering implies an equity value of $26.6B on 213M post-IPO shares, raising $3.5B in gross proceeds before the underwriters’ over-allotment option.

The headline numbers in the prospectus are striking. Revenue grew from $24.6M (2022) to $510M (2025), more than 20x increase in three years. Q4 2025 alone produced $171M of revenue, up 110% YoY. First full year of GAAP net income at $237.8M. The S-1 also announces a multi-year deal with OpenAI valued at more than $20B and a term sheet with Amazon to deploy Cerebras systems in AWS data centers.

But read the disclosure more carefully and a more complicated picture emerges:

• A reported “first profitable year” driven entirely by a non-recurring non-cash gain.

• High customer concentration: 86% of 2025 revenue from two UAE-government-linked related parties.

• A wafer-scale moat that depends on TSMC capacity Cerebras has no contractual right to.

• Material weaknesses in the GAAP areas central to the offering, plus an auditor change three months before pricing.

• A 50x P/S multiple, more than four times the closest comparable IPO.

• A staircase lock-up that releases roughly 80% of the float in six months.

The goal of this report is not to recommend or oppose the offering, only to surface what the S-1 actually says and what an informed investor should weigh before participating (see our General Disclaimer).

Behind the headline numbers

What jumps out when looking at the S-1 financials: the reported GAAP net income of $237.8M is almost entirely a $363M non-cash gain on extinguishment of a forward contract liability tied to the Series F preferred stock purchase agreement. Non-GAAP net income is a $75.7M loss, wider than the $21.8M loss in 2024. Operating cash flow swung from $452M in 2024 (driven by $640M of customer-deposit increases from G42 and MBZUAI prepayments) to a $10M outflow in 2025 as those prepayments were earned out. The GAAP operating loss widened from $101M to $146M and the non-GAAP operating loss more than doubled from $43M to $96M. Revenue grew rapidly in 2025 due to a one-time event; the underlying operational economics did not.

Significant customer concentration

For the year ended December 31, 2025, Cerebras derived 24.0% of revenue from G42 Holding Ltd, an Abu Dhabi-based technology group, and 62.0% from Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI). The combined 86% of revenue from two customers, both of which the company designates as related parties under ASC 850, warrants close attention.

This concentration is an outlier among public peers. NVIDIA’s largest direct customer accounted for 21% of fiscal 2026 revenue. Broadcom’s largest customer in its semiconductor solutions segment was 32%. AMD’s last separately disclosed top customer was 18% in 2023. Intel’s largest customer was 19% in 2025, with the top three combining for 43%. Super Micro Computer’s two named customers combined for 32% (20.9% Customer A plus 11.1% Customer D). Cerebras’s top-two concentration of 86% is roughly 2.5x to 4x the concentration of any peer in the operational comp set.

Two further issues complicate these relationships. First, both UAE customers operate under US BIS export licenses for Cerebras’s CS-2, CS-3, and CS-4 systems, and the prospectus notes that BIS plans to issue new rules. Tightening or revocation would directly affect Cerebras’s largest revenue streams. Second, Cerebras issued G42 warrants for 3.5M Class N shares at $0.01 per share, fully exercised; at the $120 IPO midpoint, those shares are worth approximately $422M against $35,000 of total cash consideration. That warrant value amortizes as non-cash contra-revenue against future G42 revenue beginning Q1 2026, meaning reported related-party concentration in 2026 will appear lower than the underlying cash-economic concentration even if G42 purchases hold steady. None of this resembles a standard customer relationship.

The OpenAI relationship, signed in December 2025, has been positioned as the catalyst that diversifies Cerebras away from UAE concentration. The Master Reseller Agreement (MRA) commits OpenAI to deploy 750 megawatts of Cerebras compute capacity in tranches from 2026 through 2028, with an option for additional capacity through the end of 2030, valued in aggregate at more than $20B. This structure includes terms that also go beyond a standard customer relationship.

OpenAI advanced Cerebras a $1.0B Working Capital Loan with account-control rights on material breach, effectively a soft lien on operating cash. OpenAI also received a warrant for ~33.4M Class N shares at $0.00001 per share, vesting as compute capacity is delivered up to 2 gigawatts and worth up to ~$4B at the $120 IPO midpoint. That value amortizes as non-cash contra-revenue against future OpenAI revenue, mirroring the G42 dynamic at roughly 10x the scale. The MRA also bars Cerebras from selling to certain unnamed OpenAI competitors, narrowing the addressable market in a way the headline TAM figures don’t reflect.

The AWS relationship, announced in March 2026, is described as a binding term sheet. The definitive agreement is “subject to negotiation and execution” and the disclosure notes that the parties may not reach final terms. AWS received a warrant for 2.7M Class N shares at $100 per share, vesting tied to product purchase volumes substantially beyond the initial lease.

Customer concentration will factor heavily into the read-out for the next two earnings cycles. Q1 2026 will show the first revenue mix data after the OpenAI MRA was installed. Q2 2026 will be the first full quarter of OpenAI capacity deliveries and will reveal whether AWS converted into a definitive agreement. If G42 and MBZUAI remain at 75-85% of revenue through Q2 2026, the diversification thesis embedded in the IPO valuation has not yet materialized at the moment that the largest single lock-up release (~36M shares) is hitting the float. That alignment puts concentrated insider supply onto the market exactly when the bull-case narrative is most exposed, the kind of setup that typically produces sharp price declines for new IPO investors.

The wafer-scale moat depends on TSMC

Cerebras’s central technical claim is that it has commercialized wafer-scale integration: an AI processor built across an entire silicon wafer, with 4 trillion transistors and 46,225 square millimeters of silicon, marketed as 58 times larger than an NVIDIA B200 chip. This is a genuine technical achievement. It is also achievement that depends on a foundry partner.

The S-1 is direct on this point. Cerebras is fabless and depends on TSMC to manufacture all of its wafers. The processes that make wafer-scale possible -- multi-die interconnect at the wafer level, fault-tolerant architecture that routes around defects -- were co-developed with TSMC and depend on TSMC fabrication equipment and techniques. Cerebras has no formalized long-term supply or allocation commitments from TSMC, and TSMC also fabricates wafers for Cerebras’s competitors, heavyweights including NVIDIA and AMD, who are significantly larger TSMC customers. The disclosure notes that TSMC could reduce or eliminate deliveries to Cerebras on short notice or raise prices, with material consequences.

Cerebras runs roughly two years behind NVIDIA on node. WSE-1 (TSMC 16nm) shipped in 2019, WSE-2 (7nm) in 2021, WSE-3 (5nm) in 2024. NVIDIA’s H100 reached TSMC 4N, a customized 4nm-class node, in late 2022, roughly two years before Cerebras reached 5nm. By 2024, NVIDIA Blackwell was already shipping on TSMC 4NP, an enhanced 4nm node, putting NVIDIA roughly a full generation ahead even on parallel-year timing. NVIDIA’s next platform (Rubin, expected on TSMC 3nm in 2026) will widen the gap. The S-1 contains no commitment around WSE-4 node selection, foundry capacity, or timing relative to that roadmap.

Internal controls and the auditor change

The S-1 discloses material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting for FY2024 and FY2025 that remain uncured at filing, including “inadequate or missing resources” to apply GAAP across four areas: revenue recognition, inventory management and costing, data center assets accounting, and equity administration. These are exactly the line items most material to the IPO narrative, covering the $510M top-line, the asset base supporting $668M of 2025 capex, and the warrant accounting, forward contract liability, and founder PRSU stock-based compensation that together produce the headline GAAP net income.

On November 10, 2025 Cerebras dismissed BDO USA, P.C. as its independent auditor and engaged KPMG LLP to audit the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2025. Audit firm upgrades during IPO processes certainly have precedence, but they typically occur well before the S-1 process begins, not three months before pricing. KPMG’s first audit of the company is the same audit that supports the offering, with material weaknesses still in remediation. Cerebras is exempt from the Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404(b) auditor attestation requirement on internal controls for up to five years, so the auditor is unlikely to issue a public opinion on the company’s internal controls until well past the IPO. For new IPO investors, this concentrates accounting risk in the same two earnings cycles when the rest of the IPO thesis is being tested.

Operational comp set

The closest public peers, screened for businesses doing comparable work for comparable buyers, fall into three tiers: (1) direct AI-accelerator competitors (NVIDIA, AMD), (2) custom AI silicon for hyperscalers, with hyperscaler-concentration analog (Broadcom), and (3) AI server systems integration (Super Micro). Intel is included separately as a cautionary case: an incumbent that has tried for years to take AI-accelerator share from NVIDIA with poor results.

Cerebras’s gross margin sits between the chip designers (NVDA at 71%, AVGO at 68%, AMD at 50%) and the systems integrator (SMCI at 11%). Intel, the most operationally analogous comp on margin profile, runs at 34.8%, slightly below Cerebras.

Intel is a relevant cautionary tale. Despite a $50B-plus revenue base, established hyperscaler relationships, and a continuous silicon roadmap, Gaudi 3 missed Intel’s $500M revenue target, the Gaudi line was wound down, and Intel canceled its planned successor Falcon Shores in January 2025. Intel’s overall revenue was essentially flat from $53.1B in FY24 to $52.9B in FY25 at 34.8% gross margin. The Q1 2026 stock pop reflected CPU strength, foundry deals (Google), and AI inference partnerships (SambaNova), not a successful AI-accelerator product of Intel’s own. Intel’s strategic conclusion was to stop competing head-on with NVIDIA in accelerators and instead position CPUs as complements and pursue custom-silicon work. The bull case for Cerebras has to explain why Cerebras, with vastly less scale and a single dominant customer relationship, succeeds in growing AI-accelerator share where Intel essentially gave up.

Valuation multiples

At the $120 IPO midpoint, Cerebras’s implied value is approximately $25.6B on 213M post-IPO shares; at the top of the range it reaches $26.6B. Against $510M of trailing revenue, that prices the company at roughly 50x to 52x trailing P/S.

Peer figures from Yahoo Finance key-statistics pages, current as of early May 2026 and subject to update as Yahoo’s live data refreshes. Cerebras values are computed from the S-1/A: implied equity value = 212,965,381 post-IPO shares × IPO price; P/S = implied equity value / $510M FY25 revenue.

CoreWeave’s ~11x trailing P/S is the most relevant valuation reference, though the businesses differ structurally: CoreWeave is a specialist AI cloud (GPU-as-a-service) that buys NVIDIA chips, not a silicon designer that competes with them. Even with that caveat, CoreWeave’s growth (~140% guided for 2026), gross margin (71.7%), and $5.1B FY2025 revenue base are stronger than Cerebras’s, yet the public market is paying just ~11x P/S. Cerebras is offering at roughly 4.7x that multiple.

NVIDIA at roughly 23 times P/S is the most-richly valued mega-cap chip name and Broadcom trades at roughly 28 times P/S on the strength of its AI custom-silicon segment growth. Cerebras is being priced at roughly 2.2x NVIDIA’s multiple and 1.8x Broadcom’s, while delivering a fraction of either company’s profitability or ecosystem depth. The bull case requires Cerebras to grow into NVIDIA-like or Broadcom-like margins at much larger scale, which means hitting essentially the full OpenAI ramp, plus AWS conversion, plus customer base diversification, in roughly two to three years.

What this means for an IPO investor is that the entry multiple already prices in fully successful execution. There is no valuation cushion to absorb a missed customer-concentration improvement, an AWS deal that does not close on favorable terms, or a slip in the OpenAI capacity ramp. Each of those outcomes will be visible within the next two earnings cycles.

Lock-up structure: A staircase, not a cliff

Cerebras has structured a staircase lock-up release tied to earnings dates and a price-trigger:

• Day 1: 7.5% of “Eligible Securities” held by non-executive employees (~2.6M shares) releases automatically.

• Day 2: another 7.5% releases if the stock closes above 133% of the IPO price on Day 1 ($159.60 at midpoint, $166.25 at top).

• After Q1 2026 earnings: 27-30M shares release, depending on whether the Day 2 price-trigger was satisfied.

• After Q2 2026 earnings: 36.4M shares release.

• Aug-Oct 2026: six biweekly tranches of 14-19M shares each.

• After Q3 2026 earnings or 180 days post-IPO, whichever first: the remainder.

Approximately 171M of the 213M post-IPO shares (roughly 80% of the float) release over the six months following the IPO.

Two features of the calendar shift risk toward the IPO buyer. First, the Day 2 price-trigger soft-caps any rally on the first day of trading: a close above $159.60 brings 2.6M additional shares (~$416M at $160) into the market the next morning, pulling forward supply that would otherwise wait until after Q1 earnings. Second, the largest single supply event (36.4M shares) is calendared two days after Q2 2026 earnings, when the founder PRSU stock-based compensation charge of $370.9M hits the income statement and the customer-concentration disclosure runs its first full-quarter test following the OpenAI MRA. Other recent staggered IPO lockups (CoreWeave, Astera Labs, Klaviyo, Rubrik) tie their largest releases to price triggers fired by stock appreciation or to fixed dates without company-specific catalysts; Cerebras uniquely concentrates a major supply event on a day when both reported earnings and the central bear-case disclosure are most likely to disappoint. The calendar is asymmetric for new IPO investors: upside is capped, downside concentrated by structural design.

Diligence questions

Three diligence questions worth asking the underwriters before pricing.

1. What is the contractual revenue commitment from G42 and MBZUAI for 2026 and beyond, and what are the cancellation terms? The 86% related-party concentration is the central operational risk, and the S-1 discloses what G42 and MBZUAI paid historically without disclosing whether they are contractually obligated to keep paying.

2. What is the quantified contra-revenue impact from customer warrants expected in 2026? The G42 and OpenAI warrants (~$4.4B of equity value at the IPO midpoint) start amortizing against reported revenue in Q1 2026, and without management’s quantification, 2026 reported revenue and concentration percentages will not be directly comparable to 2025.

3. Has Cerebras committed foundry capacity for WSE-4 at a node that will be competitive with NVIDIA’s Rubin Ultra in 2027, and what is the capital expenditure commitment? WSE-3 ships on TSMC 5nm, one node behind Blackwell and two years behind H100, and without a committed WSE-4 capacity reservation at a competitive node, the wafer-scale advantage has a 12-24 month half-life as Rubin ramps on 3nm.

A narrow path

The path to a successful IPO investment is narrow and the timeline is short. The valuation prices in successful execution across several dimensions in parallel: customer-concentration improvement, AWS conversion to a definitive agreement, OpenAI capacity ramp on schedule, and a credible foundry roadmap for the next-generation product. The disclosure structure pre-commits Cerebras to surfacing progress on each within two earnings cycles. So, by the end of October 2026, roughly 63% of the float will have released and the bull case will either have materialized visibly or slipped visibly. New investors are taking a defined, time-bounded bet. Whether to take it depends on conviction that several specific outcomes resolve favorably within six months, not on a multi-year horizon.

Compensation Disclosure: No part of the compensation of any Revelata personnel was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific views, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this report, or to the coverage of any particular security or issuer herein.

General Disclosure: The information contained in this report is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute financial advice or a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any securities. The opinions expressed herein are as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice. This report does not take into account the investment objectives, financial situation, or specific needs of any individual investor.

We are not a licensed financial advisor, broker, or dealer, and this report is not intended to provide investment, legal, accounting, or tax advice. Any reliance on the information contained in this report is at the sole discretion and risk of the user.

Subscribe now

Coinbase reports Q1 2026 today, a few days after announcing a 14% workforce reduction. The print’s three central questions are:

1. Whether last year’s recording-breaking top line stats were actually growth or purely customer rotation?

2. If rotation, whether management is profitably adapting to the product mix customers have shifted to

3. Whether results will be soft (as management has guided) or terrible as when they have reduced headcount in the past.

For background, coinbase makes money two ways: transaction fees and subscription-and-services revenue tied to what customers do with their crypto once it’s on the platform. They take a fatter cut on “simple” transactions than institutional Prime trades or Deribit derivatives. Their subscription and services revenue comes from things like interest earned on USDC reserves (split with Circle), a slice of rewards on assets like ETH and SOL, interest on loans collateralized by crypto, and the Coinbase One $4.99/month subscription that gives zero-fee trading.

2025’s Total Trading Volume by Coinbase’s broadest definition grew 156% to $5.2 trillion in 2025. But on the structured comparable that excludes derivatives notional, total trading volume grew only $1,189B → $1,221B (+3% YoY). Said another way, the apparent hypergrowth year is mostly a definitional change from acquiring Deribit. The volume of customer activity that actually generates trading fees barely moved.

Meanwhile, Total Assets on Platform actually fell from $404B (FY24) to $376B (FY25), and the underlying number was $516B at Q3 2025 before Q4’s crypto price collapse took $140B off in three months. Total revenue grew $6.56B → $7.18B (+9%), transaction revenue grew only $3.99B → $4.06B (+1.7%), and Q4 closed with a $667 million GAAP net loss.

The story is that customers are rotating between Coinbase products, and that movement is undermining Coinbase’s revenue strategy. There are four reasons:

• Take-rate compression compounds with flat spot volume. Across the year, consumer transaction revenue fell from $3.43B (FY24) to $3.32B (FY25), down 3% YoY in a year management was telling investors was a record. This is because an increasing share of trades comes from Paid Coinbase One Subscribers paying $4.99 a month for zero-fee trades, and more volume is moving from higher-take-rate Simple into Advanced transactions, which are institutionally priced. Listen for the Q1 take rate; below 1.20% means the cannibalization is moving faster than the subscription LTV math.

• Subscription growth is real but it’s rotating into USDC and out of staking. Subscription and Services revenue went $2.31B → $2.83B (+23% YoY), and S&S share of net revenue stepped to roughly 41%. The biggest piece was stablecoin revenue, growing $910M → $1.35B (+48% YoY), powered by USDC Assets on Platform that grew $6.09B → $9.26B (+52% YoY). What’s not growing is the other half of subscription: blockchain rewards (staking) revenue went $705.8M → $677.4M (-4% YoY), and consumer staked assets collapsed from $15.2B (FY24) to $7.5B (FY25), down 51%. Consumers are rotating out of staking, partly into USDC and partly off-platform. Listen for Average USDC Held above $18B in Q1 and whether blockchain rewards revenue stops declining.

• Operating expenses were outrunning revenue. FY25 opex grew 35% against revenue +9%; technology and development alone went $1.47B → $1.67B (+14%) on a base that was already heavy. Headcount grew 3,772 → 4,951 (+31% YoY), with the largest absolute hires in customer support and product, and acquisition integration costs added on top from Deribit, Echo, Spindl, and the Iron Fish team. Coinbase’s layoff is their third workforce reduction in four years. The 18% cut in June 2022 and 21% in January 2023 were both reactive, forced by crypto cycle resets. This one is the first announced into a cycle that hadn’t yet broken the financials. Listen for whether Q1 comes in at or above management’s already-cautious guide. At or above means the cut was preemptive; below means the cycle is forcing it, and there’s likely another cut behind this one.

• Crypto and strategic-investment volatility. The Q4 letter discloses a Q4 net loss of $667M driven by $718M of unrealized losses on the crypto asset investment portfolio plus $395M of losses on strategic investments (the line includes the Circle/CRCL stake). On a full-year basis, losses on crypto assets held for investment swung from -$687M (gain) in FY24 to +$529M (loss) in FY25. This $1.2B headwind is entirely non-cash, non-operating, and reverses if prices recover. Adjusted Net Income for Q4 was $178M and Adjusted EBITDA was $566M.

Q1 will look soft, by management’s own guide. Subscription and Services of $550-630M is below Q4’s $727M because of October and December rate cuts on USDC reserves; transaction revenue through February 10 was $420M YTD, running below Q4’s $983M pace. The $50-60M restructuring cash cost from the May 5 layoff lands in Q2, not Q1.

What Thursday actually resolves is whether the rotation is profitable and whether the layoff was preemptive. The first opening question (growth vs rotation) is already answered by the data: it’s rotation. The remaining two questions live in three things to watch on the call: the Q1 consumer take rate (whether the per-trade-fee-to-Coinbase-One math is LTV-positive), the gap between Q1 results and management’s already-cautious guide (whether the May 5 cut was preemptive or reactive), and the Q2 expense run-rate (whether the cut actually flows through or just offsets ongoing growth-related hires). Lean those right and Coinbase is executing well and responding effectively to their operational and customer realities. Lean them wrong and they look like a company that hired ahead of revenue, watched the operational base shrink, and is now playing catch-up with a layoff that won’t be the last.

All numbers are from Revelata’s deepKPI, which gets you 1-click auditing on every data point and hooks into Excel, Claude, ChatGPT, OpenClaw, and your API. Each linked number above lands on the exact filing line where it lives — that’s what 1-click provenance actually means.

Subscribe now

Microsoft , Meta, and Alphabet Inc.‘s earnings calls yesterday were high drama, and their stock movement day-after shows it:

🟢 GOOGL: +10% 🔴 MSFT: -4% 🔴 META: -8%

The background is that all three are in the early stages of an absolutely massive multi year AI infrastructure bet; they’re nowhere near peak spend today, and investors are looking for clues about what things will look like a few years down the line. Our series this week on MSFT, META, and GOOGL showed that MSFT and META are running the engine much hotter than GOOGL. They’re aggressively pulling various levers (e.g. headcount, depreciation, debt) to fund their AI investment. Meanwhile, GOOGL’s investment is the largest and, compared to peers, they could afford to invest even more. Strategically, if there’s a gap among them, GOOGL has an opportunity to widen it.

The biggest questions going forward are whether (1) the core businesses that fuel these AI build-outs keep humming, and (2) whether costs stay in control over the long haul (said another way, will the core businesses hum fast enough for long enough?). Even if the math works today, with leases-not-yet-commenced of $196B at MSFT, $183B at META, $76B at GOOGL not on the P&L yet, the math needs to hold through 2028 at least.

Something like memory prices -- which Zuckerberg opened with -- mean something different at each company. For META and MSFT, supply constraints create worries of longer build timelines and higher costs. That means more risk of the profit engine hitting max capacity and the backup levers not providing enough juice to keep going towards AI dominance. At GOOGL, supply constraints paint a more optimistic picture. They explain why the investment isn’t even larger today and also why there’s an absolutely massive backlog for their cloud services. Should supply ease, GOOGL’s investment could skyrocket overnight and the profit engine would accelerate alongside it. All three live in the same world but are affected differently by it.

To get into the numbers:

GOOGL’s self-funded bet looked stable as ever. OCF grew $10B. Capex grew $19B. FCF dropped, but cash + securities ended at $127B, flat with year-end. Cloud op inc tripled to $6.6B while segment margin went 18% → 33%. Backlog nearly doubled in one quarter to $462B. And the biggest risk, that search might stall, not only didn’t materialize, but looked less likely: search reaccelerated with revenue +19% and paid clicks +13% after five years of deceleration, alongside evidence that “AI Mode” is growing their search business rather than hurting it.

MSFT showed evidence that its profit engine is holding together, but the consequences of its spending are already being felt. The good news was that the core (Azure +40%, M365 +19%) is fine. But the FY26 capex guidance was ~$190B, when consensus had been ~$155B, and there’s still another quarter left in the fiscal year. Depreciation +55% YoY. Q4’s op margin guidance was ~44%, down from Q3’s 46.3%. Intelligent Cloud’s cost of revenue was +47%, on revenue +30%. What we saw was that the cost of running the AI bet is now showing up inside the segments that fund it, and it’s still very early. This was a cause for concern.

META got hit hardest. The bull thesis was: “this engine is so profitable it can absorb the buildout.” Their ad engine accelerated with impressions +19%, price per ad +12%, total revenue +33%. This was the fastest growth quarter since 2021. But the Family of Apps segment margin still went from 52% → 48%. Costs grew +44% on revenue growth of +33%. The AI bet is now embedded inside FoA through AI talent comp and infrastructure depreciation, and it is dragging margin even as the engine screams.

Then three more things landed: Capex guide raised again ($115-135B → $125-145B), the second raise this year. Contractual commitments roughly doubled in a quarter to $238B, plus $24B added in April. The off-balance-sheet picture is bigger than reported. Hyperion was fully disclosed for the first time with $46B max exposure, lease commitments starting 2029. And this came with 8,000 layoffs announced pre-print, confirmed by Susan Li on the call “to offset the substantial investments we’re making.” The takeaway was that META is firing 10% of staff to fund the buildout, FoA margin is compressing, and they had to raise capex because supply costs mean they’re not fully in control.

To synthesize all this:

• The three companies have the same capex on three different P&Ls.

• The market priced them by which engines can carry the buildout to 2028.

• The gap between GOOGL and the other two just got wider. They have the strongest core business, the cleanest funding math, an excellent frontier model, and the ability to hit the gas even harder.

• The other two are pulling levers to supplement the cash generated by their core businesses. The consequences underscore that management does not have as much control or room for error as anyone would like.

All numbers above were sourced via Revelata’s deepKPI, which gives you one-click auditing on every datapoint and integration into Excel, Claude, ChatGPT, OpenClaw, or your agent via API. The framework worked. Three theses backed by hard data that told you exactly how these companies work. You should try it yourself.

Subscribe now

Alphabet reports Q1 2026 today. The AI outlay is similar to Microsoft and Meta but the risk profile is very different. Differentiation comes because Alphabet generates enough new operating cash to cover the entire capex doubling: in FY25, operating cash flow grew by $39B and capex grew by $39B. Free cash flow held flat. This is a stark contrast to MSFT and META, who are burning cash, raising debt, and laying off staff, stretching contract durations, and changing equipment depreciation timing to fund their outlay.

The catch to listen for is whether this self-funding math is a FY25 result, not a forward promise. With FY26 capex guided to $175-185B, FCF is set to drop ~70% even with continued OCF growth. Today answers whether the engine is good enough to keep self-funding the bet or whether GOOGL starts looking more like its peers from here.

The questions for Wednesday: is Cloud’s profit acceleration sustainable, are AI Overviews biting Search enough to change the equation, and where in the $175-185B FY26 capex range does the guide actually land? Alphabet has room to absorb some wobbles, and absent that, should arguably be spending even more on AI to gain a competitive advantage.

A rundown of their recent data:

Search: AI Overviews are biting clicks, but pricing absorbs it. Paid clicks have decelerated five straight years (23% → 10% → 7% → 5% → 6%) — when AI summarizes the answer, fewer people click through. But CPC went +1% → +7%→ +7%. Search & other grew +13.4% to $224.5B for FY25, and the exit rate was stronger: +17% in 4Q25, ahead of expectations. AI Mode is the mechanism with longer conversational queries sustaining higher CPCs without degrading the experience. Listen for: paid clicks holding at +6%, CPC growth holding at +7%, AI Mode adoption beyond early users. Worth knowing on the side: Google Network ads are in structural decline ($31.7B → $29.8B over four years) on EU pressure and mix shift to owned-and-operated. YouTube ads have been quietly excellent (+11.7%), roughly at parity with Netflix’s entire revenue (e.g. FY25 at $40.4B).

Cloud is the AI ROI proof point. Operating income went $1.7B → $6.1B → $13.9B over three years. Revenue $43B → $58.7B (+36% in FY25), with 4Q25 accelerating to +48%. Segment margin moved from 14% to 24% in one year, 960 basis points of expansion. RPO (backlog) jumped from $93.2B to $242.8B, with 50% recognizable beyond 24 months, and that backlog is now roughly in line with AWS’s $244B despite GCP being half the revenue size. This is the same long-duration contract play MSFT runs, but with 36% revenue growth underneath it and a backlog that just caught the category leader. Listen for: Cloud opinc growth. The buy-side bar is +60-65% y/y; anything below that disappoints, anything above sustains the inflection thesis.

The bet: capex investment is bigger than Meta, and went from $52.5B → $91.4B. The off-balance-sheet picture is comparable in scale: property not yet in service $50.6B → $78.6B, leases not yet commenced $6.5B → $58.5B, total purchase commitments $55.4B → $149.1B. Plus Wiz at $32B (likely closing this quarter) and Intersect at $4.8B pending close.

Alphabet is funding it three ways, and the mix is what makes them different from peers:

1. Cash from operations, the dominant lever. OCF grew $39B in FY25, exactly matching the capex increase. They didn’t need the other levers in any survival sense for FY25.

2. Debt, opportunistically. Long-term debt quadrupled $10.9B → $46.5B. Big issuances were $5B in May (24-yr WAM), $17B in November (4.92%, 20-yr WAM), €6.5B in euros, all issued while still cash positive to lock in long-duration funding, not plug a hole. Cash + securities actually grew from $95.7B to $126.8B.

3. Accounting, the lever already pulled. Server useful life: 5 yrs → 3 yrs (2020) → 4 yrs → 6 yrs (2023+). They moved earliest and went furthest. Less juice left here than at META.

In terms of risks, keep an eye on the centralized Gemini training costs. Operating loss went -$10.5B → -$16.8B in one year. That’s the Gemini training/talent bill, comparable in scale to META’s $19B Reality Labs loss. Other Bets loss also accelerated -$4.4B → -$7.5B, and Waymo just took a $16B funding round in February to fund expansion. These are all much less concerning than META’s RL because Gemini and Waymo are actually generating commercial revenue.

One footnote that will trip up Q1 coverage: a $32B event in January 2026 — additional unrealized gains on non-marketable equities, almost certainly the Anthropic stake being marked up. This hits Q1 net income as a non-cash, non-operating gain. Anyone reading “Alphabet beats EPS by $X” without backing this out will be confused. Focus on the operating numbers.

In the end, Alphabet grew operating income 15% to $129B while doubling capex, quadrupling debt, absorbing a $3.5B EU fine, and growing the centralized AI training bill by $6B — and held operating margin flat at 32%. They did it without the layoffs, off-balance-sheet structures, or cash crunch that defined META’s year. The framing is whether Alphabet’s stability shows signals of looking more like its peers, and if not, whether they should be spending even more aggressively to widen the lead.

All numbers are from Revelata’s deepKPI, which gets you 1-click auditing on every data point and hooks into Excel, Claude, ChatGPT, OpenClaw, and your API. Your ability to get under the surface of any company has never been more potent: data and analysis tools like never before.

Subscribe now

Meta is -- obviously -- going big on AI. META’s AI capex differs from peers because it has the cleanest ROI math: it feeds right back into a 52% margin advertising business. Their AI capex must eventually turn into higher ad pricing through better targeting, more user time through better engagement, or lower cost per inference at scale. In contrast, Microsoft’s AI capex underwrites Azure capacity for OpenAI and Copilot attach that’s still proving itself, Google’s feeds Search which is being cannibalized by AI Overviews, and Amazon’s feeds AWS, which has been losing AI share to Azure and GCP.

The questions for Wednesday are whether Meta’s ad machine is still going strong enough to absorb a $145B infrastructure build, what’s left in the tank if it stalls, and most optimistically, are AI investments bearing fruit for the ad business already?

Start with the ad engine. It has been consistently accelerating, not slowing. In aggregate, daily users have continually marched upward from 2.82B (2020) → 3.58B (2025). ARPU more than doubled from $33.68 → $57.03. In FY25, ad volume was up 12% and price per ad up 9%. Revenue per employee is $2.55M (vs MSFT’s $1.24M). This is an extraordinarily profitable platform business, and it’s what makes the rest of the story even possible. Meanwhile, the drag on it has been Reality Labs, and that looks as if it is being systematically dismantled. It has lost $88B since 2019, but several rounds of layoffs and a shift in strategic mission are winding down its impact on the balance sheet. Listen for: ad price decel (4Q25 was +6%, BofA models +14% in 1Q26), any Family of Apps segment margin compression, or more aggressive cuts at Reality Labs.

What size of investment do ads need to fund? Capex doubled in 2025 — $37.3B → $69.7B, but the off-balance-sheet picture is much bigger. Multi-year cloud commitments hit $40B as Meta, the company that built its own data centers for 20 years, is now signing big multi-year deals with CoreWeave, Nebius, and others. Leases not yet commenced are at $103.8B. And the Hyperion joint venture with Blue Owl Capital carries a $46B max exposure that Meta keeps off the balance sheet. Total contractual commitments went $33B → $131B in a single year.

That’s a 4x jump, too big for the ad engine alone, and so Meta is already drawing fuel from the tank in three ways:

1. Accounting. This follows the same playbook as peers like MSFT. Server useful life: 4 yrs (2021) → 4.5 → 5 → 5.5 (Jan 2025). The 2025 reassessment alone added $2.92B in depreciation savings, $2.59B in net income, and $1.00 to diluted EPS. But this is a temporary cushion: D&A is still set to ramp from $18.6B (FY25) to $46.7B (FY27E), so the lever gets overwhelmed by sheer asset base growth fast. Listen for any further useful-life extension as a sign they need more cushion, or, eventually, an impairment.

2. Debt, for the first time in a decade. Cash + marketable securities went $77.8B (FY24) → $44.5B (Q3 2025) — down $33B in 9 months. That’s why Meta issued $30B in senior notes in November. Long-term debt nearly doubled, and net debt-to-equity went from 3% to 22% in one year. This is a company that ran on essentially zero debt for the first 18 years of its public life. They couldn’t fund this build from cash flow alone, and they didn’t pretend they could. Listen for: cash position refilled, or another debt raise.

3. Headcount. Last Thursday’s layoff announcement is a strategic shift. Just last quarter they were guiding FY26 expenses up 38-44% y/y. Now 8,000 employees gone, 6,000 open roles eliminated, with the memo’s stated reason being to offset AI investments. Microsoft announced 7% buyouts the same day. Listen for: dollar value of FY26 opex savings, and any change to the FY26 expense guide of $162-$169B.

If you’re looking for risk to materialize, look to Hyperion first. Hyperion is the codename for Meta’s largest single data center project in Richland Parish, Louisiana. The off-balance-sheet treatment of the Blue Owl JV makes Meta’s reported leverage look better than it is, and if the SEC or Ernst & Young ever forces consolidation, $46B+ of liabilities flow onto the balance sheet. Meta’s own 10-K doesn’t even mention the transaction, per the auditor’s working notes.

One footnote that will trip up coverage: net margin “dropped” from 38% to 30% in FY25, but that’s because the OBBBA tax law triggered a $15.93B one-time charge to write down deferred tax assets, taking the effective tax rate from 12% to 30% in a single year. Cash taxes barely moved. We expect this to be pure accounting noise and the FY26 tax rate normalizes back to ~14% per BofA.

In the end, Meta has grown operating income while doubling capex, doubling debt, absorbing a $16B tax hit, and carrying a $19B/yr losing segment all in the same year. That doesn’t happen without an ad engine that is genuinely accelerating, and without aggressive use of every available financial lever. If the ad engine wobbles Wednesday — pricing decel, FoA margin compression, EU-related softness — none of the other levers can carry the build. If the engine holds and they show a credible RL or AI monetization milestone, the bet gets cheaper to defend by the quarter. Listen for ad price acceleration, capex 2026 guide (does it cross $100B?), RL loss trajectory, layoff opex savings, and whether cash gets refilled or they raise more debt.

All numbers are from Revelata’s deepKPI, which gets you 1-click auditing on every data point and hooks into Excel, Claude, ChatGPT, OpenClaw, and your API. Check it out -- deepKPI unlocks unbelievably powerful exploration and data for financial analysis.