NET · investment memo
UNDERIVABLE, and the memo says so explicitly: 'EBIT-basis result INDETERMINATE - terminal margin UNDERIVABLE from a -9.6% operating margin.' The reverse DCF was therefore run on a SALES basis, where the memo states 'no terminal margin is required or assumed'. Recording a number here would be the exact defect the memo avoided - it criticises the alternative as carrying 'the most consequential assumption on an INFLECTION name, the terminal margin, as an unargued parameter'. State C requires the terminal margin be BUILT from an opex bridge; no bridge exists in this folder, and the memo declines to assume one. Null is the correct record. NOTE the consequence: because the exit multiple is an EV/SALES multiple and no terminal margin exists, the m_EBIT,T <= m_gross,T constraint is not applicable to this name.
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 $224.28 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.
Not stated. No permanent-loss case with a named cause is on file. A valuation bear case is not an impairment case.