RESEARCHNICE.TA22 days ago7.5Kviews

NICE: the cost programme has slipped twice without a new date

The savings target has been reiterated without a revised timeline. Reiterating the number while moving the date is how these programmes fail slowly.

Ben Shapira@ben_shapiro_il

Unlock the full report

The locked call and the disclosures stay visible. The research body unlocks with purchase or subscription.

Fact-checked claims stay on the record
Platform fee is shown as its own line at checkout (10%)
Call block and disclosures remain free to read

Already subscribed? Log in

Discussion · 8

Noa BergmanAUG 21

I came in sceptical. I had not appreciated how much of this is already in consensus. What is the level where you would walk away?

Ben ShapiraAuthorAUG 21

Fair challenge. Invalidation is a close below the lock price on volume, and I should have written that into the card rather than leaving it implicit. (894)

Yael BrennerAUG 21

This lines up with what I saw in the filings. The lag between intake and revisions is the whole trade. What is the level where you would walk away?

Marco BianchiAUG 21

Reading this against my own model. The mix argument is the part I had not considered properly. What would you need to see to add rather than hold?

Pauline VidalAUG 21

This is the clearest write-up I have seen on the name. The elasticity decay across the price actions is the tell. What would you need to see to add rather than hold?

Pauline VidalAUG 21

I hold the other side of this. Second source in a constrained market is genuinely underrated. What is the base rate on this kind of setup working?

Marco BianchiAUG 21

Agree with the direction, less with the magnitude. The capital intensity point is the one I keep coming back to. Curious whether you would still size it the same at a higher entry.

Noa BergmanAUG 21

Good to see an invalidation level actually stated. The comp table did more work for me than the narrative did. How much of this do you think is already in the buy side's numbers?