PLTR — Original thesis snapshot (2026-05-23, EPV-only)

This file preserves the original PLTR thesis exactly as published on 2026-05-23 under pure-Klarman EPV-only valuation. The thesis was superseded on 2026-05-24 by the Greenwald-modified doctrine recalibration (see 2026-05-24-greenwald-refresh and the current PLTR-thesis).

This snapshot exists for audit. The business analysis (sections 2, 3, 4, 7-9, 11) remains analytically operative; the valuation conclusions ($52 central, $29 trigger) and methodology ($EPV-only) have been superseded.

Note: First thesis produced by the AlphaSteve kit. Subject is a deliberate stress test of the deep-value framework against a richly-priced, narrative-driven name.

1. Bottom line

Pass. Palantir is operationally exceptional and structurally interesting; the price is wrong. At ~$135 / $325B market cap, the enterprise is valued at 41× FY26 revenue and 74× FY26 adjusted FCF, while sell-side consensus revenue growth (29% over 3 years) and even the company's own raised FY26 guidance (+71% YoY) are not sufficient to justify the current EV at any reasonable deep-value discount rate. The required terminal economics are monopoly-tier — sustained 25%+ revenue CAGR for a decade with margins expanding to ~30% FCF — and the price leaves no margin of safety against any deviation.

Triangulated central value: ~$45–60 per share (range; midpoint $52). Required buy trigger with appropriate margin of safety: ~$30–40. Current price: ~$135.

Position: none. Re-engage at a 50%+ decline from current, or on durable evidence of structural moat-widening that the current price does not yet require.

2. The business

[Per current thesis section 2 — preserved unchanged]

3. Structural assessment

[Per current thesis section 3 — preserved unchanged]

4. Variant perception

[Per current thesis section 4 — preserved unchanged in substance; framed against EPV-only at the time]

5. Valuation triangulation (EPV-only frame)

Method 1 — EPV (no growth)

Normalized owner earnings: FY26 guided adjusted FCF $4.3B midpoint, less SBC fair-value adjustment $1B → $3.3B sustainable owner earnings. WACC 10%. EPV = $33B EV + $8B net cash = $41B equity / 2.39B diluted shares = **$17 per share** strict no-growth.

Method 2 — Liquidation

Net cash $8B is the floor on hard liquidation. ~$3.50/share. Not a useful anchor — entire equity value is going-concern.

Method 3 — Reverse DCF

At current EV $317B with WACC 10%, terminal growth 3%, terminal FCF margin 30%: required FY36 revenue ~$80-100B. Implied IRR at consensus growth path and 15× terminal FCF: 4-6%.

Method 4 — Comparables

Comparable-implied value at 20× revenue: $64/share. At 25× revenue (extreme premium): $80/share.

Method 5 — PMV / replacement

Replacement cost $15-25B; well below current EV. Not particularly informative.

Triangulation under EPV-only frame

Central value: $52 (low end of growth-respecting range). Range $45-80. Bull case $130-160 requires top-decile decade.

Margin of safety pricing (EPV-only frame)

Under the original pure-Klarman frame: 45% MoS required for this name's uncertainty profile.

• Trigger price: ~$29
• Current price: $135
• Implied position: none

6. Quality and management

[Per current thesis section 7 — preserved unchanged]

7. Macro and cycle context

[Per current thesis section 8 — preserved unchanged]

8. Risk and pre-mortem

[Per current thesis section 9 — preserved unchanged]

9. Position sizing (original frame)

Recommended position: 0%. At/near the original $29 trigger, this would warrant a Mid position (~2-3%) under pure-Klarman sizing logic.

10. What I don't know

[Per current thesis section 11 — preserved unchanged]

11. Next review (original schedule)

• At 50% drawdown ($65-70 range), re-engage with deeper primary research
• On any guidance cut or single sub-100% US commercial quarter, re-engage
• Quarterly: check insider buying / selling, SBC trajectory, US commercial growth
• Annually: re-validate variant perception against base rates

Why this revision was superseded

The original 2026-05-23 thesis was produced under the pure-Klarman EPV-only default. On 2026-05-24, the kit's first cross-thesis analysis (PLTR-consensus-gap) surfaced that this default was systematically too conservative for verified-quality compounders where Greenwald's three gating tests (ROIIC > WACC, durable moat, multi-year runway) cleanly pass. The doctrine was explicitly recalibrated to Greenwald-modified deep value (see methodology-calibration event log).

Applying EPV-plus-growth to PLTR under the new doctrine lifts central value from $52 to $85 and trigger from $29 to $60. The business analysis above remains analytically operative — only the valuation framework changed. Full delta in 2026-05-24-greenwald-refresh.