Cboe Global Markets Inc (CBOE)

Rating: HOLD

Methodology: Valuation triangulated across five independent anchors — Monte Carlo (Student-t + regime switching), an independent DCF, peer re-rating, a sum-of-parts, and a scenario-weighted PWEV. Figures reconciled to Alpha Vantage 2026-06-27. Each chart below sits with the part of the thesis it evidences.

Investment Thesis

The bull case — 'Bull — Re-Rate' (8% weight) — targets $424, +75% vs spot. It needs the multiple to hold or expand.

The dashboard below is the whole argument on one page: spot ($243) against each valuation anchor, the scenario tree, technicals and the options-implied move.

Anti-Thesis (The Real Bear Case)

The structural case — 'Structural — Volume / Subscription Decline / Competition' (20%) — targets $105, -57% vs spot. This sits below the 52-week low — a genuine structural impairment, not a mild pullback.

Key Debate

P/E Multiple explains 81% of Monte Carlo outcome variance — i.e. value is set by the multiple the market will pay, a rate/sentiment regime bet as much as an earnings bet.

Earnings-Call Disconfirmation & Sentiment

Derived signals from the MCH market-data store (Alpha Vantage transcripts + news). Quantitative tone only — a disconfirmation flag, not a substitute for reading the call.

Management vs analyst tone (2026Q1): management +0.53 vs analyst floor +0.00 → delta +0.53 (n=17 mgmt / 15 Q&A; 78th pctile across the S&P book, z +0.8).

Flag: TYPICAL — management-vs-analyst tone within the normal cross-sectional range.

News (last 365d, 1000 articles): avg ticker sentiment +0.15 (bullish 18% / bearish 3%)

Scenario Analysis

The tree runs from a structural 'Structural — Volume / Subscription Decline / Competition' downside ($105) to a 'Bull — Re-Rate' bull case ($424); the probability-weighted blend (PWEV $239) is -1% versus spot.

Scenario rationale — what each probability buys (the driver path behind every target):

• Structural — Volume / Subscription Decline / Competition (20%, $105). Structural impairment — volume / subscription decline / competition: earnings AND the multiple compress together. Target sits below the 52-week low by construction. Drivers — implied_target: 105.34; probability: 0.2.
• Market-Activity Recession (17%, $179). Cyclical downturn — trading volumes + recurring data/index/ratings subscriptions + pricing power weakens for 1–2 years before normalising. Drivers — implied_target: 178.88; probability: 0.17.
• Base — Recurring Data + Volume Growth (35%, $248). Mid-cycle — normalised trading volumes + recurring data/index/ratings subscriptions + pricing power; disciplined capital allocation; steady returns. Drivers — implied_target: 248.44; probability: 0.35.
• Growth — New Data / Index / Analytics (20%, $335). Upside — new data / index / analytics lifts earnings above mid-cycle; the multiple expands modestly. Drivers — implied_target: 335.4; probability: 0.2.
• Bull — Re-Rate (8%, $424). Upside tail — sustained tight conditions or a structural re-rate on new data / index / analytics. Drivers — implied_target: 423.6; probability: 0.08.

Valuation Triangulation

Five anchors — but read them with their basis in mind. The Monte Carlo, the DCF terminal, and the peer re-rate all key off a market multiple, so they are not fully independent; only the discounted cash flows themselves are genuinely multiple-free. The discipline is to read the spread and weight the cash-based view, not to treat five numbers as five independent votes.

Monte Carlo — the distribution, not a point

10,000 paths, Student-t shocks (fat tails) with a regime-switching overlay. The median lands at $216 and 38% of paths finish above spot. The variance decomposition shows the p/e multiple is the dominant swing factor (81% of variance). Value is a multiple bet: fundamentals move the answer far less than the rating does.

DCF — the cash-flow anchor

Independent of the market multiple: a 5-year path, WACC 8.5%, 16x terminal FCF multiple → $258. This anchor is deliberately the heaviest (41%): it is the valuation least hostage to the current multiple regime.

Peer benchmarking — relative value

Against the peer cohort, re-rating to the peer-median forward multiple (P/E 19.27x) implies $243. A premium is only justified by superior growth/margins; otherwise it is multiple risk. Weighted just 12% so the market's mood does not drive the fair value.

Across all anchors the spread is tight (the methods corroborate one another).

Revenue-Segment Breakdown

The company-specific drivers behind the valuation — each segment carries its own growth, margin, multiple and capex intensity. (Tags: FACT reported · ESTIMATE from disclosures · INFERENCE judgment.)

Named Exposures

Demand & pricing cycle (FACT/ESTIMATE)

Capital intensity & shareholder returns (ESTIMATE)

Structural risk vs optionality (INFERENCE)

Industry Context — Financials — Exchanges

This name sits in the Financials — Exchanges as a exchange_data. trading volumes + recurring data/index/ratings subscriptions + pricing power Its scenarios are not guessed in isolation — they inherit a single, shared view of the cluster's driver cycle, so the names that depend on the same event are mutually consistent.

Value chain: SPGI (exchange_data) · CME (exchange_data) · MCO (exchange_data) · ICE (exchange_data) · NDAQ (exchange_data) · MSCI (exchange_data) · COIN (exchange_data) · CBOE (exchange_data) · FDS (exchange_data)

On the cluster's key downside — Volume / Subscription Decline / Competition () — this name implies 37% vs the cluster house view of 37% (in line with the house). The cluster's full cross-stock reconciliation governs that the names which ride the same capex cycle assign it comparable odds.

Structure: Shared State — The fin_exchanges cycle is the shared macro driver. Driver — trading volumes + recurring data/index/ratings subscriptions + pricing power Dispersion — Members differ by cyclicality (quality compounders vs deep cyclicals).

Model Appendix

DCF — line items

FCF is bridged: NOPAT + D&A − Capex − ΔNWC (capex intensity 3% of revenue, weighted from the segments) — not a single conversion fudge.

WACC 8.5% · Σ PV(FCF) $7B + PV(terminal) $20B = EV $27B; + net cash → equity $27B ÷ diluted shares 0.11B = $258/share (exit-multiple terminal).

• Gordon (perpetuity-growth) terminal at 2.5% → $271/share — a genuinely non-multiple, cash-based cross-check; the exit-multiple and Gordon values bracket the terminal-value risk.
• Incremental ROIC on the forecast capex ≈ 56% vs WACC 8% → above WACC — the build is value-creative.

Peer set

Peer-median fwd P/E → $243; EV/Rev → $428.

Weighted fair-value math

Sensitivity

DCF/share — WACC × terminal multiple

DCF/share — revenue CAGR Δ × op-margin Δ

Tornado — DCF/share swing by driver (widest first)

Company lever — SoP/share vs Exchanges, Ratings & Market Data multiple (AI re-rating) (base 19x)

Load-Bearing Assumptions

DCF: WACC 8%, terminal multiple 16×, FY+5 revenue $7B. Triangulation leans 41% on DCF, 29% on PWEV.

Reasons the Thesis Could Fail (Falsifiable)

The valuation is multiple-dependent (81% of variance); a de-rating toward the DCF anchor ($258) implies +7%.

Fact / Inference / Speculation

• FACT: Spot $243; 52-week range $225–$370; engine rating HOLD; base-case target $239 (-1%).
• INFERENCE: Triangulated FV $244 (+0%). P/E Multiple explains 81% of Monte Carlo outcome variance — i.e. value is set by the multiple the market will pay, a rate/sentiment regime bet as much as an earnings bet.
• SPECULATION: At current prices the embedded bet is that the multiple holds or expands — P/E Multiple carries 81% of outcome variance.

Recommendation: HOLD

Balanced: triangulated fair value $244 (+0% vs spot); the outcome hinges on P/E Multiple. The debate is P/E Multiple (81% of variance) — fundamentally a multiple/regime call. SBC runs —M TTM (disclosed in the appendix).