Skip to main content
Homepage
Full 18-step deep-dive · ~20–30 min · a member feature.
AGING Analysis Report
Aug 11, 2026
12 days ago · 100% complete
NOT DEPENDABLE This report predates a filing — its financial basis has been replaced.
Report generated: Aug 11, 2026 · Filing on record since: Aug 22, 2026 · 11 days after
For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page

What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for Moody's Corporation (MCO) — 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 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score -4 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 83 · Value -75 · Sentiment -19 (timing only, not weighted)

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 cap
  • extended-analysisthe core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memo
  • future-predictions — our forward price-band predictions
  • market-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.

Moody's Corporation

MCO NYSE
Financial Services · Financial Data & Stock Exchanges
New York, NY 10007, United States moodys.com Updated Aug 11, 10:20am
Price
$478.87
Market Cap
$82.8B
Employees
16,000
Beta
1.33
Avg Volume
851,479
Last Dividend
$3.94
CEO
Mr. Robert Scott Fauber

Moody's Corporation is a global provider of financial intelligence and analytical tools serving participants across the capital markets and financial services industry. The company operates through two main business segments: Moody’s Investors Service, which offers credit ratings and related research on corporations, financial institutions, structured finance products, and public sector entities, and Moody’s Analytics, which delivers data, models, software solutions, and professional services that support risk management, credit analysis, regulatory compliance, and economic research. Its products are used by banks, asset managers, insurers, governments, and corporations to assess credit risk, structure transactions, and inform investment and lending decisions. Moody’s Corporation is headquartered in New York, New York, and plays a significant role in global fixed-income markets by providing standardized opinions on creditworthiness and sophisticated analytical platforms that help institutions interpret complex financial and macroeconomic information.

Runs with full report Generated: Aug 11, 2026 10:30am
Price Overview
Price at report time
$477.51
as of Aug 11, 10:36am (12d ago)
Change · Aug 11
-0.64 (-0.13%)
Day Range
$473.82 – $480.31
52-Week Range
$402.28 – $546.88
50-Day MA
$472.18
200-Day MA
$471.89
Volume
10,087.00
Right now · live
Log in to get the live feed
Members see the real-time price and the move since this report (over 12d).
Share Structure
Outstanding 173,180,984.00
Float 152,555,129.00
Free Float 88.1%
High free float — 88.1% of shares trade freely, ~11.9% held by insiders/institutions
Very liquid — most shares trade freely. Low insider ownership can mean less management alignment, but makes large position sizing straightforward.
Price History (1 Year)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 10:41am (12d ago)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
The directional story — useful even when net income is negative.
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 10:41am (12d ago)
Revenue
The top line — total sales before any costs or taxes are subtracted. A measure of how much business the company is doing.
Net Income
The bottom line — profit left after subtracting all expenses, interest, and taxes from revenue. Reflects accounting profitability, but includes non-cash items like depreciation, so it isn't the same as cash earned.
Operating Cash Flow
The real cash generated by the day-to-day business — selling products, paying suppliers, collecting from customers. Calculated from net income by adding back non-cash items and adjusting for timing (unpaid bills, unsold inventory). When OCF consistently lags net income, the reported profit may not be converting to real money.
Period Revenue Net Income Net Margin YoY/QoQ
Key Metrics
TD Twelve Data statement HEX SEC filing
Industry comparison last run: Aug 11, 2026 10:28am
P/E Ratio (Price per dollar of earnings)
HEX
Stock Price / EPS (Diluted)
35.07
Stock Price: $478.87
EPS (Diluted): 13.67
P/B Ratio (Price vs net asset value)
HEX
Stock Price / Book Value Per Share
20.51
Stock Price: $478.87
Total Equity: $4.21B
Shares: 179,882,955
EV/EBITDA (Total value vs operating profit)
HEX
Enterprise Value / EBITDA
21.55
Market Cap: $82.80B
Total Debt: $6.99B
Cash: $2.38B
EBITDA: $4.06B
Enterprise Value (Takeover price (cap + debt - cash))
HEX
Market Cap + Total Debt - Cash
$87.4B
Market Cap: $82.80B
Total Debt: $6.99B
Cash: $2.38B
Gross Margin (Revenue left after direct costs)
HEX
Gross Profit / Revenue
74.4%
Gross Profit: $5.75B
Revenue: $7.72B
Operating Margin (Revenue left after all operations)
HEX
Operating Income / Revenue
44.9%
Operating Income: $3.46B
Revenue: $7.72B
Net Margin (Revenue left as actual profit)
HEX
Net Income / Revenue
31.9%
Net Income: $2.46B
Revenue: $7.72B
ROE (Profit from shareholder equity)
HEX
Net Income / Total Equity
58.5%
Net Income: $2.46B
Total Equity: $4.21B
ROIC (Profit from all invested capital)
HEX
NOPAT / Invested Capital
30.9%
Operating Income: $3.46B
Tax Rate: 21.3%
Equity: $4.21B
Total Debt: $6.99B
Cash: $2.38B
Current Ratio (Can it pay short-term bills)
HEX
Current Assets / Current Liabilities
1.74
Current Assets: $5.19B
Current Liabilities: $2.98B
Debt/Equity (Leverage — debt vs equity)
HEX
Total Debt / Total Equity
1.66
Short-Term Debt: $0.00
Long-Term Debt: $6.99B
Total Debt: $6.99B
Total Equity: $4.21B
Rev/Share (Top-line per share)
HEX
Revenue / Shares Outstanding
$42.91
Revenue: $7.72B
Shares: 179,882,955
Book Value/Share (Net assets per share)
HEX
(Total Assets - Total Liabilities) / Shares
$23.38
Total Equity: $4.21B
Shares: 179,882,955
FCF/Share (Real cash generated per share)
HEX
(Operating Cash Flow + CapEx) / Shares
$14.31
Operating CF: $2.90B
CapEx: -$326.00M
Shares: 179,882,955
CapEx is negative (outflow) — added to OCF to get FCF
Div Yield (Annual income from holding)
TD
Last Annual Dividend / Stock Price
0.8%
Last Dividend: $3.94
Stock Price: $478.87
Payout Ratio (Earnings paid out as dividends)
HEX
Dividends Paid / Net Income
Dividends Paid: N/A
Net Income: $2.46B
Dividends paid not available in cash flow statement
Industry Benchmarks
Last run: Aug 11, 2026 10:28am
Compares MCO against LLM-researched typical ranges for its industry. One research call per industry, cached indefinitely — every stock in the same industry reuses the same baseline.
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 10:41am (12d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue $6.2B $5.5B $7.1B $7.7B
Cost of Revenue $1.6B $1.6B $1.9B $2.0B
Gross Profit $4.6B $3.9B $5.1B $5.7B
Operating Expenses $1.7B $1.9B $1.6B $2.2B $2.3B
Operating Income $2.8B $2.0B $2.2B $3.0B $3.5B
Net Income $2.2B $1.4B $2.1B $2.5B
EBITDA $3.2B $2.4B $3.6B $4.1B
EPS $11.88 $7.47 $8.77 $11.32 $13.73
EPS (Diluted) $11.78 $7.44 $8.73 $11.26 $13.67
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 10:21am (12d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Cash & Equivalents $1.8B $1.8B $2.1B $2.4B $2.4B
Total Current Assets $4.0B $4.1B $4.3B $5.3B $5.2B
Total Assets $14.7B $14.3B $14.6B $15.5B $15.8B
Current Liabilities $2.5B $2.4B $2.5B $3.6B $3.0B
Long-Term Debt $7.4B $7.4B $7.0B $6.7B $7.0B
Total Liabilities $11.8B $11.7B $11.1B $11.8B $11.6B
Total Equity $2.9B $2.7B $3.5B $3.7B $4.2B
Retained Earnings $12.8B $13.6B $14.7B $16.1B $17.9B
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 10:41am (12d ago)
Metric 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Operating Cash Flow $2.0B $1.5B $2.2B $2.8B $2.9B
Capital Expenditure -$139.0M -$283.0M -$271.0M -$317.0M -$326.0M
Free Cash Flow $1.9B $1.2B $1.9B $2.5B $2.6B
Acquisitions (net) -$2.2B -$97.0M -$3.0M -$221.0M -$227.0M
Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) $1.7B $988.0M $0 $496.0M $0
Dividends Paid
Stock Buybacks -$750.0M -$983.0M -$490.0M -$1.3B -$1.6B
Net Change in Cash -$786.0M -$42.0M $361.0M $278.0M -$24.0M
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 10:41am (12d ago)
Metric 2022 2023 2024 2025
Revenue Growth -12.1% +8.9%
Gross Profit Growth -15.8% +11.7%
Operating Income Growth -29.8% +11.4% +33.9% +16.3%
Net Income Growth -37.9% +19.5%
EBITDA Growth -25.2% +14.0%
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Aug 11, 2026 10:21am (12d ago)
Date Dividend Declaration Record Payment
2026-05-15 $1.03
2026-03-02 $1.03
2025-11-21 $0.94
2025-08-15 $0.94
2025-05-16 $0.94
2025-02-25 $0.94
2024-11-22 $0.85
2024-08-16 $0.85
2024-05-16 $0.85
2024-02-22 $0.85
2023-11-22 $0.77
2023-08-17 $0.77
2023-05-18 $0.77
2023-02-23 $0.77
2022-11-22 $0.70
2022-08-18 $0.70
2022-05-19 $0.70
2022-02-24 $0.70
2021-11-22 $0.62
2021-08-19 $0.62
0Company Classification 1Industry Landscape 2Company Momentum 3Forward Projection 4aDCF Valuation 4bEarnings Power Value 4cAnchored PE 4dReverse DCF 4eRevenue-Based DCF 4fAnchored P/S 4gScenario Analysis 4hDividend Discount Model 4iBook Value Analysis 4jInsider Activity 4fCash Flow Quality 4gDebt Maturity Risk 4hMacro Environment 4iSector Intelligence 4jRevenue Confidence 4kSensitivity Analysis 4lSector Demand Cycle 5AI Investigation 5bThesis Evaluation 6Valuation Synthesis
computed not applicable not yet run 12 computed · 6 not applicable · 6 not yet run
Narrative Economics
The story the market is telling about this stock — the intangible X-factor (founder mythology, cult dynamics, TAM-of-imagination) that moves price beyond what cash flows alone explain. After Shiller, Narrative Economics.
No narrative profile yet for MCO — it's generated by the pipeline (market-narrative step).
AI Lens 4th lens · how AI reaches this business · 5-yr
2026-08-11
The creme is there an opportunity here? Opportunity
Own it for the ratings franchise, where AI is a pure cost tailwind against a fee that regulation makes non-optional — and underwrite Analytics as the part that can deflate.
The structure is a PAYC-style shield with a data kicker: at ai_position 69 the durable value sits in the NRSRO designation, issuance-linked fee unit (durability 73) and unreproducible default/Orbis datasets (data leverage 82), while AI strips analyst cost out of a business already at 44.9% operating margin. The kill switch isn't AI writing credit opinions — it's MA research ARR decelerating and seat counts shrinking as clients internalize commentary, so watch the Research & Insights vs Decision Solutions ARR split and any move to consumption pricing. Second thing to watch: the rated share of issuance, because AI-accelerated private credit erodes the funnel quietly even while price per rating holds — that's the path to the 39 bear.
69
AI Position
Favorable — regulatory shield on ratings, real deflation risk in analytics
Cheap intelligence commoditizes credit *analysis* but not the licensed, mandate-embedded credit *opinion* Moody's is paid for — so AI mostly cuts Moody's own production cost while pressuring the research/subscription half of the house.
Exposure 63 Confidence 72 50 = neutral
Primary Tailwind

MIS monetizes a regulatory artifact — an NRSRO opinion embedded in Basel risk weights, investment mandates and bond indentures — priced off issuance volume, not analyst hours; AI compresses the hours while the fee schedule holds.

Primary Pressure

Moody's Analytics research, commentary and economic content is exactly what LLMs deflate: customers who paid five figures per seat for synthesized credit views can get 80%-adequate answers internally, pressuring CreditView-type ARR and seat counts.

Critical Hinge

Whether MA retains pricing and net expansion as generative substitutes mature — observable in MA recurring-revenue retention, ARR growth split between Decision Solutions/KYC data and Research & Insights, and any shift to consumption/API pricing.

Hard to Reproduce

The NRSRO designation plus a multi-decade proprietary default and ratings-transition history, and Orbis entity/ownership data covering hundreds of millions of private firms — none of which cheap code creates.

Forensic fingerprint same 11 factors for every stock · 0 unfavorable · 50 neutral · 100 favorable
Underlying Need Persistence do people still need this at all? 89
Capital markets will still require an independent, accepted credit opinion and reliable counterparty reference data.
The need is enforced by capital rules, fiduciary mandates and indenture language, not by information scarcity, so cheaper analysis does not remove it.
Basel/SEC reliance on NRSRO ratings · Mandate language requiring rated paper · Rated share of global issuance · KYC/AML regulatory intensity
relevance 82 · confidence 86
Solution Persistence will they still solve it this way? 76
The rating product persists nearly intact; the subscription research report is the fragile form factor.
A letter grade from a designated agency is a coordination standard AI cannot self-appoint, but the PDF-and-seat delivery of credit commentary is directly substitutable by internal LLM workflows.
Research & Insights ARR trend · Seat vs API revenue mix · Repackaging of research into feeds
relevance 85 · confidence 72
Intelligence Commoditization does cheap AI power them or copy them? 58
Cheap intelligence powers Moody's ratings production but copies its written analysis.
Analyst-hour deflation is a straight margin gift inside MIS; simultaneously the differentiated value of Moody's economic and credit narrative falls toward the cost of tokens.
MIS operating margin trajectory · Headcount per rating action · Pricing on research renewals
relevance 86 · confidence 70
Responsibility Transfer are they paid to take the blame? 85
Buyers pay for an externally sanctioned opinion they can point to, not for the analysis itself.
A bank or insurer cannot substitute its own AI output for an NRSRO rating in regulatory capital or a mandate test — the third-party attestation is the product.
Use of internal models vs external ratings · Regulator statements on AI credit assessment · Litigation over AI-derived credit calls
relevance 80 · confidence 75
Scarcity Migration do their assets get rarer or more common? 79
Analysis becomes abundant; designation, default history and private-entity data become relatively scarcer.
As reasoning commoditizes, value migrates to the licensed right to opine and to proprietary ground-truth datasets — both of which Moody's owns outright.
Orbis coverage and pricing power · Data licensing to AI providers · New NRSRO entrants gaining acceptance
relevance 86 · confidence 74
Customer DIY Preference will customers just build it themselves? 70
Customers will happily build internal credit analytics but cannot self-issue an accepted rating.
Large banks already run internal models and AI lowers the cost of replacing MA risk software; nobody wants to own the burden of publishing a rating the market accepts.
Bank in-house model buildouts · MA software churn at large banks · RFPs replacing vendor risk platforms
relevance 74 · confidence 68
AI Intermediation Position do AI agents go through them or around them? 66
Agents are more likely to query Moody's data than to route around the rating.
Machine workflows need permissioned, structured entity and credit data with provenance, which favors API monetization — but chat assistants can also intercept the research relationship.
Volume/consumption-based revenue disclosure · Agent and MCP-style integrations · Third-party assistants citing rivals' data
relevance 78 · confidence 66
Data Leverage does their data make AI better? 82
Multi-decade default histories plus Orbis private-company data are near-unreproducible AI grounding assets.
Credit models need realized-default ground truth across cycles and entity/ownership graphs; synthetic data cannot manufacture either, so Moody's data improves any AI built on it.
Data-licensing deals with model vendors · Orbis entity count and refresh rate · Contract terms restricting AI training use
relevance 85 · confidence 76
AI Margin Conversion do the AI savings become profit? 69
Already 74% gross and 45% operating — AI savings are real but partly reinvested and partly priced away in analytics.
MIS savings should stick because pricing is set by regulatory necessity; MA savings risk being handed to customers via competitive AI feature bundling.
Operating margin above 2021's 45.7% · AI capex/opex disclosure · MA margin vs MIS margin gap
relevance 72 · confidence 68
Revenue Unit Durability does the thing they charge for survive? 73
Issuance-based rating fees are durable; per-seat research fees are the exposed unit.
Fees scale with debt volume rather than analyst effort, insulating MIS from labor deflation, while seat pricing is vulnerable if AI reduces the number of humans reading research.
Rating fee per issuance trend · Seat counts at asset-manager clients · Shift to usage-based contracts
relevance 82 · confidence 72
Entrant Compression how easily can newcomers copy them? 74
AI makes rival analytics cheap to build but cannot manufacture NRSRO standing or cycle-tested data.
Expect AI-native credit analytics competing hard on MA's software and research turf; the ratings duopoly's barriers are regulatory and reputational, which cheap software does not erode.
AI-native credit analytics funding/wins · New NRSRO applications and adoption · Pricing concessions in MA renewals
relevance 76 · confidence 72

AI Lens thesis

AI reaches Moody's on two separate paths that must not be blended: on the ratings path it is almost purely a cost story — the need for a third-party opinion that regulators, trustees and mandates accept is a legal and coordination fact, not an information-processing task, so agentic credit analysis does not remove the requirement to buy a rating, while AI shrinks the analytical labor behind each rating and raises MIS margin; on the analytics path AI is genuinely two-sided — it commoditizes narrative research and generic risk modeling while simultaneously raising the value of authoritative, machine-readable, permissioned reference data (entity resolution, ownership, KYC screening, default histories) that AI agents must ground on, positioning Moody's as a paid data layer inside others' workflows rather than a UI vendor. Net: cost falls, the ratings revenue unit survives, and the contested ground is whether the analytics mix rotates fast enough from seats-and-reports toward data-and-API before deflation hits.

Thesis breaker A credible regulatory or market shift that lets issuers and investors substitute AI-generated or self-certified credit assessments for NRSRO ratings in capital rules and mandates would break the shield; conversely, MA organic ARR decelerating below ~7% with flat pricing would break the benign read.
What the market may be underestimating

Upside Moody's default/transition database and Orbis are among the few credit datasets with no synthetic substitute — licensing them as grounding data to model providers and agent builders creates a new high-margin unit priced per query rather than per seat.

Downside MIS revenue is issuance-linked, and if AI accelerates private-credit and bilateral direct lending — where borrowers often skip a public rating — cheap intelligence quietly erodes the rated-issuance funnel even as pricing per rating holds.

Outcome range spread 46 · unresolved

39Bear case
69Central case
85Bull case
Three headline numbers, deliberately never blended: Position (which way), Exposure (how much it matters at all), Confidence (how sure). The fingerprint asks every stock the same 11 questions so companies a sector label would lump together get told apart. Not an input to GEM/Coal or the Q/V/S lenses.
Claude Reading
Independent analyst synthesis · claude-opus-4-7 · generated 2026-08-11 10:40:51
Verdict Overvalued but not by 50% — fair value $340-380 vs $479; trim don't short, wait for credit-cycle scare or issuance normalization to re-enter.

Looking at the raw numbers first: MCO is generating $7.72B annual revenue with $2.46B net income (31.9% net margin), FCF of $2.58B, and trending toward ~$8.2-8.4B run-rate based on the Q1 2026 print of $2.08B (up 8.3% YoY vs the $1.92B in Q1 2025). Operating margin expanded from 42% (2024) to 44.9% (2025). ROE of 58% and ROIC of 31% are franchise-quality numbers — this is genuinely one of the best businesses in the S&P 500. Debt/equity of 1.66 looks aggressive optically but $2.9B in OCF makes $6.99B of debt trivially serviceable. So on quality, the story is real.

But the multiple is doing enormous work. At $478.87, we're at 33.6x trailing earnings, 21.5x EV/EBITDA, and 11.3x sales for a business growing revenue 8.9% YoY with earnings growing ~19% (helped by a soft Q4 2024 comp of $395M NI — margin compression that quarter to 23.6% is a real anomaly worth flagging; strip that and earnings growth normalizes to low-double-digits). The synthesis verdict of $220 fair value implies a ~13-14x earnings multiple, which is too punitive for a duopoly compounding at 8-10% with 30%+ ROIC — that DCF is likely using too conservative a terminal or discount rate. Fair value for MCO has historically hovered 25-28x, which puts a reasonable anchor at $340-380, not $220 and not $479.

Where I partially dissent from the synthesis: the "-54.2% overvalued" claim is directionally right but magnitudinally overstated. The market-forces "cyclical peak earnings" framing is more useful — 2025 debt issuance has been strong, and Ratings revenue is inherently cyclical. If issuance normalizes down 15-20% in a recession, MCO earnings could compress to ~$11-12/share vs the ~$14 trailing, and a 25x multiple on trough earnings gets you to $275-300. That's the real downside case, not $220. The narrative layer's observation that $258 of the $479 is pure "duopoly durability premium" is fair but misses that this premium has been persistent for 15+ years — the market isn't wrong to pay for it, it's just wrong to pay this much for it right now with issuance at cyclical highs.

The contrarian argument nobody is making loudly enough: private credit is eating public debt issuance share, and private credit doesn't need Moody's ratings the same way. That's a slow-motion structural headwind distinct from the SEC/NRSRO regulatory threat the bear narrative focuses on. Combined with the deceleration flag in revenue confidence (Q4 2025 rev of $1.89B was actually below Q3 2025's $2.01B, and Q1 2026's $2.08B is only modest sequential progress) and insider activity showing net selling on the small transactions, the trajectory doesn't support the growth acceleration embedded in a 35x multiple. Also worth flagging: the 2023 annual data is missing (rev/gross/NI blank), which makes multi-year CAGR calculations unreliable — the models leaning on this should be discounted accordingly.

I agree with the synthesis direction (overvalued) but dissent on magnitude. Fair value is $340-380, not $220. At $479 you're paying ~13-15% premium to a generous fair value, not 117%. This is not a short — the franchise quality, buyback pace, and Analytics segment growth (mid-teens, recurring) all support the premium — but it's also not a place to add. Wait for either (a) a credit cycle scare that takes it into the $370s, or (b) an Analytics revenue acceleration print that justifies the current multiple. The prior models are collectively too bearish on fair value and not bearish enough on cyclical risk to the ratings segment specifically.

GPT Reading
Independent reading · gpt-5.4 · generated 2026-08-11 10:41:10
Verdict Overvalued at $479 — exceptional franchise, but fair value looks closer to $360-$400 unless revenue growth re-accelerates into the low teens with margins sustained.

Moody’s is a superb business, but the numbers here still argue the stock is priced for near-flawless execution. The operating profile is elite: 2025 revenue reached $7.72B, up 8.9% from $7.09B in 2024, while operating income rose to $3.46B from $2.98B, lifting operating margin to 44.9%. Net income climbed to $2.46B, a 19% increase from $2.06B, and the latest quarter was even stronger on the surface: 2026 Q1 revenue of $2.08B was up about 8.3% year over year and net income of $661M was up 5.8%, with a still-exceptional 31.8% net margin. Free cash flow of $2.58B on $7.72B of revenue is a 33% FCF margin. ROIC at 30.9% and ROA at 15.5% reinforce that this is not a mediocre financial-data vendor; it is a compounding franchise with real pricing power. If I were judging only business quality, this would screen near the top of large-cap financials.

The problem is that the valuation already more than captures that quality. At $478.87, Moody’s trades around 35x earnings, 11.2x sales, and 21.6x EV/EBITDA. Against 2025 FCF of $2.58B, the equity is at roughly a 3.1% FCF yield, and even that is on a year when margins were close to peak. For an issuer-exposed business with cyclical sensitivity embedded in ratings activity, that is rich. The balance sheet is fine but not pristine enough to explain the premium on its own: $6.99B of debt versus $2.38B of cash leaves roughly $4.6B net debt, and the apparent 58% ROE is heavily flattered by a small $4.21B equity base rather than some magical capital-light alchemy. The more relevant metric is that investors are paying more than 11 times revenue for a company growing high single digits, not 20%-plus. That can work for software with a long runway; it is harder to justify for a mature oligopoly already earning nearly 45% operating margins.

What stands out in the quarterly series is not deterioration, but normalization after a very favorable run. Revenue moved from $1.67B in 2024 Q4 to $1.92B, $1.90B, $2.01B, $1.89B, then $2.08B; that is healthy, but not the kind of acceleration that supports a dramatic rerating from “excellent compounder” to “pay any price.” Net margins mostly sit around 30%-32%, except for the softer 23.6% in 2024 Q4, suggesting the current earnings power is durable but also already mature. This is exactly the kind of business where small disappointments in issuance volumes or analytics growth do not break the franchise, but they can compress the multiple materially. If you assume even a still-premium 27x-30x earnings on 2025 EPS power, fair value lands materially below today’s price. On simple market-cap math, $82.8B against $2.46B of net income gets you the same answer: the market is capitalizing a best-in-class franchise as though cyclicality and regulation barely matter.

The strongest pushback is obvious and respectable: Moody’s probably deserves a persistent premium because the franchise is unusually durable. Gross margin of 74.4%, operating margin near 45%, current ratio of 1.74, and consistently strong cash conversion support the view that this is closer to a tollbooth than a normal financial company. Annual revenue has also rebounded decisively from $5.47B in 2022 to $7.72B in 2025, and quarterly revenue has now printed above $2.0B. If the market believes this reflects a structurally stronger mix, with analytics carrying more recurring and less cyclical economics than the old ratings-only story, then 35x earnings is not insane. The latest quarter also weakens the pure “cyclical peak” bear case, because revenue and income both advanced off already-strong comps rather than rolling over. I weigh those points less heavily because the valuation leaves little room for mere excellence; it requires continued high-single-digit or better growth plus sustained peak margins, and that combination tends to be vulnerable in mature franchises.

What would change my mind is not another quarter of respectable growth, but evidence that Moody’s can compound through the cycle fast enough to earn into this multiple. If revenue growth re-accelerates from about 9% to the low teens for several quarters while maintaining 44%-plus operating margin and pushing annual FCF materially above $3.0B, then today’s price would look more defensible. Likewise, if 2026 can pace toward roughly $8.4B-$8.6B of revenue and $2.8B+ of net income without balance-sheet strain, I would revisit the bear view. Absent that, I think this remains a great company with a stock price that already discounts most of the good news.

Grok Reading
Independent reading · grok-4.5 · generated 2026-08-11 10:41:43
Verdict High-quality duopoly at peak margins, but $479 embeds too much growth — fairer zone nearer $370–400

Moody's prints the kind of economics that justify a permanent premium: 74% gross margins, 45% operating margins, 32% net margins, and $2.58B of free cash flow on $7.72B of 2025 revenue. Annual revenue stepped from $7.09B to $7.72B (+8.9%), with net income lifting from $2.06B to $2.46B (+19.5%), and the last four reported quarters have locked net margins in a tight 30.5–32.5% band after the soft 23.6% print in late 2024. ROE at 58% and ROIC at 31% confirm the ratings-plus-analytics franchise still converts incremental issuance and software attach into cash with almost no capital intensity (capex only $326M). The balance sheet is levered—$7.0B debt against $2.4B cash and $4.2B equity—but operating cash flow of $2.9B covers the structure comfortably. That is the raw story: a mature earner at cyclical-peak profitability, not a broken franchise.

The price, however, does not match the growth tape. At $478.87 the stock clears 35× earnings, 11× sales, and 21.5× EV/EBITDA while free-cash-flow yield sits near 3.1%. Recent revenue growth is high-single-digit and the secondary signals explicitly flag decelerating quarterly revenue plus macro headwinds; that combination does not support a mid-30s multiple for a business whose volume is still tied to debt issuance cycles. The prior valuation work that anchors fair value near $220 is too punitive on terminal growth, but even granting a quality multiple of 26–28× 2025 earnings lands closer to $370–400—still a meaningful gap below the current quote. The market is paying full freight for the narrative that Analytics will keep compounding in the teens and that the duopoly never loses pricing power; the numbers on hand show solid but not explosive expansion.

The strongest case against an overvalued call is simply the durability of the cash engine and the scarcity of comparable assets. A smart opponent would note that FCF has compounded at 17%, margins have re-expanded cleanly, and the platform-monopoly framing has survived every prior regulatory scare; they would also argue that 35× is the clearing price investors have repeatedly paid for SPGI/MCO when issuance recovers, so mean-reversion arguments have been expensive for years. Insider activity is noise (mostly awards and small sales), not a red flag, and the current ratio of 1.74 plus fortress FCF quality reduce balance-sheet risk. I weigh those points as reasons the stock can stay expensive longer than a pure DCF implies, not as reasons $479 is the right entry; quality and scarcity explain a premium, they do not erase a 20–30% valuation overhang when growth is already decelerating.

What flips the verdict is concrete re-acceleration: two consecutive quarters of revenue growth back above 12–13% with Analytics mix visibly rising, or a clear multi-year issuance supercycle that lifts 2026–27 consensus earnings enough to pull the forward multiple under 28× while FCF holds above $2.7B. A sustained regulatory attack that impairs NRSRO economics, or Analytics growth rolling over into mid-single digits, would push me from “expensive compounder” to outright avoid.

Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Each AI above independently stated a direction (undervalued, fairly valued, or overvalued) and how strongly it believes it (conviction, 0–5). We combine those into a Bull-Bear Index on a 0–10 scale: 5 is neutral, 10 is maximum bullish (undervalued at full conviction), 0 is maximum bearish. We compute the score ourselves with the same arithmetic for every seat — the models never grade their own bullishness — so the three are directly comparable. Δ shows how far each seat sits from the panel average of 1.3; a large Δ marks the dissenting voice, usually the one worth reading.
Claude claude-opus-4-7 2.0
overvalued · conviction 3/5 · Δ +0.7 vs panel · self: 4.0
GPT gpt-5.4 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.3 vs panel · self: 3.0
Grok grok-4.5 1.0
overvalued · conviction 4/5 · Δ -0.3 vs panel · self: 3.0
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
Separate reads — Company Quality (is it a great business?), Valuation (is it mispriced?), and General Sentiment (how macro + narrative are pushing it), plus AI Impact (how the AI wave reshapes it), kept deliberately apart · 2026-08-11 10:58:49
Delvantic - Cairn AI
Quality — wait for a dip, tiny starter only 8/10
Fortress-grade duopoly (quality 83) trading roughly 40% above any cash-flow-anchored fair value at $477 — right business, wrong price.
The cruxWhether a credit-cycle wobble or issuance air-pocket cracks the multiple enough to buy the franchise near $340-370; without that, you are just renting the tape.
Forensic checks Derived mechanically from MCO's filed financials — not from the AI lenses
Liquidity & RunwaySelf-Funding
DilutionShare Count Shrinking
Earnings QualityHigh Earnings Quality
The four lensesswitch a tab for its full read — score + evidence
Company Quality
+83
Fortress
edge √Σ 156 · risk √Σ 36 · conf 9/10

Moody's is a mature, high-margin compounder: revenue $7.72B (2025) up from $6.22B (2021) despite the 2022 debt-issuance air pocket, gross margin 74.4%, operating margin 44.9%, and net income $2.46B. FCF of $2.58B on $7.72B revenue is a 33% FCF margin - the signature of a toll-booth franchise (ratings plus analytics) with minimal reinvestment needs. Earnings quality is clean: OCF/NI 1.13x, accruals -1.8% of assets, Beneish M -2.49, Altman Z 7.23 (safe zone). Nothing in the mechanicals suggests the reported numbers are engineered. Capital return is disciplined - diluted share count fell from 187.9M to 179.9M (-1.1% CAGR), buybacks are 5.2x SBC, and SBC is only ~3% of revenue. Per-share value is being concentrated, not siphoned. The one blemish is net debt of ~$4.55B (cash $2.45B), but at $2.58B annual FCF that is roughly 1.8x FCF - trivial for a business with this margin structure and cash conversion. Insider tape is neutral-benign: only $2.2M in sales over 12 months, mostly small option-exercise-linked dispositions by the CEO and a few directors, no meaningful open-market buys but also no signal of stress or heavy distribution.

Strengths 4
m90
Elite margin and cash conversion
74.4% gross, 44.9% operating margin, and $2.58B FCF on $7.72B revenue (33% FCF margin) - hallmark of an entrenched, capital-light franchise.
m78
Pristine earnings quality
OCF/NI 1.13x, accruals -1.8% of assets, Beneish M -2.49, Altman Z 7.23. No mechanical red flags; earnings are backed by cash.
m70
Per-share value concentration
Diluted shares down from 187.9M to 179.9M (-1.1% CAGR); buyback-to-SBC ratio 5.2x with SBC only ~3% of revenue - genuine net repurchase, not cosmetic.
m72
Durable growth through a cycle
Revenue rebounded from the 2022 issuance trough ($5.47B) to a new high of $7.72B in 2025, and operating margin recovered from 36.5% to 44.9% - the franchise absorbed a rate shock and came out stronger.
Concerns 2
m30
Net debt position
Net debt ~$4.55B vs $2.45B cash; balance sheet is a mild constraint rather than a cushion, though only ~1.8x FCF and easily serviced.
m20
Cyclicality of ratings revenue
2022 revealed sensitivity to debt issuance volumes (revenue -12%, op margin -920bps). Structural, not fixable, but managed.
This is a textbook high-quality compounder. A regulated duopoly at the heart of global debt markets, throwing off 33% FCF margins, buying back stock net of SBC, and posting earnings that cash-back cleanly. The 2022 dip is a feature of the franchise (rates spike, issuance stalls) not a defect, and management navigated it without breaking the model - margins are now above pre-cycle levels. The only real caveat is the net debt position, which prevents me from calling it a true fortress balance sheet, but at under 2x FCF it is a rounding error against the earnings power. Insider selling is trivial and mostly mechanical. Business quality is unambiguously top-decile.
Verify before trusting this (5)
  • Segment mix between MIS (ratings) and MA (analytics) - MA subscription growth is key to durability of the 2025 rebound.
  • The 2023 revenue line reads as $0 in the table - confirm actual 2023 revenue (likely a data gap, not a real zero) via the 10-K.
  • Debt maturity schedule and weighted average coupon on the ~$7B gross debt stack.
  • Customer/geographic concentration and any regulatory actions or litigation reserves in the 10-K.
  • Recurring revenue percentage in Moody's Analytics vs transaction-based MIS revenue.
Valuation / Mispricing
-75
Rich
edge √Σ 20 · risk √Σ 118 · conf 7/10
price $477 vs deserved ~$300-320 on a quality-adjusted blend - roughly 35-45% above fair, no margin of safety. attractive below $340.00

At $477.47 vs a composite fair value of $211 (signal-adjusted $220), MCO screens as materially overvalued on cash-flow math. The DCF pins deserved value at $161 and the EPV floor at $119; only the anchored-PE method at $402 gets within striking distance, and that method essentially capitalizes the current premium multiple back into 'fair value' - it tells you the market is willing to pay this, not that the business earns it. Even generously weighting the anchored PE, deserved value lands in the low-$300s, leaving the current price 30-50% above any reasonable anchor. The Fortress quality grade (83) and pristine earnings quality justify a premium to a generic DCF - but they do not justify paying 2x DCF. The bull case (duopoly quasi-rents, regulated moat, analytics growth) is entirely known and fully in the tape; you are underwriting perpetual mid-teens EPS growth plus multiple maintenance to earn a market return from here. That is the definition of priced-for-perfection on a name where the base rate of surprise is low. Not a short - the compounding is real - but the margin of safety is negative.

Cheap signals 1
m20
Quality deserves a premium
Fortress-grade franchise with 33% FCF margins and clean earnings quality warrants a premium to generic DCF - but a premium, not a doubling.
Rich / priced-in 4
m72
Price 2x+ composite FV
$477 vs $211 composite / $220 signal-adjusted implies -54% to fair. Even discounting the DCF as conservative, the gap is too wide to explain away.
m60
DCF and EPV both far below price
DCF $161 and EPV floor $119 bracket a cash-flow-deserved value well under half the current quote. EPV especially says the run-rate earnings power alone supports ~$119.
m55
Only anchored-PE is close, and it is circular
Anchored PE at $402 still sits 16% below spot and essentially re-prints the market's current multiple - it validates sentiment, not intrinsic value.
m45
Priced for perpetual duopoly rents
Current multiple bakes in continued pricing power, issuance recovery, and analytics compounding with zero regulatory or disruption discount - all upside is spoken for.
Great business, wrong price. I love the franchise and I do not love paying it. The cash-flow methods say $120-160, the anchored multiple says $400, and the market says $477 - I trust the cash flows more than the momentum. I would want this closer to $340 (roughly a 20-25% pullback) before the quality premium starts to look earned rather than assumed. At today's quote you are underwriting flawless execution just to match the index; that is not a valuation edge, that is a tax on patience.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Forward issuance guidance and MIS pricing assumptions in the next print
  • MA segment organic growth and ARR retention - key to justifying analytics-driven multiple
  • Buyback pace vs SBC to confirm per-share compounding continues
  • Any regulatory commentary on NRSRO reform or alternative rating frameworks
General Sentiment
-19
Balanced
tail √Σ 64 · head √Σ 84 · conf 6/10

The macro tape is modestly risk-on with VIX at 15.5 and the S&P near highs, which is a mild tailwind for a beta 1.33 name like MCO that tends to lever benign conditions. Offsetting that, 10y at 4.65% and a market PE of 26 are ordinary crosswinds for a long-duration compounder whose multiple already prices in perpetual pricing power. Momentum is constructive (strong_positive, improving leverage, healthy cash generation), which keeps the tape friendly rather than punishing. The active narrative is platform-monopoly with moderate intensity and durable shelf life but low cult - meaning the story supports the stock but does not generate fresh buying energy or FOMO. Analytics and ratings are simply seen as an inevitability, not a hot theme, so there is little narrative fuel to push shares higher from here. News flow is mixed-to-slightly-negative for the ratings franchise: SLR flagging deteriorating private-credit recoveries and covenant erosion signals a credit cycle turn that historically pressures issuance volumes, while the easyJet downgrade headline reinforces relevance but not growth. The July pre-print drop on 37x P/E chatter shows the market is already twitchy about the multiple, which is the single most persistent headwind on this specific name.

Tailwinds 3
m42
Risk-on tape amplified by 1.33 beta
A building risk-on regime near index highs is a genuine but ordinary tailwind for a high-beta financial-data name; MCO tends to participate in benign tapes.
m38
Durable platform-monopoly narrative floor
The duopoly story with S&P is durable and widely accepted, providing narrative support and steady institutional sponsorship even if intensity is only moderate.
m30
Constructive momentum and improving leverage
Strong positive momentum, D/E improving from 2.01 to 1.66, and healthy cash generation keep the tape friendly and analyst tone supportive.
Headwinds 4
m55
Multiple fatigue already showing up
The July drop on a 37x P/E headline shows the market is primed to punish any stumble on valuation; this is the single most persistent sentiment pressure on MCO specifically.
m48
Credit cycle turn signals in the news flow
SLR flagging worsening private-credit recoveries and covenant erosion hints at a slowing issuance and downgrade-heavy phase, which historically dampens sentiment on ratings-agency revenue expectations.
m32
Rates and market PE crosswind
10y at 4.65% and market PE of 26 are a real crosswind for a long-duration, premium-multiple compounder even if not decisive here.
m25
Low cult, no fresh narrative fuel
Low cult coefficient and moderate intensity mean the story defends the stock but does not generate the kind of story-buying that lifts high-multiple names to new tapes.
Net read: roughly balanced with a slight negative tilt. The risk-on tape and durable duopoly narrative provide real support, but this specific name is already showing multiple-fatigue reflexes (see the July pre-print drop) and now faces credit-cycle news flow that argues against upside surprises on volumes. There is no fresh narrative fuel - platform-monopoly is accepted, not exciting - so I do not see a catalyst for sentiment expansion, just defense of current levels. I lean modest headwind at the margin but not enough to call it a headwind label; the tape is doing most of the lifting.
Verify before trusting this (4)
  • Whether the private-credit downgrade cycle accelerates into a broader issuance slowdown narrative
  • Any SEC or Basel headlines that reawaken the NRSRO regulatory threat angle
  • Analyst target revisions after Q2 print and whether the 37x P/E framing sticks in strategist notes
  • Rotation out of premium-multiple financial-data names into cheaper cyclicals if the risk-on tape broadens
The market-wide tape + this name's exposure to it (beta / sector / narrative durability). Context on the non-fundamental pressure — not a call on the business or the price. processId: detail-general-sentiment
AI Impact
+50
Favorable — regulatory shield on ratings, real deflation risk in analytics
opp √Σ 140 · thr √Σ 0 · conf 7/10

AI reaches Moody's on two separate paths that must not be blended: on the ratings path it is almost purely a cost story — the need for a third-party opinion that regulators, trustees and mandates accept is a legal and coordination fact, not an information-processing task, so agentic credit analysis does not remove the requirement to buy a rating, while AI shrinks the analytical labor behind each rating and raises MIS margin; on the analytics path AI is genuinely two-sided — it commoditizes narrative research and generic risk modeling while simultaneously raising the value of authoritative, machine-readable, permissioned reference data (entity resolution, ownership, KYC screening, default histories) that AI agents must ground on, positioning Moody's as a paid data layer inside others' workflows rather than a UI vendor. Net: cost falls, the ratings revenue unit survives, and the contested ground is whether the analytics mix rotates fast enough from seats-and-reports toward data-and-API before deflation hits.

AI opportunities 10
m64
Underlying Need Persistence
Capital markets will still require an independent, accepted credit opinion and reliable counterparty reference data.
m44
Solution Persistence
The rating product persists nearly intact; the subscription research report is the fragile form factor.
m56
Responsibility Transfer
Buyers pay for an externally sanctioned opinion they can point to, not for the analysis itself.
m50
Scarcity Migration
Analysis becomes abundant; designation, default history and private-entity data become relatively scarcer.
m30
Customer DIY Preference
Customers will happily build internal credit analytics but cannot self-issue an accepted rating.
m25
AI Intermediation Position
Agents are more likely to query Moody's data than to route around the rating.
m54
Data Leverage
Multi-decade default histories plus Orbis private-company data are near-unreproducible AI grounding assets.
m27
AI Margin Conversion
Already 74% gross and 45% operating — AI savings are real but partly reinvested and partly priced away in analytics.
m38
Revenue Unit Durability
Issuance-based rating fees are durable; per-seat research fees are the exposed unit.
m36
Entrant Compression
AI makes rival analytics cheap to build but cannot manufacture NRSRO standing or cycle-tested data.
AI threats 0

None surfaced.

Own it for the ratings franchise, where AI is a pure cost tailwind against a fee that regulation makes non-optional — and underwrite Analytics as the part that can deflate. The structure is a PAYC-style shield with a data kicker: at ai_position 69 the durable value sits in the NRSRO designation, issuance-linked fee unit (durability 73) and unreproducible default/Orbis datasets (data leverage 82), while AI strips analyst cost out of a business already at 44.9% operating margin. The kill switch isn't AI writing credit opinions — it's MA research ARR decelerating and seat counts shrinking as clients internalize commentary, so watch the Research & Insights vs Decision Solutions ARR split and any move to consumption pricing. Second thing to watch: the rated share of issuance, because AI-accelerated private credit erodes the funnel quietly even while price per rating holds — that's the path to the 39 bear.
Verify before trusting this (8)
  • MIS operating margin trajectory
  • Headcount per rating action
  • Pricing on research renewals
  • Orbis coverage and pricing power
  • Data licensing to AI providers
  • New NRSRO entrants gaining acceptance
  • Research & Insights ARR trend
  • Seat vs API revenue mix
The structural effect of the AI wave on this specific business over the next ~5 years — demand, cost leverage, moat, barriers to entry, position in the AI stack. The reality beneath the AI story, not the story's market pressure (General Sentiment owns that) — and not a call on the business today or the price.
Growth Outlook
not run

This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.

The forward growth verdict — is the business itself likely to grow (next 2 quarters / year 1 / years 2–3), judged against its category and against printed expectations. The full horizon ladder + creme renders on the Growth Outlook card above. Not a call on the price (Valuation owns that) or the tape (Sentiment owns that).
Please log in to view trade setups
The Augustus trade-setup read is a members feature.
Log in
Lenses kept deliberately separate — Company Quality (price-agnostic), Valuation (price-conditional), General Sentiment (non-fundamental macro/narrative pressure), AI Impact (structural ~5yr AI exposure), and Growth Outlook (the forward growth verdict). The scores are not blended. Filing-level items (convertibles, lock-ups, customer concentration) are v2 — see each lens's "verify."
Price Prediction
Lower -8.0% v0.3.0 View full prediction →

When we made this prediction on Jul 11, 2026, MCO was $487.28. We expect it to be $448.49 by Jan 2027, and we consider it great value under $340.00. This is an early model (v0.3.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Jul 11, 2026.

Price when predicted$487.28
Our estimate for Jan 2027$448.49-8.0%
Great value below$340.00
Price history shown (6 Months)

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.

Community AI Feedback
No community reviews yet for MCO. Be the first — hit How to Contribute, have any AI review this page, and paste its take back here.
My Notes personal — only you see this
v1.1.562 · 9b2927c4 · 2026-08-22 16:52:06