HScreen

rendered 2026-08-28 20:16 UTC STALE inputs (227h)

MU · Micron Technology, Inc. 11d old

conviction3
coverage tierT2-PARTIAL
horizon12 months

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

-30%25%
+12%43%
+45%32%
EV +12.06%
why these probabilities: BASE (+12%): the margin cycle holds through FY27 as guided, Micron converts tight supply into flat-to-modestly-higher earnings, and the market pays a lower multiple on peak-cycle earnings — multiple compression offsets most of the earnings growth. This is derived from the evidence, not from a street mark: there is no dated broker target in this pack, so the base case is built from the company's stated position (tightness beyond 2026, no supply intercept before calendar 2028, +600bp sequential margin guide) discounted by the de-rating that historically accompanies peak memory margins and by the CXMT supply build the third-party evidence documents. A cyclical peak earner does not hold its multiple, and at a $1.1tn market cap the marginal buyer is paying for durability that has not yet been demonstrated across a full cycle. BULL (+45%): tightness extends through calendar 2027 because no greenfield bits arrive before 2028, HBM4E with customised base logic dies ramps at higher gross margin than standard HBM across the expanded six-customer base, and the market begins to capitalise Micron's earnings as structurally re-based rather than cyclical. The hyperscaler capex path ($1.3-1.5tn per UBS) and Meta's own statement that capacity stays tight for the foreseeable future are the demand side of that. BEAR (-30%): the falsifier fires. Either CXMT capacity converts from price-driven reven
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

ladder (enforced)3.36%
kelly-derived (report-only)0.13%
divergence3.23pp
inputsEV(ann) 12.06% · σ 28.1 · Z

Payout durability does the distribution survive a downturn?

PASS
DPS trajectoryrecovered_after_cut
interest cover now20.69x
interest cover at FORWARD rates13.8x

Falsifiers what would prove this wrong

DRAM supply remains constrained through the horizon because no material new capacity produces bits before calendar 2028
HBM4E with customised base logic dies ramps at gross margin above standard HBM across the expanded six-customer base
Hyperscaler capex funding memory demand is real construction, not accounting reclassification, and is not being digested
The margin step-change is delivered, not merely guided — gross margin holds above the prior-cycle low-sixties peak
Token-level end demand is growing and cost per token is falling, so tier-2 capex has a payer behind it

Conflicts surfaced, never netted out (T4)


My growth score of 8 and a +12% base case imply an improving forward earnings path, but the estimates tape shows zero revisions in 365 days across 76 rows — eps_drift and rev_drift both flat, breadth 0.0, no outliers. Th		high

our_vs_street_gap_pct is null. There is no dated street EPS or target in this pack (one broker document, latest_broker_date=none), so the 20%-weighted independence test cannot be computed. I have deliberately not back-fi		high

My supply-scarcity thesis rests on Micron's statement that greenfield bits do not arrive before calendar 2028. Independent SemiAnalysis work in the pack documents CXMT at $7.3bn 1Q26 revenue, ~700% YoY, FY25 gross margin		high

I score valuation 6 (fair) on trailing FY2025 multiples while simultaneously arguing the earnings base has structurally shifted upward. Those two statements are in tension: if the margin step is real, trailing EV/EBITDA 		high

My p_bull of 32% is 25.8pp below the pooled base rate for a +45% advance. I am explicitly disagreeing with the historical frequency, on the grounds that the base rate is largely a record of the advance already in the 52-		medium

No options, crowding, technical or factor desk output exists, and there is no options chain for MU in desk_options.json. So the options-implied bear anchor is null and there is no market price for the tail I am estimatin		high

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

Version history from the research record

archived versions3
archivedhashbytes
2026-08-17T14:24:55e15d238a2d8930,123
2026-08-17T14:27:28613761e82c2b30,142
2026-08-17T15:40:00d258b53e14e432,182

What changed in the latest version

-
-provenance:
- produced_by: analyst-aisemi
- produced_at: 2026-08-17
- evidence_pack: build_evidence_pack.py 2026-08-17T14:14:29Z
- inputs:
- - "state-files/MU.json (state_file_build.py 2026-08-17T13:17:51Z)"
- - "estimates_query.py drift/outliers 2026-08-17T14:14:52Z"
- - "depot evidence pack, 68 chunks, source_class A+B"
-
- value: >
- Micron Technology — US-listed DRAM/NAND/HBM producer, NASDAQ, four segments
- (Compute & Networking, Mobile, Storage, Embedded). FY2025 revenue $37.378bn,
- operating income $9.870bn, net income $8.539bn, reported EPS $7.65. 53,000
…diff truncated
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.