HScreen

rendered 2026-08-23 14:15 UTC 1 input MISSING

VST · Vistra Corp. 4d old

conviction3
coverage tierT3-PRIMARY-COMPLETE
horizon12 months

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

-22%25%
+16%42%
+50%33%
EV +17.72%
why these probabilities: All legs built forward from $140.34 (2026-08-18), FY2027 as the valuation year, and defined relative to what the market expects. BASE — consensus DELIVERED, nothing more: FY2026 revenue +20.8% and EPS +89.5%, then FY2027 revenue +8.9% and EPS +20.6% (fmp:/stable/analyst-estimates?symbol=VST&period=annual, 2026-08-19, EST, 22 analysts). Held at today's ~14.2x EV/EBITDA (state file, FY2025 basis) with buyback shrinking the count against the remaining $1.2bn authorisation (VST/VST_2026Q2.json:10). Consensus EPS growth compounding through FY2027 on an unchanged multiple, less the multiple drag from a FY2028 consensus that decelerates to +4.9% revenue, lands at roughly +16%. This is DESCRIPTIVE — it is what is priced in, not my forecast. BULL — growth MATERIALLY ABOVE consensus, ~30%+ FY2027 revenue against the street's +8.9%, driven by ERCOT/PJM load arriving at the top of or above the guided 4-6%/2-3% band with the July all-time peaks as the leading evidence (VST/VST_2026Q2.json:6), Cogentrix and Meta contributing more than the un-updated 2027 midpoint contains (VST/VST_2025Q4.json:33), and forward power curves finally repricing structural load rather than near-term weather — the exact mechanism management says is currently absent (VST/VST_2026Q1.json:50). Energy-only ERCOT scarcity pricing is convex, so an above-band load outcome flows to EBITDA at a much higher rate than to volu
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)4.59%
kelly-derived (report-only)0.52%
divergence4.07pp
inputsEV(ann) 17.72% · σ 27.19 · Z

Falsifiers what would prove this wrong

ERCOT and PJM load growth arrives at or above management's guided 4-6% / 2-3% annual bands through 2030
Forward power curves begin to reprice structural load rather than near-term weather and cash prices
The retail-plus-generation combination continues to offset weather shocks rather than compound them
Data-centre load converts from interconnect-queue position into contracted volume at Vistra specifically
The buyback continues at scale and management leans into weakness as stated
The $2.0-2.5bn of cash available for allocation is real and recurring, not a one-off

Conflicts surfaced, never netted out (T4)


Our probability-weighted expected return is +13.7% over 12 months against a street implied return of +57.4% (consensus target 220.9 versus 140.34 at 2026-08-18, 22 analysts, 20 buy / 2 hold). We do not disagree with the
high

The revision tape is UNAVAILABLE, not neutral. estimates_query.py returns n_up 0, n_down 0, direction flat, breadth 0.0, median_move_pct null and velocity 0.0 for both EPS and revenue over 365 days, and the outliers func
high

No options-implied anchor exists — no chain entry for VST, and desk_options.json holds ATM-only at one near-dated expiry across the system. The market's own probability for both my bear and bull magnitudes is therefore u
high

Internal tension in management's own testimony, and it is the crux of the thesis. The same management team states a structurally improved multi-year demand backdrop with quantified load bands (VST/VST_2026Q2.json:6, VST/
high

I scored growth 7 on named, quantified, multi-year drivers, but the consensus curve I am using as BASE decelerates hard: +20.8% revenue FY2026, +8.9% FY2027, +4.9% FY2028, -4.5% FY2029. Either the street does not believe
medium

ROE of 18.5% against ROIC of 3.3% (FY2025 key-metrics) is a ~15pp spread that says the equity return is largely leverage- and buyback-driven rather than asset-level. That argues for a lower quality score than the franchi
medium

The pack retrieved 59 chunks but only 16 (27%) are on-ticker, and all 16 are VST's own transcripts — a single issuer by identity, so they are one source class, not sixteen independent ones. The 43 off-ticker chunks are A
medium

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

Version history from the research record

archived versions1
archivedhashbytes
2026-08-19T09:44:366c617311184943,996
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.