HScreen

rendered 2026-09-01 14:15 UTC STALE inputs (317h)

DLR · Digital Realty Trust, Inc. 15d old

conviction3
coverage tierT1-FULL
horizon12 months

Return distribution probability-weighted scenarios, never collapsed to a point

-25%25%
+9%48%
+30%27%
EV +6.17%
why these probabilities: BASE (+9%): double-digit core FFO growth delivered at the low end, multiple holds roughly flat at ~20x EV/EBITDA (no rerating — a name at 96% of its high does not get paid twice), dividend held at USD 4.88 for a ~2.4% yield on the 200.15 price, so the return is roughly FFO growth net of a modest multiple give-back plus yield. It is deliberately BELOW the +10% bull-anchor row because a 20.6x entry multiple absorbs most of the delivered growth. BULL (+30%): renewal spreads sustain near the 2026Q2 >1MW level rather than normalising, the Blackstone/Teraco/Columbia accretion lands at or above the guided contribution from next year, the fee stream is re-rated as recurring rather than episodic, and the power-constraint narrative pulls a scarcity premium into the multiple. Requires a rerating above 20.6x, which is why it is not the base case. BEAR (-25%): the falsifier fires — >1MW renewal spread compresses toward the 0-1MW level as one or more hyperscalers shift incremental wholesale demand to self-build or to a lower-cost competitor. On a 20.6x multiple with 1.3% ROIC and no valuation cushion, the de-rate is the whole loss; a REIT priced for growth that stops growing does not have a floor at 15x. -25% takes the price to ~150, i.e. the bottom of the 52-week range (146.23) — a level the market traded within the last twelve months, so this is not an extreme assumption. WHAT WOULD RAISE
not built — options-implied distribution on the same axis, with the KL number and where the disagreement sits
needs: desk-options implied bands (v1.4 Part 4a) — activates at 60% coverage; currently 33%

Visibility how far ahead this name can be seen

not built — visibility score
needs: visibility_score.py

Trust how much weight this name's own record can carry (credibility Z)

not built — credibility
needs: credibility.py

Sizing survival-first size (half-Kelly) vs the enforced ladder

kelly not computable — no data

Payout durability does the distribution survive a downturn?

FAIL
DPS trajectoryprogressive
interest cover now1.5x
interest cover at FORWARD rates0.58x
interest coverage now 1.5x < 3.0x; interest coverage at forward rates 0.58x < 2.0x (this is the test a static ratio cannot see)

Falsifiers what would prove this wrong

>1MW renewal cash mark-to-market remains materially above the 0-1MW spread, evidencing an embedded-mark-to-market pool on the legacy lease book
Double-digit core FFO per share growth is delivered, not merely guided, from the 2026Q2 multi-year statement
Hyperscaler customers continue to lease wholesale capacity rather than substitute to self-build for incremental AI demand
The Blackstone / Teraco / Columbia Capital transactions deliver the meaningful accretion management guided to as starting next year (2026Q2)
The 2.7% weighted-average interest rate and 4.6-year weighted-average maturity do not reprice destructively inside the horizon
The fee-income stream (management, development/construction fees) is genuinely recurring rather than episodic, as characterised in 2026Q2

Conflicts surfaced, never netted out (T4)


The revision tape is unambiguously positive — EPS 6 up / 0 down and revenue 9 up / 0 down over 365 days, breadth 1.0 on both, median revenue revision +7.0% — and velocity is rising (0.74 revenue moves per 30 days). My va		high

My p_bull of 27% is 21.2pp below the node-pooled +30% base rate of 48.2%, and my p_bear of 25% is 6.3pp below the pooled bear rate. I am arguing both tails are thinner than the dc-infra node implies, because the node poo		high

Management guides double-digit core FFO growth for multiple years (2026Q2) and reports +66.7% >1MW renewal spreads, while FY2025 FMP key-metrics show ROIC of 1.30% and ROE of 5.71%, and recurring capex plus capitalised l		high

Customer capex evidence is overwhelming and FACT-graded at the customer — MSFT citing USD 368bn contracted backlog and ~USD 175bn CY2026 capex, GOOGL USD 514bn cloud backlog, AMZN backlog "substantially continuing to gro		high

Price 200.15 versus a 52-week high of 208.14 — the market is pricing this name within 4% of its best level in a year, at 20.6x EV/EBITDA. My -25% bear takes it to ~150, which is the bottom of the same 52-week range. The 		medium

All four signal desks are unbuilt, so no cross-dimension check exists on this name. The conflict is with the SYSTEM design (§P3 expects disagreement across desks to be the output), not with a signal — I cannot report agr		medium

The case against independent adversary, different model family (P6) weakened

Version history from the research record

archived versions1
archivedhashbytes
2026-08-17T15:40:007330fbb73ca937,247
One version only — the archive was created today. The diff view fills in on the next re-run.
Rendered from canonical artifacts only (T1) — no terminal database exists. Every figure is read from the system's own files at render time; where an artifact is missing the panel names the dependency rather than showing an empty box. No execution path exists anywhere in this interface (T5), not even a link.