Tesla Inc. (TSLA)

Investment Committee Summary

Investment Thesis

At $349 (25 August 2026) on a forward multiple near 195x, the market is not pricing the car company; it is capitalising an autonomy and robotics option. Spot embeds the belief that driver assistance reaches unsupervised operation and that a robotaxi fleet scales with economics that close. The engine credits that option partially rather than in full. Its base path assumes broadly flat deliveries, an automotive margin under competitive pressure and a compounding energy-storage business, giving a blended operating margin near 8.8%, a twelve-month base-case target of $414 and a probability-weighted value of $375 — both above the quote, and both driven by scenario weights rather than by current cash generation. Anchors built on the automotive, energy and services base alone sit dramatically lower, so far below that the triangulation discards them as outliers, which is itself the finding: today's fundamentals do not explain today's price. The blended fair value of $285 — -18% against spot — leaves the shares trading rich to our estimate of intrinsic value at a rating of HOLD, with net cash of ~$35.7B funding the wait. The single most damaging risk is that the option carries most of the price, so a slipped robotaxi timeline or a serious safety event drives fair value below the 52-week low.

Narrative drafted 2026-08-16 by claude-opus-5 under supervision; reviewed by Marinus 2026-08-16.

The dashboard below is the whole argument on one page: spot ($349) against each valuation anchor, the scenario tree, technicals and the options-implied move.

Anti-Thesis (The Real Bear Case)

The highest-probability bear mechanism is not brand collapse but ordinary competitive erosion. Chinese manufacturers out-price and out-iterate Tesla in the largest electric-vehicle market; sustained price cuts hold automotive gross margin in the low teens while regulatory-credit revenue rolls off, removing a high-margin, non-operating prop. Deliveries grow only marginally, so the cash base deteriorates without any demand shock at all. Crucially, no autonomy catastrophe need arrive to hurt the equity: the multiple simply drifts toward a manufacturer's rating as the market loses patience with a timeline that keeps slipping. Because the option is most of the price, that drift alone is a very large move. Governance and key-person concentration add a discount the market applies unpredictably. A balance sheet holding net cash of ~$35.7B means solvency is not the question; the question is what a car and energy business, valued as one, is worth — and that answer sits below the 52-week low.

Key Debate

Gross Margin explains 61% of Monte Carlo outcome variance — the single variable that decides which side is right.

What the Market Is Pricing In

At the current price, the market pays 196.0× consensus forward EPS, vs the house DCF terminal 22.0×, and a peer median 6.0×. The house DCF sits 74% below spot, so the market is pricing in more than the house case — roughly 8.7pp of revenue CAGR.

Variant perception: the house view is above-consensus, and the thesis is primarily growth-driven.

Scenario Analysis

The scenario tree spans a structural 'Brand Damage' downside ($200) to a 'Robotaxi Launch' bull case ($550); the probability-weighted blend (PWEV $375) is +7% versus spot.

SBC charge: scenario targets are gross per-share prices; the PWEV is reduced by one year of stock-based-compensation dilution (1.5% of shares, on SBC ≈ 2% of revenue), trimming the gross PWEV of $381 to $375 (-1.5%). SBC is charged once, as dilution — never also deducted from FCF.

Scenario rationale — the driver path behind every target:

• Brand Damage (20%, $200). Musk political-brand polarisation and demand erosion drive deliveries down year-on-year while the price war keeps auto gross margin in the low-teens; the autonomy option de-rates as the market loses confidence in timeline and execution. The multiple collapses toward an industrial OEM level and the residual option value is heavily discounted, placing the target below the 52-week low — a structural-impairment outcome, not a pullback. Drivers — deliveries: down YoY; auto gm ex credits: ~12-13%; robotaxi option: de-rates sharply; multiple: OEM-like, option discounted to near zero.
• Base (30%, $419). Deliveries stabilise roughly flat, auto gross margin holds in the mid-teens, and energy/storage continues to grow as the higher-quality pillar; FSD recognised revenue grows modestly while Robotaxi remains early and unproven. The market keeps a meaningful but discounted autonomy option in the price — supporting a premium-to-OEM multiple without crediting full robotaxi success. Drivers — deliveries: ~flat; auto gm ex credits: ~15-16%; robotaxi option: partial credit, unproven; multiple: premium-to-OEM, option partially valued.
• Robotaxi Launch (30%, $550). Unsupervised FSD clears regulatory milestones and Robotaxi scales across multiple cities with credible per-mile economics, validating the network thesis; high-margin autonomy revenue inflects and the energy business compounds. The autonomy option converts from speculative to partly-realised, and the multiple expands as the market capitalises a software/network earnings stream on top of the auto base. Drivers — deliveries: stable+; auto gm ex credits: ~16%+; robotaxi option: begins to convert to revenue; multiple: expands on network/software economics.
• Competition Squeeze (20%, $250). BYD and Chinese/EU competitors take share and force continued price cuts; deliveries grow only marginally while auto gross margin compresses and regulatory credits fade. Autonomy slips in timeline but is not abandoned, so a thin option premium survives; the multiple compresses materially toward a cyclical-OEM level as the cash base deteriorates. Drivers — deliveries: marginal growth; auto gm ex credits: ~13-14%; robotaxi option: timeline slips, thin premium; multiple: compresses toward cyclical OEM.

Valuation Triangulation

Two weighted anchors — a scenario-weighted pwev and a monte carlo median (student-t + regime switching) — read them with their basis in mind. The Monte Carlo, the DCF terminal and any peer re-rate key off a market multiple, so they are not fully independent; only discounted cash flows themselves are genuinely multiple-free. The discipline is to read the spread and weight the cash-based view, not to treat two numbers as two independent votes.

The house blend DECLARES five anchor weights — DCF 35%, scenario PWEV 25%, Monte Carlo 15%, sum-of-parts 15%, peer re-rate 10%. For this name DCF, sum-of-parts, peer P/E re-rate are not computed, so 60% of the declared weight is redistributed across the anchors that exist — which is why the weights above differ from the declared ones. The fair value is unaffected by this disclosure; the blend has always worked this way.

Peer EV/Revenue re-rate — 0% weight: it duplicates the peer-multiple information already carried by the Peer P/E anchor while ignoring margin mix; weighting both would double-count the peer view. Shown as a cross-check.

DCF, sum-of-parts, peer P/E re-rate excluded from the weighted blend — diverges >55% from the Monte-Carlo / scenario core. For a high-leverage equity the per-share DCF (enterprise value less large net debt) is hypersensitive to the terminal multiple; a peer re-rate across heterogeneous margins is apples-to-oranges. Shown above for reference; the blend leans on the multiple-discipline and scenario anchors.

Monte Carlo — the outcome distribution

10,000 paths, Student-t shocks (fat tails) with a regime-switching overlay. The median lands at $135 and 12% of paths finish above spot. The variance decomposition shows the gross margin is the dominant swing factor (61% of variance). The fundamental driver, not the multiple, sets the spread — a cleaner setup.

DCF — the cash-flow anchor

Independent of the market multiple: a 5-year path, WACC 12.0%, 22.0x terminal FCF multiple → $89.24. Excluded from the weighted blend as an outlier — retained as an independent cross-check on the multiple-driven anchors.

Peer benchmarking — relative value

Against the peer cohort, re-rating to the peer-median forward multiple (P/E 6.0x) implies $10.74. A premium is only justified by superior growth/margins; otherwise it is multiple risk. Excluded from the weighted blend — shown only as a market cross-check.

Sum-of-parts

Valuing each piece at the multiple it deserves (Automotive 2.5x, Energy Generation & Storage 5.0x, Services & Other 2.0x, FSD / Robotaxi (autonomy) 30.0x) → $22.06. 'FSD / Robotaxi (autonomy)' dominates at 30.0× → $24B (46% of EV) — the segment whose multiple matters most.

Across all anchors the spread is 408% of the median — wide (genuine disagreement — the blend carries low valuation confidence).

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 Automotive multiple (AI re-rating) (base 2.5x)

Peer Quality & Weighting

Quality-weighted forward P/E: 7.2× (simple median 6.0×). Direct peers count 100%, segment 50%, broad 25%.

Valuation-anchor screen: Scenario PWEV (valid but extreme (>100% over median)); DCF (exit) (excluded (>3× or <0.3× spot)); DCF (Gordon) (excluded (>3× or <0.3× spot)); Sum-of-parts (excluded (>3× or <0.3× spot)); Peer (fwd P/E) (excluded (>3× or <0.3× spot)). Anchor median 71.8. Extreme/excluded anchors carry no headline weight.

Historical-range cross-check: 52-week range $297–$499, centre $385 (+10% vs spot); spot sits at the 26th percentile of the range. Low-weight mean-reversion cross-check, not a fundamental anchor.

Risk / Reward & Margin of Safety

That ratio compares triangulated upside against the probability-weighted bear target, not the extreme tail; with a leg missing it is withheld rather than computed from a magnitude. Bull case (Robotaxi Launch): $550.

Company Overview & Business Model

Tesla Inc. — CONSUMER CYCLICAL · AUTO MANUFACTURERS. Tesla, Inc. is an American electric vehicle and clean energy company based in Palo Alto, California. Tesla's current products include electric cars, battery energy storage from home to grid-scale, solar panels and solar roof tiles, as well as other related products and services.

How it makes money.

Edge. Narrow moat — Tesla's durable moat is real but narrow — cost leadership in EV manufacturing, the Supercharger/charging standard, and the largest real-world driving dataset — while the ~211x multiple capitalises an unproven autonomy/robotics option, not the moat. Falsifiable: if unsupervised FSD/Robotaxi fails to reach material paid scale by end-2027, the auto+energy business is worth an OEM-plus multiple (~20-30x), and the terminal multiple should collapse toward that from >100x.

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.)

AI revenue, decomposed — the AI lines broken out (Azure-AI / Copilot / model-API / pass-through style), so the AI contribution is auditable:

• FSD software (recognised): High-margin, partly-recurring (subscription + deferred recognition on the installed base). The ONLY autonomy line with real revenue today; still small.
• Robotaxi network: PRE-REVENUE / SPECULATIVE. Network economics (per-mile take) are the bull's core driver of the implied value embedded in the ~180x multiple. Unproven at scale; gated on regulation, safety record and geographic rollout.
• Optimus (humanoid): PRE-REVENUE / SPECULATIVE. Production timeline and unit economics unproven. Value is a far-dated option, not a forecast.
• Dojo / AI compute: Internal training compute, NOT an external revenue line. Strategic input to FSD/Optimus, not a monetised product; cost centre today.

Named Exposures

Autonomy execution & valuation (INFERENCE)

Auto demand, margin & key-man (FACT/ESTIMATE/INFERENCE)

Industry Context — Autos & Autonomy

This name sits in the Autos & Autonomy cluster as a EV maker + autonomy/robotics optionality name. Two distinct drivers: (1) auto demand/margin (price war, BYD and Chinese OEM share gains, EV-credit and incentive roll-off compressing ASP and gross margin), and (2) the robotaxi/FSD option that dominates the valuation — a multi-hundred-billion-dollar slice of market cap that is contingent on FSD reaching genuine unsupervised autonomy and clearing regulators on a credible timeline. Bull if autonomy inflects and the option pays; bear if it slips or the auto base de-rates to a normal OEM multiple. 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: TSLA (EV maker + autonomy/robotics optionality)

On the cluster's key downside — Demand / Brand Collapse (EV demand stalls + brand/demand impairment) — this name implies 20% vs the cluster house view of 25% (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: Ev Demand Price — Global EV demand is decelerating off prior hyper-growth while price competition intensifies (Tesla price cuts, BYD and Chinese OEM share gains, incentive/credit roll-off). The auto business in isolation warrants a low, cyclical OEM-style multiple. (INFERENCE). Autonomy Option — Robotaxi/FSD is the swing factor: a high-payoff, low-base-rate option whose value hinges on FSD reaching true unsupervised autonomy, fleet economics actually closing, and regulators approving on a believable timeline. Largest source of both upside and timeline/regulatory risk. (INFERENCE). Energy Storage — Energy generation & storage (Megapack/Powerwall) is a real, faster-growing, structurally higher-margin pillar than autos, but too small today to anchor the valuation on its own. (FACT). Bimodal Valuation — The equity is bimodal: a cheap cyclical auto business stapled to an expensive autonomy/robotics call option. The market cap can only be reconciled by assigning most of it to the option, not the car company — so the stock trades on autonomy belief, not auto fundamentals. (INFERENCE).

Balance Sheet & Liquidity

Balance-sheet data as of 2025-12-31 (Alpha Vantage).

Capital Allocation

Free-Cash-Flow Quality

Accounting quality: SBC 2% of revenue; cash conversion (OCF/NI) 382% — cash-backed.

Competitive Moat

Moat sources:

• EV manufacturing cost/scale lead and vertical integration
• Supercharger network adopted as the North American charging standard (NACS)
• Fleet-scale real-world driving data for autonomy training
• Autonomy/Optimus 'moat' is a hypothesis, not demonstrated; no regulatory-approved unsupervised revenue at scale

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 (2026Q2): management +0.37 vs analyst floor +0.00 → delta +0.37 (n=42 mgmt / 12 Q&A; 41st pctile across the S&P book, z -0.3).

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

News (last 365d, 2312 articles): avg ticker sentiment +0.05 (bullish 7% / bearish 7%)

Consensus & Market Expectations

_Consensus figures: Alpha Vantage sell-side aggregates. Where the house view sits materially above or below the street, the divergence is itself a datum — see the thesis.

Catalyst Calendar

• 2026-10-15 (~52d) — Next-gen / lower-cost vehicle production ramp milestone (authored)
• 2026-10-21 (~58d) — Quarterly earnings — est. EPS $0.46 (AV EARNINGS_CALENDAR)
• 2027-03-31 (~219d) — Optimus pilot deployment / external-use disclosure (authored)

Forecast Track Record

• EPS surprise: beat 50% of the last 8 quarters; average surprise +0.3%.
• Prior-forecast backtest (23 snapshots, 2026-04-24→2026-08-20): directional hit-rate 65%; mean predicted +12.2% vs realised -5.9%. Disconfirming track record is reported, not suppressed.

Catalyst Timeline

6 catalysts in the next 90 days (of 15 tracked). Importance 1–3; confidence 0–1.

_Sources: extended.catalysts, data/catalysts/.json, data/catalysts/macro.json, AV DIVIDENDS, opex 3rd-Friday calc.

Regulatory & Legal Risk

Probabilities and sensitivities are analyst estimates, not market-implied.

Scenario Macro & Key Risks

Decision Rules (Machine-Checked)

Stance: Hold — 1 bullish / 0 bearish / 0 caution rules triggered of 6 evaluable (0 lacked data).

Machine-checked rules over disclosed inputs. The authored falsification triggers elsewhere in this report are analyst judgment and are NOT evaluated here. The stance is a portfolio-management signal and does not modify the published research rating.

Reasons the Thesis Could Fail (Falsifiable)

Pre-registered signals that would break the thesis — each polices a specific scenario boundary and is checked at every earnings update:

• Automotive gross margin ex-regulatory-credits < 13% (2 consecutive prints). (rationale withheld pending re-authoring — frozen figure or verdict)
• Vehicle deliveries, trailing four quarters year-on-year < 0% (declining) (2 consecutive prints). The Base case assumes roughly flat deliveries; Brand Damage assumes decline. A second consecutive year-on-year contraction moves the read from the base toward the impairment scenario.
• Regulatory-credit revenue as share of automotive revenue < 2% (2 consecutive prints). (rationale withheld pending re-authoring — frozen figure or verdict)
• Robotaxi commercial cities live with unsupervised (no safety driver) operation < credible multi-city commercial scale by the guided milestone date (single event). The autonomy option carries most of the equity value above the auto base. A missed or slipped commercial-scale milestone re-rates the option toward the Base or impairment multiple.
• Energy generation & storage revenue growth year-on-year < 25% (2 consecutive prints). (rationale withheld pending re-authoring — frozen figure or verdict)
• A high-profile FSD/Robotaxi safety event triggering a regulatory suspension or recall >= one qualifying event (single event). Unsupervised-autonomy approval is state-by-state and NHTSA-gated; a single serious safety event can reset the timeline and reprice the option sharply lower regardless of underlying capability.

Fact / Inference / Speculation

• FACT: Spot $349; 52-week range $297–$499; engine rating HOLD; house target $414 (+19%). (source: Alpha Vantage 2026-08-24, 25 August 2026)
• INFERENCE: Triangulated FV $285 (-18% vs spot · triangulated FV); the rating tracks the Monte-Carlo + scenario-PWEV core; the cash-flow anchor sits below the multiple-discipline core.
• SPECULATION: At current prices the embedded bet is that Gross Margin keeps surprising favourably — an operating call the next two prints will test.

Conviction Score

Research Conviction measures the strength and quality of the research setup — input coverage, financial quality, valuation support, process agreement. It is NOT the probability that the recommendation succeeds; the forecast track record section is the evidence on that.

56.7/100 (confidence band 44.2–69.2), 42nd percentile of 858 covered names (as of 2026-08-24). Weighted composite under config ros-1.19.0 — every component and its inputs below.

Score history: 57.5 → 57.5 → 57.6 → 57.7 → 57.7 → 57.3 → 56.4 → 56.4.

Probability-Weighted Return Profile

Horizon: 1 year — at this horizon CAGR equals total return by definition. Expected values are the probability-weighted sums over the full scenario set below.

The gross expected return is the probability-weighted scenario return (it reconciles to the gross PWEV); the diluted figure applies the SBC share-count charge and matches the published PWEV-based target.

Expected Alpha

Expected return minus the return this name is REQUIRED to deliver for its risk (1-year horizon). Constants are pre-registered (preregistered-static (amendment #2, 2026-07-29); not fitted to MCH outcomes).

A negative expected alpha does not change the rating — it says the expected return does not clear the risk-adjusted hurdle at today's price. Rating mechanics are unchanged by this section.

Probability Cross-Checks

Not authoritative. The scenario probabilities in this report are AUTHORED — a judgement about how the world might go, not a measurement. Nothing below modifies them, the target, the rating or any position size. These checks ask only whether anything outside our own model agrees with us; where it does not, that is information for the reader, not a correction we have quietly applied.

Authored set: 4 scenarios, probabilities summing to 1.0, mean target $380.53.

Flagged for review: internal coherence (authored mass vs Monte Carlo). A flag marks a disagreement worth understanding — it does not imply either side is wrong.

Factor Exposures

Cross-sectional percentiles over 858 covered names (style scores sector-demeaned; thematic = return-beta to the theme's proxy ETF). 50 = estate median.

Market interaction: correlation vs SPY +0.59, vs QQQ +0.62 (trailing ~1y daily returns).

Options Intelligence

Preferred structure: Long Stock. The selector reads the equity view (direction) and the volatility surface — nothing here re-prices the chain.

• no directional edge and options are cheap — options add little; hold the stock
• Direction neutral from the overlay conviction/rating (read-only input).
• IV/RV at the 6th percentile of the cross-section → low vol bucket. This is the measure that selects the structure above: it ranks how rich this name's implied vol is against its own realised vol, relative to other names.
• Reported alongside and not used to select: this name's own ATM IV sits at the 46th percentile of its own month-end history (decile 5). The two measures disagree here — vol is high for this name by its own history while its options are not unusually rich against its realised vol. Where they diverge, the cross-sectional measure is the one acting.
• IV term structure is in contango (longer-dated richer, slope +8.8pp) — favour longer-dated ownership (LEAPS) or calendars that are long the cheaper front.
• No live-chain Long Stock was priced for this name — shown as the indicated strategy; size against a freshly pulled chain.

IV term structure (contango, slope +8.8pp): 32-DTE 40% · 88-DTE 45% · 389-DTE 49%

No live-chain Long Stock was priced for this name — shown as the indicated approach; size against a fresh chain.

Alternatives: . IV rank shown via the name's own monthly IV history (advisory); structure selected on the cross-sectional IV/RV percentile. Model output for research and education only — not individualised investment advice. Position-sizing and stance figures are mechanical outputs of the disclosed rules and inputs; they do not consider any person's objectives, financial situation, or tax status.

Position Sizing Framework

Model output for research and education only — not individualised investment advice. Position-sizing and stance figures are mechanical outputs of the disclosed rules and inputs; they do not consider any person's objectives, financial situation, or tax status.

Options Overlay

A defined-risk way to express the HOLD equity view. Chain as of 2026-08-24 — end-of-day marks — indicative, not executable quotes.

Market signals — ATM IV 40.5% (subdued regime) · expected move ±9.6% (2026-09-25) · put/call OI 0.77 · ATM Δ 0.52 / Θ -0.28 / ν 0.41 · next earnings 2026-10-21. Direction: NEUTRAL (implied return -18.3% to triangulated fair value $284.93).

Covered Call (if held) (Income / neutral) — Short 375 C · 2026-09-25 · premium $7.83 · yield 2.2% · priced from the listed chain (EOD marks)

Converts a near-fair holding into income by agreeing to sell at a higher strike — worth weighing when upside looks limited near fair value and being called away is acceptable. Illustrative — no outcome is implied or guaranteed.

Put Spread (income) (Income / would-own) — Short 320 P / Long 295 P · 2026-10-02 · net $4.33 · net entry $315.67 · yield 1.4% · RoR 21.0% · max loss $20.67 · priced from the listed chain (EOD marks)

Gets paid to wait for a lower entry, with the tail capped: the sold put collects premium while the cheaper long wing below it caps the maximum loss at the spread width — a defined-risk alternative to a naked cash-secured put.

Protective Collar (if held) (Hedge) — Long 315 P / Short 385 C · 2027-02-19 · net $9.1 · floor -10.0% · cap +10.0% · priced from the listed chain (EOD marks)

For a holder who wants to stay invested but cap risk: the sold call funds most of the protective put, fencing the position into a band — a way to ride out a de-rating without selling.

Indicative options structures — a defined-risk expression of the equity view, model-and-market illustrated from the last-close chain. NOT personalised advice or an executable quote; premiums, IV and greeks move intraday. Options carry the risk of total loss of premium. Not a registered financial adviser.

Rating Bridge

Rating = HOLD because:

• Probability-weighted scenario value implies +7% vs spot
• Monte Carlo median implies -61% vs spot
• DCF fair value implies -74% vs spot — but this is terminal-value sensitive (exit-multiple $89.24 vs Gordon $54.28, 39% apart), so it carries less weight
• Bear case (Brand Damage) downside is -43% vs spot
• Net: the valuation anchor itself sits 18.3% below spot, so there is no reward leg to weigh against the bear case and the reward-to-risk ratio is withheld rather than computed off a negative upside. The rating is not asymmetric enough for a Buy and not impaired enough for a Sell — hence Hold.

Model Appendix

DCF — line items

FCF is bridged: NOPAT + D&A − Capex − ΔNWC (capex intensity 9% of revenue, weighted from the segments) — not a single conversion fudge.

WACC 12.0% · Σ PV(FCF) $46B + PV(terminal) $260B = EV $307B; + net cash $32.0B → equity $339B ÷ diluted shares $3.79B = $89.24/share (exit-multiple terminal).

• Gordon terminal at 2.5% → $54.28/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 ≈ 24% vs WACC 12.0% → above WACC — the build is value-creative.

Peer set

Implied prices at the peer medians: peer-median fwd P/E → $10.74; EV/Rev → $56.22.

Weighted fair-value math

Assumption Register

Sensitivity-ranked drivers (widest fair-value swing first): Op margin ±3pp (39.0); Revenue CAGR ±3pp (23.0); Terminal × ±15% (21.0); Capex intensity ±15% (18.0); WACC ±1pp (7.0).

Inputs, Sources & Confidence

Every load-bearing input, labelled by type and confidence. (reported fact · company guidance · consensus estimate · market data · house estimate · inference.)

Research Provenance

Load-Bearing Assumptions

DCF: WACC 12.0%, terminal multiple 22×, FY+5 revenue $187B. Triangulation leans 62% on PWEV, 37% on the Monte Carlo median.