For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for MSCI Inc. (MSCI) — 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 -2 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 100 · Value -86 · Sentiment 19 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $328.92 vs $571.03 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.
MSCI Inc.
MSCI NYSEMSCI Inc. is a financial services company that provides critical investment decision-support tools to institutional investors worldwide. Headquartered in New York City, MSCI focuses on research-driven indexes, data, and analytics that help asset managers, asset owners, banks, hedge funds, insurers, and wealth managers analyze risk and return across global markets. Its flagship equity indexes, including widely used global and regional benchmarks, underpin a broad range of index-linked products and are licensed to investment managers for portfolio benchmarking and construction. Beyond indexes, MSCI delivers portfolio and risk analytics software, factor and multi-asset-class tools, and market data that support sophisticated portfolio management and performance evaluation. The firm is also a major provider of environmental, social, and governance research, climate datasets, and real estate and private assets intelligence, allowing clients to integrate sustainability and private-market insights into their investment processes. Today, MSCI Inc. plays a central role in the financial market infrastructure by supplying standardized measures, models, and datasets that enable greater transparency and comparability across global investment portfolios.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 15.69
Total Equity: -$2.65B
Shares: 76,628,744
Total Debt: $6.31B
Cash: $511.67M
EBITDA: $1.92B
Total Debt: $6.31B
Cash: $511.67M
Revenue: $3.13B
Revenue: $3.13B
Revenue: $3.13B
Total Equity: -$2.65B
Tax Rate: 19.5%
Equity: -$2.65B
Total Debt: $6.31B
Cash: $511.67M
Current Liabilities: $1.83B
Long-Term Debt: $6.31B
Total Debt: $6.31B
Total Equity: -$2.65B
Shares: 76,628,744
Shares: 76,628,744
CapEx: -$39.32M
Shares: 76,628,744
Stock Price: $571.03
Net Income: $1.20B
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 28, 2026 12:21am (26d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $2.0B | $2.2B | $2.5B | $2.9B | $3.1B |
| Cost of Revenue | $358.7M | $404.3M | $446.6M | $514.4M | $550.4M |
| Gross Profit | $1.7B | $1.8B | $2.1B | $2.3B | $2.6B |
| Operating Expenses | $596.1M | $636.6M | $697.7M | $813.2M | $870.5M |
| Operating Income | $1.1B | $1.2B | $1.4B | $1.5B | $1.7B |
| Net Income | $726.0M | $870.6M | $1.1B | $1.1B | $1.2B |
| EBITDA | $1.2B | $1.4B | $1.7B | $1.7B | $1.9B |
| EPS | $8.80 | $10.78 | $14.45 | $14.09 | $15.72 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $8.70 | $10.72 | $14.39 | $14.05 | $15.69 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 25, 2026 3:08am (29d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $1.4B | $993.2M | $457.8M | $405.9M | $511.7M |
| Total Current Assets | $2.1B | $1.7B | $1.4B | $1.3B | $1.6B |
| Total Assets | $5.5B | $5.0B | $5.5B | $5.4B | $5.7B |
| Current Liabilities | $1.3B | $1.3B | $1.5B | $1.6B | $1.8B |
| Long-Term Debt | $4.3B | $4.6B | $4.6B | $4.6B | $6.3B |
| Total Liabilities | $5.7B | $6.0B | $6.3B | $6.4B | $8.4B |
| Total Equity | -$163.5M | -$1.0B | -$739.8M | -$940.0M | -$2.7B |
| Retained Earnings | $3.0B | $3.5B | $4.2B | $4.8B | $5.4B |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Jul 28, 2026 12:21am (26d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $936.1M | $1.1B | $1.2B | $1.5B | $1.6B |
| Capital Expenditure | -$13.5M | -$13.6M | -$22.8M | -$33.8M | -$39.3M |
| Free Cash Flow | $922.6M | $1.1B | $1.2B | $1.5B | $1.5B |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$949.0M | $0 | -$727.3M | -$27.5M | $0 |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | $751.9M | $347.8M | — | — | — |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | -$198.4M | -$1.4B | -$504.2M | -$885.3M | -$2.5B |
| Net Change in Cash | $120.9M | -$427.9M | -$531.9M | -$52.3M | $106.0M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Jul 28, 2026 12:21am (26d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +10.0% | +12.5% | +12.9% | +9.7% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +9.5% | +12.9% | +12.5% | +10.3% |
| Operating Income Growth | +10.9% | +14.7% | +10.4% | +12.1% |
| Net Income Growth | +19.9% | +31.9% | -3.4% | +8.4% |
| EBITDA Growth | +16.3% | +26.3% | +1.9% | +10.0% |
Dividend History (Last 20)
Last updated: Jul 25, 2026 3:08am (29d ago)| Date | Dividend | Declaration | Record | Payment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-05-15 | $2.05 | — | — | — |
| 2026-02-13 | $2.05 | — | — | — |
| 2025-11-14 | $1.80 | — | — | — |
| 2025-08-15 | $1.80 | — | — | — |
| 2025-05-16 | $1.80 | — | — | — |
| 2025-02-14 | $1.80 | — | — | — |
| 2024-11-15 | $1.60 | — | — | — |
| 2024-08-16 | $1.60 | — | — | — |
| 2024-05-16 | $1.60 | — | — | — |
| 2024-02-15 | $1.60 | — | — | — |
| 2023-11-08 | $1.38 | — | — | — |
| 2023-08-10 | $1.38 | — | — | — |
| 2023-05-11 | $1.38 | — | — | — |
| 2023-02-16 | $1.38 | — | — | — |
| 2022-11-09 | $1.25 | — | — | — |
| 2022-08-11 | $1.25 | — | — | — |
| 2022-05-12 | $1.04 | — | — | — |
| 2022-02-17 | $1.04 | — | — | — |
| 2021-11-10 | $1.04 | — | — | — |
| 2021-08-12 | $1.04 | — | — | — |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-23 02:56Even the bull case prices 59% below today — the ratio here measures the model-vs-market gap, not payoff odds. Another quarter like the worst recent one costs 72%. Caveat: revenue-DCF fits financials poorly (reported revenue omits net interest) — treat the legs as rough.
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($571.03) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +22% | 35.0% | $231.86 | -59% |
| Base — stabilizes | +15% | 35.0% | $187.10 | -67% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +7% | 34.6% | $148.33 | -74% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | +9% | 35.0% | $159.29 | -72% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
Starting with the raw print: revenue went $2.04B→$2.25B→$2.53B→$2.86B→$3.13B, a clean 11% CAGR, and the most recent quarters show $707.9M→$724.7M→$743.5M→$745.8M→$772.7M — sequential growth of 2.4%, 2.6%, 0.3%, 3.6%. That's decelerating-then-reaccelerating, not a clean deceleration story. Net margins hover 37-41% ex the Q4'23 tax-benefit spike. Operating margin 54.7%, FCF $1.55B on $3.13B revenue = 49.5% FCF margin, capex only $39M. This is a genuinely elite business — the pre-flight is right to call it a SaaS-like toll booth, not "financial services." Negative equity of -$2.65B reflects aggressive buybacks against $6.31B debt, not distress; interest coverage on $1.71B operating income is fine. Current ratio 0.90 is a non-issue for a subscription business with negative working capital dynamics.
Where I part company with the synthesis model: a $289 "composite fair value" (-49% from spot) on a business compounding FCF at 13% with 49% FCF margins and structural switching costs is almost certainly a DCF calibrated with too-low terminal growth or too-high discount rate for the asset quality. At $571 and $1.55B FCF, the FCF yield is 3.7% on a business that has grown FCF ~13% CAGR; that's not obviously insane for a monopoly-adjacent data franchise — S&P Global and Moody's trade in similar zip codes (30-35x earnings). 36x P/E is a premium, not a bubble. The narrative model's "73% premium to intrinsic" framing inherits the same DCF fragility. I'd anchor fair value closer to $420-480 (roughly 27-30x forward earnings, ~2.5-3% FCF yield), not $330. That still implies 15-25% downside, but it's a different conversation than "half-price."
The contrarian case that actually worries me isn't valuation — it's the earnings CAGR of 2.3% against revenue CAGR of 11.3%. Net income went $726M→$871M→$1.15B→$1.11B→$1.20B; that's flatlining since 2023 despite revenue growing $600M. Operating income $1.38B→$1.53B→$1.71B is healthier, so the NI stagnation is partly the 2023 tax anomaly ($403M Q4'23 NI on $690M revenue = 58.5% margin is clearly a one-timer) and partly interest expense on the $6.31B debt stack. But recent earnings YoY of 8.4% against 9.8% revenue growth means operating leverage is not showing up — for a "SaaS-like platform" story, that's the tell. Retention/pricing in the index licensing segment is tied to global AUM; if passive flows slow or fee compression at the ETF-issuer level bleeds into MSCI's licensing take, the growth algorithm cracks. The bear's saturation argument in developed markets is real; ESG monetization has visibly stalled industry-wide in 2024-25.
Net: I dissent from the synthesis's "extremely fragile, -42%" verdict as overstated, and I dissent from the market-forces "tailwinds" framing as too generous given decelerating sequentials and no operating leverage. The truth is in between: this is a great business at a full price where the burden of proof is on management to show margin expansion from the $1.71B operating income base. At 3.6% sequential Q2 growth annualized to ~14%, the reacceleration case exists; at 8% earnings growth against a 36x multiple, the PEG is unattractive. I'd want to own MSCI in the $440-480 range where you're paying ~28x for a durable compounder with real optionality; at $571 you're paying for perfection that the earnings line isn't delivering. Not a short — the franchise is too good and the narrative too durable to fade — but not a buy here either. Trim if held, wait if not.
GPT Reading
What jumps out to me in MSCI’s raw numbers is not just “quality,” but how unusually efficient the model remains even as growth normalizes. Revenue has climbed from $2.04B in 2021 to $3.13B in 2025, while operating income rose from $1.09B to $1.71B; that is not a business losing its moat, it is a franchise still converting incremental revenue at very high rates. The quarterly run-rate also matters: from $680.0M in Q1’24 to $772.7M in Q2’25 is a meaningful step-up, and the latest two quarters at $745.8M and $772.7M do not read like a company rolling over. The cleaner story, though, is cash: $1.59B of operating cash flow and $1.55B of free cash flow on $3.13B of revenue, with just $39.3M of capex, tells you this is effectively an asset-light royalty stream. The balance sheet is more aggressive than pristine — $6.31B debt against $511.7M cash and negative $2.65B equity — but in this kind of model, negative equity mostly signals years of buybacks layered onto a business with minimal tangible capital needs. I see a premium-quality compounding franchise whose financial risk is leverage, not business fragility.
What I do not see is evidence that the market should pay anything close to an open-ended “infrastructure asset” multiple. At $41.5B market cap, investors are paying roughly 14x sales, 26x EV/EBITDA, and 36x earnings for a company whose annual revenue growth has been solid but not explosive and whose net income has become lumpier than the bull case admits. Yes, 2023’s $1.15B net income was flattered by the Q4 tax-benefit spike, but even adjusting for that, the last six quarters show net margins mostly in a tight 37.6%-41.1% band rather than a business unlocking fresh operating leverage. This matters because MSCI’s current valuation already capitalizes durability. A company can deserve a premium and still be too expensive; that is the setup here. My read is that the market is paying for the next leg of monetization before it has appeared in the reported earnings line.
On Opus specifically, I agree with the core claim that the model-driven $330 fair value is too punitive. Opus argues that a “$289 composite fair value” is likely the product of an overly harsh DCF, and I think that is right. A business with 82%+ gross margins, 54.7% operating margins, and a near-50% free-cash-flow margin should not be valued like a cyclical exchange operator or a generic data vendor. I also agree with Opus that negative equity is not distress and that the current ratio of 0.90 is basically irrelevant in a subscription-heavy model throwing off $1.55B of annual FCF. Where I disagree is in the comfort level around the current multiple framework. Opus says 36x earnings is “a premium, not a bubble” and points to S&P Global and Moody’s in similar valuation territory. I think that comparison is directionally fair but still too forgiving: MSCI’s own income progression does not justify paying a peer-like peak multiple. Net income was $1.15B in 2023, $1.11B in 2024, and $1.20B in 2025; that is not a profile that deserves investors shrugging at 36x as merely “full.” It deserves a discount to the very best compounders, not parity.
I also partly disagree with Opus’s framing that “the contrarian case that actually worries me isn’t valuation — it’s the earnings CAGR of 2.3%.” For me, valuation is absolutely the main risk, because the business itself still looks excellent. The 2.3% earnings CAGR is distorted by the 2023 tax anomaly, and operating income growth from $1.38B to $1.53B to $1.71B is healthy enough to show the core engine is intact. So I think Opus is too hard on the operating story and slightly too soft on the multiple. Conversely, I agree with Opus that the “market tailwinds” framing is too generous. Recent revenue growth near 10% and earnings growth of 8.4% are good, but not enough to support further multiple expansion from here. I also agree with Opus that ESG and broad “optionality” narratives should no longer be assigned much incremental valuation credit until they reappear in the numbers. My main divergence is valuation band: Opus’s $440-480 fair value still bakes in a fairly generous 27-30x earnings range. Given the debt load, absent visible re-acceleration above the recent ~10% revenue pace or a move in net margins above the current high-30s range, I would underwrite more like the low-to-mid 20s on normalized earnings, which puts fair value closer to $400-450 than $475.
A careful skeptic of both my view and Opus’s would say we are still too anchored to conventional multiples for a business that may be even more durable than the accounting shows. If MSCI can keep compounding revenue around 10-12%, sustain ~50% FCF margins, and keep retiring stock, then a 3.7% FCF yield today could look perfectly reasonable in hindsight. That skeptic would also note that neither of us has segment data here: if the highest-quality index and analytics lines are growing faster than the consolidated average, both of our fair value ranges may prove too low. But based on the reported numbers in front of us, I would not pay 36x for that possibility.
Grok Reading
grok-critique step) alongside the other Big-3 seats, when a
report is run on this ticker.
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
This is about as clean a business as forensic screens produce. Revenue has compounded from $2.04B (2021) to $3.13B (2025), a ~11% CAGR, while gross margin has held rock-steady at ~82% and operating margin has actually expanded slightly from 53.3% to 54.7%. That combination of growth and stable structural margins at this level is the signature of an entrenched data/index franchise with heavy pricing power and minimal marginal cost. FCF has grown from $923M to $1.55B, outpacing revenue, and OCF/NI of 1.26x with accruals of -4.8% of assets confirms the earnings are cash-backed, not manufactured. Beneish M of -2.72 and Altman Z of 5.82 both sit firmly in the clean zone.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- Composition and maturity ladder of the $5.8B net debt - fixed vs floating, refinancing schedule
- Customer concentration in Index and Analytics segments; ESG/Climate segment growth trajectory
- Retention rates (Run Rate and subscription retention) which are the true moat proxy for this business
- Whether the 2024 net income dip was interest expense, tax, or an operating item
- Organic vs acquired revenue growth mix
The composite fair value of $289 and signal-adjusted $330 imply ~42% downside, but those are anchored heavily by an EPV floor of $153 that ignores MSCI's proven compounding - I'd discount them. The anchored-PE mark of $423 is the most credible input for a Fortress-grade business with 54% operating margins and shrinking share count. Even generously weighting quality, deserved value sits somewhere in the $400-450 range against a $571 price, so the stock is trading 25-40% above what a skeptical buyer should pay. Earnings quality is high (no haircut needed), so the gap is real, not an accounting mirage. What's priced in: continued double-digit revenue growth, ongoing margin expansion from an already-elite 54% op margin, and no meaningful erosion from Bloomberg/Refinitiv/homegrown index competition. That's a lot to underwrite at 26x+ earnings on a $41.5B cap. The business deserves a premium; it does not deserve every dollar of this premium. This is the classic 'wonderful company, full price' setup - I'm not short it, but I'm not paying $571 either.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Organic subscription growth ex-FX in latest 10-Q
- Retention rate on index products vs prior year
- Any pricing pressure disclosed on earnings call from passive-fund clients
- Segment growth in Analytics vs Index - Index carries the multiple
The tape just flipped risk-off (VIX 18.7, S&P 2.6% off highs) but only 1 day in, so the pressure is nascent. With a beta of 1.24, MSCI is more tape-sensitive than a defensive compounder, but its subscription-heavy 'market tollbooth' identity insulates it from the sharpest risk-off marks. The active narrative is strong and durable - platform monopoly, near-infinite switching costs, invisible backbone of asset management - and that story continues to command a hefty premium regardless of macro noise. News flow is quietly supportive: Q2 print framed MSCI as one of three volatility-benefiting tollbooths, exactly the kind of narrative dressing that resonates in a jittery tape. Momentum is strong-positive, reinforcing the story rather than fighting it. The counterweight is that the stock already trades far above any fundamentals-anchored fair value, meaning it depends on the narrative staying intact; any crack in the platform-monopoly story, or a sustained risk-off leg that hits high-multiple financials, would bite hard given the 1.24 beta. Net-net, tailwinds from narrative durability and 'tollbooth beneficiary of volatility' framing roughly offset headwinds from a stretched multiple meeting a wobbling tape.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Whether the risk-off tape persists beyond 1 day or reverts - a sustained VIX >20 regime would flip pressure clearly negative
- Any competitor or regulatory headline that challenges the index-monopoly narrative
- Analyst target revisions post Q2 - direction of tone matters more than the print itself
- Whether ETF/index flow data continues to support the volatility-tollbooth framing
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.
When we made this prediction on Jul 28, 2026, MSCI was $571.03. We expect it to be $525.00 by Jan 2027, and we consider it great value under $430.00. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Jul 28, 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.