Palantir: the margin bridge has one bad assumption in it
The savings target has been reiterated without a revised timeline. Reiterating the number while moving the date is how these programmes fail slowly.
Evidence · 3 cards
Unlock the full report
The locked call and the disclosures stay visible. The research body unlocks with purchase or subscription.
Discussion · 9
Been on the sidelines on this one. 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?
I have been waiting for someone to make this argument. The regulatory ceiling being quantified changes the model, not just the headline. What is the level where you would walk away?
Agreed on the first part, not the second. The comp table took longer than the rest of the piece put together, so I am glad it was the useful part.
Useful framing. The depreciation schedule really is the whole disagreement. What is the base rate on this kind of setup working?
Good to see an invalidation level actually stated. The capital intensity point is the one I keep coming back to. Would you underwrite this without the catalyst date?
I think the setup matters more than the thesis here. The installed base argument is stronger than the cycle argument here. Would you underwrite this without the catalyst date?
Fair challenge. The comp table took longer than the rest of the piece put together, so I am glad it was the useful part.
Good piece. The contract structure matters more than the headline rate. Does the thesis survive a soft guide next quarter?
I came in sceptical. The contract structure matters more than the headline rate. Where does this break if rates back up another 50bp?