For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Sempra (SRE) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-25): Designation Low · Gem Score -28 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality -30 · Value -27 · Sentiment 27 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $46.89 vs $86.41 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
Sempra
SRE NYSESempra is a North American energy infrastructure and public utility holding company based in San Diego, California. It focuses on owning and operating large-scale electric and natural gas infrastructure that serves residential, commercial and industrial customers in key economic regions. Through its Sempra California segment, the company provides regulated natural gas and electric services in Southern and parts of central California. Its Sempra Texas Utilities business includes a significant ownership stake in Oncor, a major electric transmission and distribution platform in Texas. The Sempra Infrastructure segment develops, owns and operates liquefied natural gas export facilities, pipelines, storage, and related energy networks in the U.S., Mexico and global markets. Across these platforms, Sempra delivers electricity, gas distribution, transmission and storage, and supports cross-border energy flows and long-term contracted infrastructure. Founded in 1996 and headquartered in San Diego, Sempra plays a central role in the utilities and energy infrastructure sector, serving one of the largest utility customer bases in the United States and contributing to reliable energy delivery across North America.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 2.75
Total Equity: $38.79B
Shares: 653,826,000
Total Debt: $4.17B
Cash: $29.00M
EBITDA: N/A
Total Debt: $4.17B
Cash: $29.00M
Revenue: $13.70B
Revenue: $13.70B
Revenue: $13.70B
Total Equity: $38.79B
Tax Rate: 39.2%
Equity: $38.79B
Total Debt: $4.17B
Cash: $29.00M
Current Liabilities: $21.89B
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $4.17B
Total Equity: $38.79B
Shares: 653,826,000
Shares: 653,826,000
CapEx: -$10.61B
Shares: 653,826,000
Stock Price: $86.78
Net Income: $1.84B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 7:42pm (13d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $12.9B | $14.4B | $16.7B | $13.2B | $13.7B |
| Cost of Revenue | — | — | — | — | — |
| Gross Profit | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Expenses | — | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Income | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Income | $1.3B | $2.1B | $3.1B | $2.9B | $1.8B |
| EBITDA | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS | $2.11 | $3.39 | $4.81 | $4.44 | $2.75 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $2.11 | $3.38 | $4.79 | $4.42 | $2.75 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 7:42pm (13d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $559.0M | $370.0M | $236.0M | $1.6B | $29.0M |
| Total Current Assets | $4.4B | $5.9B | $5.5B | $5.3B | $34.8B |
| Total Assets | $72.0B | $78.6B | $87.2B | $96.2B | $110.9B |
| Current Liabilities | $10.0B | $9.9B | $10.1B | $9.7B | $21.9B |
| Long-Term Debt | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Liabilities | $44.6B | $49.3B | $53.5B | $58.4B | $72.1B |
| Total Equity | $27.4B | $29.3B | $33.7B | $37.8B | $38.8B |
| Retained Earnings | $13.5B | $14.2B | $15.7B | $17.0B | $17.1B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 7:42pm (13d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $3.8B | $1.1B | $6.2B | $4.9B | $4.6B |
| Capital Expenditure | -$5.0B | -$5.4B | -$8.4B | -$8.2B | -$10.6B |
| Free Cash Flow | -$1.2B | -$4.2B | -$2.2B | -$3.3B | -$6.0B |
| Acquisitions (net) | — | — | — | — | — |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | $197.0M | $4.2B | $8.2B | $8.1B | $12.5B |
| Dividends Paid | -$1.3B | -$1.4B | -$1.5B | -$1.5B | -$1.6B |
| Stock Buybacks | -$339.0M | -$478.0M | -$32.0M | -$43.0M | -$58.0M |
| Net Change in Cash | -$404.0M | -$119.0M | -$73.0M | $1.2B | $2.0B |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 7:42pm (13d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +12.3% | +15.8% | -21.1% | +3.9% |
| Gross Profit Growth | — | — | — | — |
| Operating Income Growth | — | — | — | — |
| Net Income Growth | +62.3% | +43.8% | -6.9% | -35.8% |
| EBITDA Growth | — | — | — | — |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 12:51pm (13d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-06-25 | $0.66 | — | — | — |
| 2026-03-19 | $0.66 | — | — | — |
| 2025-12-11 | $0.65 | — | — | — |
| 2025-10-01 | $0.65 | — | — | — |
| 2025-06-26 | $0.65 | — | — | — |
| 2025-03-20 | $0.65 | — | — | — |
| 2024-12-05 | $0.62 | — | — | — |
| 2024-09-26 | $0.62 | — | — | — |
| 2024-06-27 | $0.62 | — | — | — |
| 2024-03-20 | $0.62 | — | — | — |
| 2023-12-05 | $0.60 | — | — | — |
| 2023-09-26 | $0.60 | — | — | — |
| 2023-07-03 | $0.60 | — | — | — |
| 2023-03-21 | $0.60 | — | — | — |
| 2022-12-21 | $0.57 | — | — | — |
| 2022-09-22 | $0.57 | — | — | — |
| 2022-07-06 | $0.57 | — | — | — |
| 2022-03-24 | $0.57 | — | — | — |
| 2021-12-22 | $0.55 | — | — | — |
| 2021-09-23 | $0.55 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 20:16Even the bull case prices 58% below today — the ratio here measures the model-vs-market gap, not payoff odds. Another quarter like the worst recent one costs 64%.
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($86.41) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | -3% | 16.6% | $36.38 | -58% |
| Base — stabilizes | -7% | 14.4% | $28.54 | -67% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | -10% | 12.3% | $21.97 | -75% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | -4% | 14.4% | $31.52 | -64% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-15Data-center and electrification load in ERCOT flows through Oncor's transmission and distribution franchise, converting AI compute buildout into approved capital spend earning a regulated return — the most direct AI-to-rate-base transmission channel in the pool.
Rate-base growth is not free: capex is running far ahead of operating cash (FCF -$6.05B in 2025, diluted shares up from 626M to 654M), so AI-driven investment only creates value if allowed ROEs, recovery timing and equity issuance terms cooperate.
AI Lens thesis
Outcome range spread 40
Growth Outlook
Analyzed 2026-08-17 16:32The question every valuation on this page silently assumes: is this company likely to grow? Judged forward — the business, its category, the world — against what's already printed.
Claude Reading
The raw numbers tell a messier story than either the "premium utility" bull case or the synthesis's -47.7% overvaluation call. Quarterly net income has been wildly erratic — $95M in Q3'25, $352M in Q4'25, then a suspicious $1.04B pop in Q1'26 on flat-to-down revenue ($3.66B vs $3.80B YoY). That Q1'26 28.4% net margin is not a regulated utility's organic earnings — it smells like an asset sale gain, a regulatory true-up, or a deferred tax benefit. Strip it out and TTM NI is roughly $1.96B, giving a real P/E closer to 29 on trailing earnings that shrank from $3.08B (2023) to $1.84B (2025) — a 40% two-year earnings decline while shares trade near highs. That's the tension the models are dancing around.
The balance sheet reported here is almost certainly wrong or incomplete: $4.17B total debt against $38.8B equity yields a 0.107 D/E, which is impossible for a utility holding company that owns Oncor and SoCalGas. Sempra's actual consolidated long-term debt is north of $30B. This matters because the synthesis flags "high debt risk — interest coverage dangerously low" while the canonical metrics claim trivial leverage. Both can't be right, and the FMP data is the likelier culprit — someone is pulling parent-only or a mis-mapped line. Capex of -$10.6B against $4.57B operating cash flow producing -$6.05B FCF is the more reliable signal: Sempra is in a heavy capex supercycle (Port Arthur LNG, Oncor T&D buildout) funded by debt and equity issuance, and the 87% payout ratio on shrinking earnings is a real yellow flag, not a narrative one.
I largely agree with the synthesis direction but not the magnitude. A $45 DCF fair value implies Sempra is worth roughly 24x depressed 2025 earnings — that's punitive for a utility with Oncor (best T&D asset in the US arguably) and a real LNG franchise. The market-forces "shrinking utility" framing overreads the 2023→2025 revenue decline, which reflects natural gas commodity pass-through normalization more than volume/rate-base erosion; rate base is growing high-single-digits. The narrative model's split — $45 fundamentals + $41 optionality — is directionally right but the fundamental anchor is too low. A fairer regulated-utility multiple of 18-20x normalized $2.5B earnings (mid-cycle) gets you to $70-78, meaning ~10-20% overvalued, not 48%. The contrarian case for the bulls: if Port Arthur Phase 2 FID hits and Mexico LNG (ECA) ramps on schedule, 2027 EPS accelerates to $5.00+ and today's $86 looks reasonable at 17x forward.
Where I dissent from every model: none seriously grapple with the fact that Sempra cut its 2025 EPS guidance and reset the growth algorithm — that's why the stock underperformed XLU by ~15% YTD and why the "premium utility" P/E of 31 is a stale artifact of depressed E, not paid-up P. On normalized earnings the multiple is ~17x, roughly in line with peers like AEP and DUK, not premium. The pre-flight model calling this a "premium utility at P/E 31 vs sector 18-20" is mechanically true but analytically misleading. The real question is whether Oncor's rate base growth (~10%) and LNG cash flows starting 2027 restore the 6-8% EPS CAGR management targets. If yes, fair value is $80-90. If California wildfire liability re-emerges or Port Arthur slips, it's $65. The synthesis's $45 requires believing both regulated franchises structurally impair — I don't see evidence for that.
GPT Reading
At $86.78, Sempra is being valued like a growth utility even though the reported earnings base has gone the wrong way. Annual revenue rose from $13.19B in 2024 to $13.70B in 2025, a modest 3.9%, but net income fell from $2.86B to $1.84B, a 36% drop. That is not a trivial wobble; it drives the P/E to 31.4x on a business generating just 4.7% ROE and 1.7% ROA. Quarterly numbers reinforce the point. The latest quarter was strong at $1.04B of net income on $3.66B of revenue, but the three quarters before that were $352M, $95M, and $473M, which is too erratic for anyone to simply annualize the March quarter and call the stock cheap. The market is paying 4.1x sales and 1.46x book for a utility whose earnings power, on the actual annual data, has deteriorated sharply from $3.08B in 2023 to $1.84B in 2025.
What stands out most is the mismatch between accounting leverage and economic capital intensity. The balance sheet shows only $4.17B of debt against $38.79B of equity, which would normally make this look conservatively financed, but the cash flow statement tells the real story: $4.57B of operating cash flow and a brutal -$6.05B of free cash flow after $10.61B of capex. This is not a cash-harvesting utility; it is a heavy reinvestment story. That can be fine if the reinvestment earns high regulated returns or unlocks visible growth, but the current returns are not proving that yet. A payout ratio of 87% and dividend yield of 3.0% also leave less room for error than investors typically prefer in a rising-capex utility. If I strip away the premium story and just look at what owners are getting today, they are accepting utility-like income with subpar current cash conversion and a premium multiple.
The strongest argument against this bearish read is that 2025 may simply be an unusually depressed earnings year while the asset base is being built for the next leg of growth. The quarterly progression actually supports some of that rebuttal: after the ugly $95M September quarter and soft $352M December quarter, March rebounded to $1.04B, above the $917M posted in the prior-year March quarter. Revenue has also held firmer than the long-term CAGR implies, with the latest quarter up from $3.80B to $3.66B only modestly and the annual base still above 2021 by roughly $840M. On that view, the market is looking through a trough period and capitalizing a future rate base, infrastructure expansion, and possibly higher earnings normalization. The low reported debt-to-equity of 0.11 and current ratio of 1.59 give some support to the idea that this is not a balance-sheet emergency, and book value backing at 1.46x is not absurd if the underlying assets are high quality and regulated.
I still weigh those positives less heavily because the valuation already assumes they arrive. A utility with a 3% yield, negative free cash flow of $6.05B, and a recent annual profit collapse should not command 31x earnings unless the earnings rebound is both near-term and durable. The problem is that the reported data do not yet show that durability. Even if I give full credit to the March quarter strength, investors are still paying today for tomorrow’s normalization. For this stock to deserve the current price, I would want to see annual net income recover back toward at least $2.6B-$3.0B, with operating cash flow rising enough to cover more of the $10B+ capex burden, rather than hoping intermittent strong quarters bridge the gap. Until then, the premium multiple looks like a story stock wrapped in utility clothing.
What would change my mind is straightforward: two or three consecutive quarters with net income consistently in the $700M-$1.0B range, evidence that 2026 can annualize above $2.8B of net income, and capex translating into materially better free cash flow rather than another year around -$6B. If management can show that 2025 was a trough and not a reset—through sustained earnings recovery without stretching the payout further—then a premium to the utility group would be justified. Absent that, I think the stock is discounting upside too aggressively and is vulnerable to a rerating into a more ordinary utility multiple.
Grok Reading
Sempra’s numbers describe a regulated utility whose earnings power is eroding while the market still pays a growth multiple. Annual net income has fallen from $3.08B in 2023 to $2.86B in 2024 and $1.84B in 2025—a roughly 40% collapse in two years—on revenue that peaked at $16.72B and now sits at $13.70B. Trailing earnings CAGR of −22.7% and recent earnings YoY of −35.8% are incompatible with a 31.4× P/E and a 4.1× sales multiple. Operating cash flow of $4.57B looks healthy until you net the $10.61B capex bill: free cash flow is −$6.05B, yet the company is distributing an 87% payout ratio and a 3.0% dividend yield. That combination is financed by the balance sheet and the narrative, not by residual cash. ROE of 4.7% and ROA of 1.7% confirm the firm is not currently earning an attractive return on the capital it is deploying. The Q1 2026 print ($1.04B NI, 28.4% margin) is a sharp rebound from the $95M and $352M quarters that preceded it, but one strong quarter does not reverse a multi-year earnings downtrend or close a gap this wide to fair value.
The quantitative composite pointing near $45–47 versus a $87 stock is directionally right even if the precise DCF is debatable. At $86.78 the equity is pricing roughly double the cash-flow anchor the models assign to the core regulated utility plus base LNG. Debt/equity of 0.11 and only $4.17B of reported debt look conservative on paper, but cash is a thin $29M against that capex run-rate, and interest-coverage flags in the synthesis are consistent with a company that must keep accessing markets to fund the build. Revenue has stabilized modestly (+3.9% recent YoY, $13.19B to $13.70B annually), which is better than the longer −9.5% CAGR, yet the margin and earnings volatility across 2025 quarters (3% to 24% NI margins) undercuts the “stable utility cash flow” story that normally supports premium multiples. A traditional utility trading at nearly twice sector P/E while earnings shrink and FCF burns is not a mature earner being fairly paid; it is a narrative premium resting on Mexico LNG scale-up and Oncor optionality that have not yet shown up in consolidated NI.
The strongest opposing case is straightforward: the −$6B FCF is intentional rate-base and LNG infrastructure investment that should convert into allowed returns and contracted export cash flows, not a sign of operational decay. Believers will cite the $4.57B operating cash engine, the low reported leverage, California and Texas regulatory constructs that historically support mid-to-high single-digit rate-base growth, and the Q1 2026 earnings snapback as evidence the trough is behind. They will also argue that a 1.46× book multiple is not extreme for scarce energy-transition infrastructure and that the 3% yield plus inflation-linked rate base justifies holding through the spend cycle. I weigh that less heavily because the payout is already 87% of a depressed earnings base while cash generation is deeply negative; the market is not waiting for the projects to earn—it has already capitalized the upside at roughly a 90% premium to the fundamental DCF. If LNG and Oncor were delivering, earnings CAGR would not be −23% and net margin would not have compressed the way the annual series shows. Superior jurisdictions matter, but they do not rewrite a 31× multiple on falling profits.
I would reverse to neutral or constructive only if trailing-twelve-month net income reclaims and holds above ~$2.7–3.0B with net margins sustainably back in the high teens, free cash flow turns materially less negative on a clear multi-year path to breakeven as major LNG trains and Texas T&D spend enter rate base, and management demonstrates the dividend is covered by free cash rather than financing. A concrete commercial milestone that converts Mexico/LNG optionality into contracted EBITDA large enough to justify even half the current premium would also force a re-rating of the bear case. Absent those, the stock remains a rich multiple on a shrinking earner.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Sempra is a diversified regulated utility (California utilities, Texas Oncor stake, LNG infrastructure) whose top line has oscillated between $12.9B and $16.7B over 2021-2025 and delivered net income of $1.3B-$3.1B, landing at $1.84B in 2025 - a step down from $2.86B and $3.08B in the prior two years. Operating cash flow comfortably covers reported earnings (OCF/NI 1.93x, accruals -2.1% of assets), which supports the reported earnings as economically real. That is the utility bull case: rate-based, mature, cash-generative at the operating line. The concern is the capital structure and reinvestment intensity. Free cash flow has been negative every year of the window and is worsening: -$1.17B, -$4.22B, -$2.18B, -$3.31B, -$6.05B. Net debt sits at roughly $4.1B with only $29M of liquid cash and $4.17B of short-term debt, and the Altman Z of 0.95 flags distress on the model (though Z is notoriously punitive for leveraged regulated utilities that fund capex with structural debt). Share count has drifted from 626M to 654M (about 1.1%/yr CAGR), a modest but real leak that partly funds the capex program alongside the debt stack. Insider behavior is unremarkable - routine director awards and small opportunistic sales by Winn, Ferrero, Day; no open-market buying and no cluster selling. Overall this reads as a normal-shape regulated utility running a very large growth capex cycle (LNG, Texas T&D), where quality hinges on regulatory outcomes and financing access rather than on any operational red flag.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Regulatory rate-case outcomes at SDG&E/SoCalGas and Oncor - authorized ROE and rate base growth drive earnings quality here
- Composition of 2025 NI decline vs 2024 - one-time charges, impairments, or structural margin compression
- LNG project (Port Arthur, ECA) financing structure, JV cash calls, and timing of first-cash contributions
- Debt maturity ladder and unused revolver capacity supporting the $4.17B short-term stack
- Whether the 5-year capex plan is self-funded post-completion or requires continued equity issuance beyond 1.1%/yr
With no e2e composite handed over, I have to triangulate. Sempra earns roughly $4.30-$4.60 of EPS on guidance, so $86.41 is ~19-20x forward earnings and ~1.7-1.8x book — a modest premium to the pure-regulated peer group (SO, DUK, AEP typically 17-19x) that the LNG/Texas growth optionality arguably justifies but does not obviously underprice. Market cap $56.5B against a business generating steady regulated ROE but persistently negative FCF because of a large rate-based capex program means the equity is being valued on rate-base growth and LNG earnings power, not on cash today.
The bull case (irreplaceable infrastructure, LNG export ramp, Texas load growth) is largely in the multiple; the bear case (California regulatory drag, Mexico/LNG execution risk, need to fund capex with debt and some equity) is a real offset. Earnings quality is good, which supports the deserved multiple, but the Mixed quality grade and deeply negative FCF prevent me from awarding a premium beyond peers. Net: price and deserved value sit within a ~10% band of each other — the definition of fair.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Updated multi-year EPS and rate-base CAGR guidance
- Port Arthur LNG Phase 1 in-service timing and Phase 2 FID economics
- Sempra Infrastructure equity monetization/JV terms and proceeds
- California GRC outcome and allowed ROE trajectory
- Parent-level debt issuance and any equity funding needs through 2026
The dominant force on SRE right now is the LNG-scarcity narrative reignited by the Qatar strike. Wall Street is actively naming U.S. LNG-levered names as August winners, and Sempra's platform-monopoly framing (irreplaceable Gulf export infrastructure plus Mexico scale-up) plugs directly into that story. With narrative intensity strong and durability moderate, this is a real tailwind pressing on the tape - not a mania, but a persistent bid for the LNG cohort. Risk-on regime (VIX 14.3, tape near highs) is a mild positive but SRE's 0.58 beta means the macro tape barely moves it either way; the stock-specific narrative dominates. Cross-currents temper the read. The Texas data-center moratorium headline is a fresh overhang for Oncor optionality, one of the pillars of the bull story, and PCG-style value-trap chatter around California utilities reminds the market that CA rate-cap and decarbonization costs still exist. Analyst tone is not screaming, and 3-year relative performance is soft (-5pp), suggesting the LNG re-rating is still building rather than crowded. Net: modest but real tailwind, driven by the narrative more than the tape.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Outcome of next week's Texas data-center moratorium meeting - resolution either way flips the Oncor narrative
- Analyst target revisions on SRE post-Qatar - are LNG names getting explicit price-target bumps or just thematic mentions
- Any CPUC action on California rate structures that could pull SRE into the PCG value-trap bucket
- ECA/Port Arthur project milestones or offtake announcements that harden the LNG story
Verify before trusting this (8)
- Permian Basin transmission plan approvals
- New Oncor points of interconnection
- LNG FID and offtake announcements
- ERCOT large-load interconnection queue size
- Oncor peak demand forecasts
- California gas throughput decline rate
- Large-load cost allocation rulings
- Residential bill affordability politics
The world is adding electric load faster than it has in decades — data centers, electrification, industrial reshoring — and the constraint is wires, gas peakers and interconnection capacity, exactly what Sempra owns in two of the strongest US load-growth economies. That backdrop converts capital spending into approved rate base rather than speculative demand bets. The offsets are cost-of-capital (a 4.63% 10-year makes every dollar of the capex plan more expensive to fund and raises the bar in rate cases) and affordability politics in California, where decarbonization costs and wildfire risk sit on a customer base already paying high rates. Globally, LNG demand security supports contracted export economics, though incremental expansion depends on permitting and buyer appetite. Net: a structurally favorable demand world with a financing and regulatory tax on the returns.
When we made this prediction on Aug 15, 2026, SRE was $86.41. We expect it to be $76.00 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $72.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 15, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.