NBIS · investment memo
Median EBIT margin of the memo's growth-matched comparator set, used as the fixed terminal margin in the reverse DCF. NOT the universe-wide 14.4% constant - that defect does not apply here. BUT the file itself grades this 'QUALIFIED / effectively INDETERMINATE': it is drawn from the SAME five-name set the memo declares UNIDENTIFIED for the exit multiple (ABTS $3m, ATRA $70m, ANAB $1,517m, ANTA $75m, AXIL $40m - four of five sub-$100m shells), and valuation.md requires a named, evidenced mechanism for a loss-maker terminal margin, which is not supplied. Recorded because it is the figure the solve actually used; the finding does not depend on it (NO SOLUTION across the entire defensible exit-multiple range).
Four distinct questions, one field each. A price is not a thesis: the trigger below forces a re-underwrite and freezes further purchases — it is never an automatic sell.
A daily close below $127.29 triggers a mandatory re-underwrite and freezes further purchases. It is not an automatic sell unless a separate fundamental invalidation condition has been breached.
Not stated. This name has no falsifiable invalidation conditions on file, so it cannot be risk-monitored. That is a gap in the research, not a clean bill of health — recorded rather than hidden.
Type: MEASURED. criteria.md is explicit about why: the principal declined to set a cap — *"I don't know if I trust the bear case analyses… I saw too many examples of downside cases without much backbone or rigorousness being used to exclude good investments."* A binding test resting on an untrusted estimate reproduces the defect where sizing maximised over a known-biased number. It therefore constrains nothing. The most interesting fact about this bear case is that nobody is contesting it. Across six earnings calls, no participant on either si