u/Acceptable-Time-6424

I'm seeing 10% down today on dilution concerns. 10% feels like panic.

I forecasted around a 12% increase in overall share count by 2031, this is likely a decent chunk of that.

But, does that really put anybodys valuation at risk? My margin of safety in Nebius, despite taking a fairly pessimistic viewpoint, is wide enough to absorb material increases in dilution.

In fact, the dilution impact is far outweighed by price sensitivity in my model. Full impact below.

https://preview.redd.it/cjqlxodrhdkh1.png?width=1460&format=png&auto=webp&s=01b55ba41313fc0f8fcc8b24bdcb512843e717b9

Right now, most new deals are coming in at $20-25m/mw, with surge pricing short term deals exceeding $40m/mw.

At $22 (my forecasted blended rate) - a huge chunk of dilution could be absorbed, and there would still be enough juice in the price to buy today - this is why it's such an important lever.

I've wrote about the 4 main threats to Nebius over the past year or so, but my focus now is almost entirely on pricing power.

The real threat to watch out for, is if Nebius begins announcing huge long term hyperscaler deals - that would suggest they have lost faith in market conditions, and are happy to de-risk and take a lower price per megawatt.

You can read my full write up on the key risks, and my Nebius valuation here: https://rootcapital.substack.com/p/nebius-q2-2026-the-fifth-horseman

(Totally free, no paywall) - I am always looking for feedback on where my assumptions can be challenged.

My NBIS bull case: $970 PV / +368% upside by 2031. Refined with feedback from this sub.

I posted my Q1 valuation here yesterday and asked for genuine critique. I got some genuinely intelligent feedback - substack is good for engagement but it doesn't compare to reddit. I've gone back and sharpened my model, and I'm posting my bull valuation here for free with the refined inputs.

This is what I think Nebius can do if the platform thesis plays out and execution stays on track. Not the central estimate or what I'm anchoring my position on - but a credible scenario worth understanding. Ultimately this is the upside optionality above my base case of ~350.

https://preview.redd.it/s2gkp599da1h1.png?width=1670&format=png&auto=webp&s=b7eff030d2bc1a0230484dc4d49a512b60851bf5

• 6 GW deployed by 2030. This is 1 GW above the 5 GW NVIDIA-partnership trajectory Andrey explicitly stated on the call. Pennsylvania at 1.2 GW (phased to 2030), Missouri at 1.2 GW, Finland at 310 MW, plus existing footprint already past 3.5 GW contracted. Needs ~1,000 MW/year deployment from 2026 onwards. Aggressive but Microsoft and Google have done it at peak, and we are very much on track - just look at the last 6 months...
• $14M per MW at terminal. This was the biggest single change from feedback - a commenter flagged that $10-13M/MW was effectively a bear case given pricing has been rising every quarter. YE26 exit run-rate already implies ~$9M/MW blended, before platform mix-shift. Bull case needs the customer mix to lean toward premium enterprise and Token Factory workloads. Clarifai's on-prem/air-gapped unlock opens governments, healthcare, defence - sectors structurally locked out of cloud AI until now. These numbers aren't just possible but very much plausible.
• 22% net margin at terminal. "20-30% EBIT margin trajectory" verified on the call. After tax and depreciation, 22% net margin sits at the upper end of that range. Stress-tested with a heavier depreciation schedule (also flagged by the sub - my depreciation was too soft in my original model) and still holds.
• $75B → $84B revenue by 2031. Lifted from $75B in my original model after the same commenter pointed out that 2027 base at $16B was a touch low given H1 2027 alone will add more capacity than all of 2026.

Putting it together: 6 GW × $14M/MW = $84B revenue. 22% net margin = $18.5B net income. 40x exit P/E justified by terminal growth still running at +15%. Divided by 430M diluted shares (bigger dilution to fund the build) = $43 EPS. × 40x = $1,720 implied 2031 share price. Discount back at 10% WACC over 6 years = $970 PV. Call it 1000 to round up.

2031 market cap implied: roughly $740B. Big number, tough to imagine in my head but genuinely defensible for an AI-native hyperscaler in 2031 with the platform thesis playing out.

Six months ago a $1,000 figure would have felt absurd. Today, after Q1 and after working through the feedback from this sub, it feels like a credible scenario worth understanding rather than a hot take to dismiss.

Full article and long-form analysis still free until the weekend: https://rootcapital.substack.com/p/nebius-q1-2026-the-forgotten-apocalypse

Thanks to everyone who pushed back on the original.

Harry

After yesterday's earnings, Morgan Stanley published their price target with the caveat of basically 'this is a buy, but too much has changed for us to give you our updated model yet - we need more time. Anything up to $400." - valuing this company is not easy.

Q1 2026 was a genuine blowout quarter that will cause most people to re-write their models. Mine has been revised significantly:

https://preview.redd.it/vvqkyohtk31h1.png?width=1456&format=png&auto=webp&s=f2f4cc1194d9079a2442aed239b086662c4940a5

• 4 GW is now the conservative read. Contracted power >3.5 GW today, YE26 guide raised to >4 GW, Andrey on the call: "line of sight of five gigawatts by end of 2030" via NVIDIA. My base case used to prudently assume 2.5 GW, that view is now too bearish.
• Unit economics arrived. AI cloud adj EBITDA hit 45% (was 24% in Q4). Volozh is now guiding "20-30% EBIT margin trajectory." I've moved my terminal net margin from 15% to 18%.
• Depreciation collapsing. Q1 came in at 53% of revenue — my March model didn't expect that until 2027. Burry's "GPUs worthless after 4 years" thesis hasn't aged well - shockingly. Older-gen pricing is holding, new-gen pricing went up.
• Financing massively de-risked. $6.3B raised in Q1 without touching the ATM. Microsoft prepayment took deferred revenue from $1.6B to $4.8B. Asset-backed financing of mid-single-digit billions coming next, secured against Microsoft/Meta contracts. Some dilution but not loads. Far less than expected anyway.

I value conservatively, and have a reputation for doing so - you might remember my four horseman of the Nebius apocalypse - most of those risks are being kept completely at bay. My base case now implies an upside of 63%.

My bull case which assumes 6GW in 2031 implies a present value of $1000. 6 months ago such a figure was hysterical, now it feels genuinely plausible

The business metrics are now lining up with the narrative, and I feel that the risk reward here at $207 is genuinely better than it was in the 80s.

I've been trashed in the past for some of my deeper analysis and bull valuations being behind a paywall, to hit back at that I've made this post completely unrestricted until the weekend.

I get great benefit in hearing the rebuttals and analysis on here so please, post your feedback and critiques - I would genuinely love to hear it.

Thanks,
Harry

I think Anthropic is materially undervalued even at its current ~$1T valuation (FT reporting, May 8). On my bottom-up analysis, Anthropic gets to $600B ARR by 2030 and $1T ARR by 2034. At those numbers, the company is worth multiples of where it's marked today. Every current valuation discussion is anchored too low.

What that means for AMZN holders:

The equity stake. Amazon's $8B investment in Anthropic is now worth over $70B on the balance sheet (Fortune, April 30, Amazon-confirmed). 8.75x markup, triggered by Anthropic's Series G at a $380B post-money valuation in February. The FT reported last week Anthropic is now in talks at $900B to $1T. If that round closes, Amazon's stake goes to roughly $165-185B. Another massive non-operating gain hitting AMZN earnings, possibly this year. And on my numbers, even $1T is still too low.

The AWS revenue. Anthropic committed to $100B+ in AWS spend over 10 years. Roughly $10B/year at full deployment. AWS did $108B total in 2024, so this is one customer signing up for ~10% of AWS's current annual revenue, locked in. Anthropic's ARR went from $9B at end of 2025 to $45B last week. Five-fold in five months. The AWS contract is sized for a trajectory that lands well into the hundreds of billions of ARR by 2030.

And it's all running on Trainium. Amazon's custom silicon. Every dollar of inference Anthropic runs on Trainium instead of NVIDIA is margin retained inside Amazon. Trainium + Graviton combined is already over $10B annual run-rate, growing triple digits YoY. The Anthropic deal is the commercial proof that custom silicon works at frontier scale.

Most AMZN sell-side models I've seen barely account for any of this as a discrete value driver, and they're definitely not modelling the equity stake at anywhere near my fair value for Anthropic.

If you want the full anthropic analysis for how I get to $600bn in revenue by 2030, I'll leave my long form analysis in the comments (no paywall).

At $78, RKLB fails every valuation test I can run.

Three scenarios, all working back from 2035, all using the McKinsey/WEF $755B backbone TAM (not the misleading $1.8T headline that includes Uber and DoorDash), all discounted at 12%:

https://preview.redd.it/oh6am00sw6yg1.png?width=2370&format=png&auto=webp&s=7efdd81f89d8c6baa9247920f55874db2aa789a4

The Bull case earns me my discount rate, nothing more. The Vision case requires Rocket Lab to take more than half of all non-SpaceX activity globally.

So why did I add more last week? Well, because I think the standard models miss what RKLB actually is.

Every megaconstellation, every defence satellite, every orbital data centre, every space-based solar array: none of it gets to space without launch capacity.

It's vertically integrated, capital-intensive, regulator-bound, physics-bound. You can't add a launch provider the way you can add an AWS region. And in the West, there are exactly two companies that can do it at scale by 2030: SpaceX and Rocket Lab.

That's it.

Owning the bottleneck of a growing economy is a structurally different kind of business. Freight railroads compounded for a century. Visa and Mastercard trade at 30 to 35x on mid-single-digit growth.

When demand explodes through your chokepoint, you set terms.

If you take the duopoly framing seriously, the multiple, the margin, and the capture rate in the standard Vision case could all be too low. Visa and Mastercard run 45 to 50% net margins. The standard Vision uses 22%. Apply duopoly economics and the maths goes somewhere uncomfortable.

My full piece covers the bear case (Bleecker Street's short report has aged better than people admit), the four pillars of the 2035 thesis, the risks I'm watching, and the Mega-Vision valuation that the standard model can't see. I'll put that in the comments if you're interested.

But tell me, am I crazy? or does the $232 valuation make sense?