Last Update 01 Aug 26
Fair value Decreased 15%Microsoft Made $26.7 Billion More and Brought Home Less Cash. The Stock Jumped 15% in a Single Day.
Best year in the company's history. Record margins. Azure past $100 billion. And for the first time in three notes on this company, my estimate of what it is worth went down while the price went up. Almost all of that is my fault rather than the company's, and I am going to show you exactly where.
***
On 29 July Microsoft published its results for fiscal 2026, filed its annual report and held its call, all on the same afternoon. The next session the stock rose 15.51% and closed at $451.10.
Fifteen and a half percent. On a company worth more than three trillion dollars. That is roughly half a trillion dollars of market value created between one lunch and the next, on a business that had already been picked over by every analyst in America.
The numbers deserved a good day. Revenue of $331.8 billion, up 18%. Operating income of $155.2 billion, up 21%. An operating margin of 46.78%, the highest the company has ever printed. Azure crossed one hundred billion dollars of annual revenue and was still growing 41%, which is not something that happens. Businesses that size are supposed to slow down. This one did not.
And underneath all of it sits a number nobody said out loud on the day.
Free cash flow fell.
Not slowed. Fell. Sixty seven billion dollars against $71.6 billion the year before, down 6.5%, in the same twelve months that operating profit went up $26.7 billion.
That combination still stops me. Profit and cash are supposed to travel together at a company like this. Software has no factories, no inventory to speak of, no receivables that go bad. What separates the two lines is capital spending, and capital spending has stopped behaving like software.
I have to think about it now.
What I Got Wrong in March
Start with the correction, because it is mine and it is not small.
In March I wrote a piece about this company with a section titled "The Cash Machine Nobody Mentions." In it I said Microsoft held $89.4 billion of cash against $43 billion of financial debt, that even counting the $17 billion of capital leases tied to the buildout it had a net cash surplus north of $29 billion, and that it was, in my words, not leveraged and not stretched.
That was accurate on the numbers in front of me. It is no longer true.
The fiscal 2026 report shows $76.8 billion of cash and short term investments, $40.3 billion of financial debt, and finance lease liabilities of $66.6 billion. That last figure grew 44% in a single year and carries a weighted average life of thirteen years.
Do the subtraction. Microsoft has net debt of about $30 billion.
A fifty nine billion dollar swing in fifteen months, and the debt line barely moved. Finance leases did all of it.
Now, I want to be careful here, because there is a version of this paragraph that is dishonest. A finance lease is not a bond. Nobody can call it. It is a contract to pay for buildings and equipment that Microsoft is actually using, and the obligation exists because the assets exist. A company with 27% returns on invested capital and $155 billion of operating profit is in no danger from $30 billion of anything.
But it changes two things I care about, and both of them run one way.
The first is that I can no longer describe this balance sheet as a fortress and leave it there. Total contractual obligations now stand at $743.8 billion. Most of that is not debt in any sense that would worry a lender. It is still $743.8 billion of promises made by a company that earned $67 billion of free cash last year.
The second is arithmetic. When you value a business by discounting its cash flows, you subtract net debt at the end to get to what the shares are worth. In March I was adding a net cash balance. Now I am subtracting a net debt balance. Same company, same day, roughly eight dollars a share of difference just from moving the leases where they belong.
I should have counted them this way in March. The information was in the filings. I did not look hard enough.
***
The Bill That Has Not Arrived
Here is the thing about spending a hundred and forty billion dollars on computers.
You pay for them now. You expense them later.
Microsoft's capital spending in fiscal 2026, counting finance leases, was $140.6 billion, up 65% in one year. The cash went out the door. The depreciation charge against those assets was $38.5 billion.
The annual report tells you how the gap closes. Servers and network equipment are depreciated over two to six years, and management has said roughly two thirds of the spend sits in that bucket. Buildings run fifteen years, going to twenty five from fiscal 2027, which flatters next year's operating income by an amount the CFO describes as minimal.
Run those useful lives forward against the spending that has already happened and the spending that is guided, and the depreciation charge does not creep. It compounds. My model has it reaching roughly $215 billion by fiscal 2036. That is my output, not company guidance, and you should treat it as an assumption. But the direction is not an assumption. It is what happens when you buy short lived assets in enormous quantity and the accounting catches up on a schedule.
And the queue behind it keeps growing. At the end of June, Microsoft had $329.1 billion of datacenter leases signed but not yet commenced, up from $196.6 billion three months earlier. A hundred and thirty two billion dollars of new commitments in ninety days, starting somewhere between fiscal 2027 and fiscal 2033.
None of that is on the balance sheet yet. All of it is real.
The bull answer to this is the correct one and I will give it properly: the whole point of buying an asset is that it produces more than it costs, and depreciation is just the arithmetic of having bought something. If Azure fills these buildings at the margins Microsoft earns today, the charge is irrelevant and I will look foolish for dwelling on it.
The bear answer is that the operating margin everybody just celebrated was earned on a fleet that has barely started depreciating.
Both sentences are true. That is the whole question.
***
The Customer Who Is Also a Shareholding
The backlog headline was $678 billion of contracted future business, up 84%.
Excluding OpenAI, it grew 25%.
I flagged this in April when the number was $627 billion and the split was 99% against 26%. It has not improved. It has become more specific, and the specifics are uncomfortable.
The annual report discloses $24.1 billion of fiscal 2026 revenue from commercial arrangements with OpenAI, which is 7.3% of everything Microsoft sold. It discloses $6.0 billion of receivables owed by OpenAI. Microsoft holds roughly 25% of OpenAI and has committed $11.9 billion of a $13.0 billion funding pledge.
So the single largest driver of Microsoft's backlog growth is a company Microsoft partly owns, partly funds, and books receivables against. That is not fraud and I am not suggesting it is. It is a related party, and related parties are the place where honest people talk themselves into things.
What Microsoft does not disclose is how much of the $678 billion backlog belongs to OpenAI. You will read "roughly half" in a lot of places. That figure is somebody's arithmetic on the difference between 84% and 25%, not a number the company published. I do not know the answer and neither does anyone quoting it.
Here is the part that matters for a ten year holding. OpenAI funds its commitments from capital markets, not from profits. Microsoft's backlog is only as good as its counterparties, and its single largest incremental counterparty is a business whose ability to pay depends on other people continuing to want to write it cheques.
The 25% growth in everything else is genuinely excellent. About 90% of fiscal 2026 cloud revenue came from customers who are not frontier model companies. If you want to be bullish about Microsoft, that is your sentence, and it is a good one.
***
Why My Estimate Fell $69 While the Price Rose $37
In April I published a base case fair value of $466 a share. Today I get $397.41.
The business got better in that window, not worse. So the honest thing to do is show you where the sixty nine dollars went, because if I cannot explain it, you should not trust either number.
Almost all of it is the discount rate.
In April I was discounting Microsoft's cash flows at 8.5%. I now use 9.13%. That is sixty three basis points, and on this business taking a full point off the discount rate is worth about $105 a share. Sixty three hundredths of a point is roughly $66.
Take my current $397.41, add back $66, and you get $463. I published $466 in April. Within three dollars, the entire revision is one input.
Why did I move it? Because the cost of debt is no longer a rounding error. There is $66.6 billion of finance lease obligation on this balance sheet at the 4.5% discount rate the company itself uses, on a thirteen year life. There is a beta of 1.11 against a risk free rate of 4.68%. Put those together properly and 8.5% was too generous. I was being kind to a company I liked.
That is the least flattering sentence in this piece and it is the most important one, because it cuts directly against the conclusion I am about to reach. If you think 8.5% was right, my fair value is $463, the stock at $451.10 is roughly fair, and everything below is noise.
Three notes, three prices, three estimates. The gap closed, and it closed from the wrong end.
***
What the Arithmetic Says Now
Run the business through three futures and weight them.
The bear case is $259.85, with a one in four chance. OpenAI renegotiates or impairs, Azure decelerates into the high single digits, and margins fall to 40% as the depreciation lands.
The base case is $397.41, at 45%. Growth fades roughly as guided, margin holds near its record, capital intensity normalises by fiscal 2031.
The bull case is $496.04, at 30%. Azure holds above 40% through fiscal 2028, Copilot compounds from its current thirty million seats, and the operating margin reaches 50%.
Weight those and you get $392.61. The stock is $451.10.
Look at the shape of that chart rather than the levels. If everything goes right, the buyer at $451.10 makes 10%. If the bear case turns up, that buyer loses 42%. Four dollars of downside for every dollar of upside, on the most admired business in the world, at a price where the good outcome is already spoken for.
That asymmetry is the entire argument. Not that Microsoft is bad. That the price has removed the reward for being right.
***
What the Price Has to Believe
There is one more test I run before I let myself hold an opinion, and it is the one that keeps me honest when I like a company too much.
Take the price. Hold the model fixed. Solve backwards for what the buyer at $451.10 must be assuming.
On growth, the answer is a 11.46% revenue growth rate compounded for ten years, reaching $982 billion of revenue by fiscal 2036. My base is 9.59%. The market's number is demanding but it is not crazy. Microsoft just did 17.8%. I will not sit here and tell you 11.46% is impossible for a company that has been beating it.
On margin, the answer is uglier. Hold growth where I have it and solve for the flat operating margin that clears $451.10, and you need 52.22%. Every year. For a decade. Against a fiscal 2026 record of 46.78% and a fiscal 2023 figure of 41.77%.
Five and a half points above the best margin the company has ever achieved, permanently, while depreciation multiplies. That is what you are buying at this price. Not Microsoft. That particular Microsoft.
One more piece of ballast. Across listed companies going back to 1950, no business starting from more than fifty billion dollars of real sales has sustained 20% revenue growth for a decade. Not one. The price does not need 20%, so it clears the base rate comfortably. I mention it because everyone modelling this company should know where the wall is, and most of the spreadsheets I have seen put revenue through it without noticing.
***
Where I Could Be Wrong, Stated Plainly
I said I would show you where this call is fragile, so here it is.
My conclusion survives on 15.6 basis points of discount rate.
At 9.13% I get an expected outcome of down 13%, which is a pass. At 8.973% it becomes down 10%, and my own rule says hold. That is the whole margin. Fifteen and a half basis points on an input I revised by sixty three basis points three months ago.
Adjust the beta the way many practitioners do, toward 1.07 instead of 1.11, and the answer is down 10.18%. Still a pass. By eighteen hundredths of a percentage point.
I could give you three more of these. Assume Microsoft spends 20% less on capital than I have modelled and the base case goes to $414.49. Turn off my assumption that capital intensity holds in the back half and it goes to $414.44. Neither of those is an unreasonable thing to believe, and both move this from pass to something closer to hold.
What I will not do is pretend the call is more robust than it is. This is not a verdict on Microsoft's business, which is superb, and I have said so three times running. It is a verdict on a price, reached by a narrow margin, using a discount rate that reasonable people would argue about.
The one thing that is not narrow is the shape. Ten percent up against forty two percent down does not depend on any of those inputs to the second decimal.
***
The Number That Ends the Argument
Take the base case of $397.41 and demand a 25% discount to it. That gives $298.06.
The stock is $451.10. The line sits a third below the price.
I want to defend that 25% rather than assert it, because it is doing more work than any other number in this piece. Graham's argument for a margin of safety was that it exists to absorb errors of judgment, not merely bad luck. It is not a haggling position and it has nothing to do with predicting the stock. It is an allowance for the analyst.
Look at what this note has already had to correct. In March I read the lease disclosure and concluded the company had $29 billion of net cash. It had, on the right treatment, $30 billion of net debt. In April I discounted the cash flows at 8.5% and in July at 9.13%, and that single revision moved my estimate by sixty nine dollars a share. Both errors ran in the same direction, which is the direction that makes a company you admire look cheaper.
A margin of safety is what stands between that pattern and a permanent loss of capital. It is not there in case Microsoft disappoints. It is there in case I do.
So the question the price asks is narrow and it is answerable. At $298.06 you are buying a business with 27% returns on capital and a $678 billion backlog while carrying enough cushion to survive being wrong about the discount rate, the lease treatment, and the depreciation schedule all at once. At $451.10 you are buying the same business with the cushion spent in advance, and you need the 52.22% margin from the chart above to show up.
What could close that distance is not a crash. A quarter where Azure prints 38% instead of the guided 45%. A ruling in the securities case filed in Washington in June, where the lead plaintiff deadline falls on 11 August and where the allegations are unproven. An OpenAI funding round that lands badly. A market correction with nothing to do with Microsoft at all. Any one of those puts this business inside the range where the arithmetic works without requiring the story to break.
Three things worth watching, in order. Backlog growth excluding OpenAI, which is 25% and is the only backlog figure that carries information. Free cash flow measured against operating profit, which just moved the wrong way for the first time in this company's modern history. And the operating margin as the depreciation lands, where anything below 44% for two consecutive quarters would say the bear case has stopped being hypothetical.
The report is on the SEC website. It is free. Read the lease note and the related party disclosures before you read the press release. The press release is written to be quoted. The lease note is written because the law requires it, which is usually where the interesting things are.
Ted Williams did not become the best hitter alive by having a better swing than anyone else. He became the best hitter alive by knowing, before the ball left the pitcher's hand, which part of the plate belonged to him. The price is how you find out which part of the plate you are standing in. At $451.10, on this arithmetic, it is not the fat part.
***
*The author may hold positions in securities discussed here, including Microsoft Corporation, and those positions may change without notice. All fair value figures are model outputs and assumptions, not reported company facts. Consensus earnings estimates and peer multiples cited here are vendor compiled secondary data. This essay is not investment advice. It is an invitation to do your own homework, ideally with a calculator and the actual filings in front of you.*
Microsoft just burned $37.5 billion in 90 days. The stock has lost a third of its value. And the most important number on the balance sheet is the one nobody's talking about.
Thirty-seven point five billion dollars.
That's how much Microsoft spent on capital expenditures last quarter. One quarter. Ninety days. Enough to buy every cattle ranch in the state of Nebraska, twice, and still have change left over for a reasonably nice steak dinner.
Wall Street saw that number on January 28th and did what Wall Street does. It panicked. The stock dropped 10% the next morning. It has kept sliding since. As I write this, Microsoft trades at $356.77, down 34% from its October high of $539. The market has erased roughly $1.3 trillion in value in five months.
The headlines write themselves: "Microsoft's AI Gamble." "The $150 Billion Bet That Could Backfire." "Is Satya Nadella Burning Cash?"
If you've been investing for any real length of time, you've watched companies incinerate capital on fiber optic cable in 2000, on subprime derivatives in 2007, and on cryptocurrency exchanges in 2022. Another round of "this time is different" triggers a very rational immune response. I feel it too.
But I've spent the last week pulling apart Microsoft's actual filings. Not the analyst summaries. Not the headlines. The 10-Q, the earnings transcripts, the segment disclosures, the cash flow statements. And what I found is a business so fundamentally healthy that the current panic looks less like prudent skepticism and more like a misreading of the financial statements.
The crowd is staring at the CapEx line. They should be reading the balance sheet.
The Cash Machine Nobody Mentions
Microsoft just completed a fiscal year in which it earned $101.8 billion in net income. That is not a typo. One hundred and one point eight billion dollars in profit. No software company in the history of capitalism has ever done that.
Revenue hit $281.7 billion, up 15% from the year before. Operating income reached $128.5 billion, a 17% increase. The operating margin expanded to 45.6%. Think about what that means. For every dollar that flows through Microsoft's front door, forty-five cents and change falls straight to the operating line before the tax collector arrives.
Now, free cash flow. This is the number I care about most because it represents the actual cash a business generates after it has paid for everything it needs to keep running. Microsoft's came in at $71.6 billion. That is not revenue. That is not operating income. That is cash left over after paying every employee, every supplier, every tax bill, and every capital expenditure. Seventy-one billion in cash that the company can do whatever it wants with.
Here's the part that genuinely surprised me, because it contradicts the narrative you're hearing on financial television. Microsoft holds $89.4 billion in cash and short-term investments against roughly $40 billion in total debt. Read that again. The company could write a check tomorrow to pay off every cent it owes and still have $49 billion left in the account.
Microsoft is not leveraged. It is not stretched. It has a net cash position of $49 billion. The company paid about $24 billion in dividends last fiscal year. It could cover nearly four years of dividend payments from its cash reserves alone, without earning another dollar. Most companies can't cover four months.
There's an old-fashioned test called the Piotroski F-Score. Nine points. It checks whether profits are real, cash flow exceeds earnings, and leverage is declining. Simple stuff that has held up for decades. Microsoft scores a 7 out of 9. The two missed points? Gross margins ticked down slightly because of AI infrastructure costs, and asset turnover declined because the company is building data centers faster than revenue can fill them. Both are consequences of investing, not deteriorating.
A business that generates $71.6 billion in free cash flow, maintains a 45.6% operating margin, earns roughly 28 cents of profit on every dollar of invested capital, and holds a net cash position of $49 billion is not a business in crisis.
It is a business that Mr. Market has decided to put on clearance because the CapEx line got too big for a spreadsheet.
The Spending Is the Signal. Not the Problem.
Here's the part the frightened money doesn't understand.
Microsoft isn't spending $37.5 billion a quarter because Satya Nadella lost his mind. It's spending $37.5 billion a quarter because customer demand for Azure cloud computing is growing at 39% per year and the company literally cannot build servers fast enough.
Sit with that for a moment. Azure, Microsoft's cloud platform, grew 39% in the most recent quarter. Amazon's AWS, the market leader, grew 24%. Google Cloud managed 48% but from a considerably smaller revenue base, so the absolute dollars tell a different story. In the cloud infrastructure market, which now exceeds $400 billion annually, Amazon holds 28% share, Microsoft holds 21%, and Google holds 14%.
Those three companies control two-thirds of the market. The barriers to entry are almost comically high: tens of billions in capital, a global network of data centers, deep relationships with enterprise procurement departments, and armies of engineers who don't exactly grow on trees. No new competitor has gained meaningful share in a decade. This is not a market. It is an oligopoly. And Microsoft is the fastest-growing member.
When a company with these economics tells you it is spending aggressively to meet demand that exceeds supply, the correct emotional response is not fear. It is gratitude. You are watching a toll bridge operator widen the highway because traffic has doubled.
The moment Microsoft says "we've decided to slow down our infrastructure spending because demand is softening"? That is the day to be frightened. That would mean the AI workload growth story has cracked. That would mean the enterprise customers writing hundred-million-dollar Azure commitments have pulled back. That would mean the $625 billion in commercial backlog is evaporating.
None of those things are happening. The opposite is happening.
Microsoft brought one gigawatt of data center capacity online in a single quarter. And it still wasn't enough. The company's CFO told analysts that capital expenditures will decrease sequentially in the next quarter, and before you get excited, it's not because demand is weakening. It's because of "normal variability in the timing of delivery of finance leases." In plain English: they are constrained by how fast they can physically plug buildings into the power grid.
I've been studying capital allocation decisions for most of my adult life, and I cannot recall a single instance of a company spending $37.5 billion in ninety days and having its Chief Financial Officer essentially tell analysts: "We wish we could have spent more."
Three Moats, Stacked
Buffett has always said he wants to own businesses surrounded by a moat filled with piranhas. Microsoft's moat is unusual because it's really three moats stacked on top of each other, and they feed into one another in ways that I think the market underappreciates.
Start with switching costs. More than a billion people use Microsoft 365. Every Fortune 500 company runs on Active Directory, Outlook, Excel, and Teams. I've talked to CIOs who have tried to migrate off this stack. The cost isn't measured in licensing fees. It's measured in years. Years of lost productivity, retraining, integration headaches, and the career risk that falls on whoever signed off on the project. Nobody does it unless they're absolutely forced to. This is why the Productivity and Business Processes segment grew 13% to $120.8 billion, even in a year when plenty of companies were tightening every other budget line.
Then there's scale. Running a global cloud infrastructure network requires tens of billions in annual capital investment, relationships with power utilities on six continents, and custom semiconductor design capabilities. There are exactly three companies on Earth that can do this profitably. Oracle, to its credit, has tried. They committed $50 billion in planned capital expenditure for a single fiscal year, and they still hold low-single-digit market share. That should tell you something about the height of these walls.
And finally, there's the OpenAI partnership. This one is newer and harder to value, but I think it matters enormously. Microsoft has exclusive commercial rights to integrate OpenAI's foundational models into Azure and its application layer. Every enterprise customer that wants GPT-class AI capabilities through a major cloud provider has exactly one first-party option. Competitors can offer their own models, and they do, but the integration depth between Azure and OpenAI is something that cannot be replicated through a licensing deal. You either built it together from the ground up or you didn't.
Here's where it gets interesting. These moats don't just sit next to each other. They compound. An enterprise customer using Microsoft 365 adopts Copilot AI features within the same subscription. Copilot runs on Azure. Azure runs on OpenAI models. Each layer makes the next stickier, and each dollar of revenue in one segment quietly reduces the customer acquisition cost in the others.
Coca-Cola has a flywheel. Costco has one. But I'm not sure either spins this fast with this much capital behind it.
The Regulators Are Real. And They Should Be.
I won't pretend the risks are imaginary. They're not.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has an active antitrust investigation examining whether Microsoft is using its dominance in productivity software to funnel customers into Azure through punitive licensing terms. The investigation is real, it is ongoing, and civil investigative demands were issued as recently as early 2026.
In Europe, the Digital Markets Act has designated Microsoft as a "gatekeeper," imposing interoperability and compliance mandates. The UK Competition and Markets Authority published a final report in July 2025 concluding that "competition is not working well" in cloud infrastructure markets, with Microsoft's licensing practices specifically cited.
These are not nuisances. If regulators forced Microsoft to make Microsoft 365 run equally well on AWS and Google Cloud as it does on Azure, that would materially damage the flywheel I just described. In a severe scenario, that kind of forced separation could compress fair value by 40% or more. I don't dismiss this.
But those of us who have been around a while remember something. Microsoft has been here before. The 1998 Department of Justice case nearly broke the company apart. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson actually ordered a breakup. It didn't happen. The regulatory process ground on for years, resulted in a consent decree, and Microsoft emerged with its core business intact. It was a circus then, and the current investigations have a similar theatrical quality to them.
I'm not predicting the same outcome this time around. What I will say is that antitrust investigations, in practice, move slowly, settle frequently, and rarely produce the structural separations that bears build into their worst-case spreadsheets. The probability-weighted impact is real but, in my judgment, not existential.
Meanwhile, the earnings power of the underlying business compounds every quarter while the lawyers file motions. That's the part nobody prices.
A Wonderful Business. Not Yet a Wonderful Price.
Here's where discipline separates investors from speculators.
At $356.77, Microsoft trades at roughly a 10% discount to a conservatively modeled intrinsic value of approximately $395 to $406 per share. That intrinsic value assumes 14% free cash flow growth for five years, a slowdown to 10% for the following five, a terminal growth rate of 3.5%, and a discount rate of 8.5%. It accounts for the CapEx drag. It does not assume the bull case.
A 10% discount on a magnificent business is attractive. But it is not attractive *enough.*
When I buy a stock, I want a margin of safety. A gap between what the business is worth and what I'm paying that's large enough to protect me from the things I cannot foresee. For a business of this caliber, I want at least 25%. That puts my buy price at roughly $296 to $304 per share.
Microsoft would need to decline another 17% from here to reach that level. Is that possible? In this market, absolutely. The stock has already fallen 34% from its high. Tariff escalation, a broader tech selloff, or a disappointing quarter of Azure growth could easily push it there.
And if it doesn't get there? That's fine too. There are 40,000 publicly traded companies in the world. I don't need to swing at every pitch. Ted Williams became the greatest hitter in baseball by waiting for the ball to cross the plate in exactly the right spot. He let plenty of good pitches go by. So can I.
What This Means For You
If you already own Microsoft, the case for holding is strong. The business has never been more profitable, the balance sheet has never been more secure, and the competitive position has arguably never been wider. Selling because the stock is down 34% while earnings are up 16% is the precise opposite of rational behavior. You would be selling a business that is getting better because its price is getting lower. That is Mr. Market's game, and you don't have to play it.
If you don't own Microsoft and you've been waiting, keep waiting. But stay alert. A recession, a tariff war, or a single quarter of weaker Azure guidance could hand you this business at a price that would make your grandchildren wealthy. Set your limit orders. Be patient. The market rewards discipline far more reliably than it rewards urgency.
The numbers are all there in the 10-K. It's free. It's on the SEC's website. It's only 120 pages. I've read worse. I've read most of them, actually.
The fundamentals have never been stronger. The price just hasn't caught up with the fear yet. Sometimes it works the other way around. That's when the real money gets made.
---
*This narrative is not investment advice. It is an invitation to do your own homework, ideally with a calculator and the actual filings in front of you.*
Have other thoughts on Microsoft?
Create your own narrative on this stock, and estimate its Fair Value using our Valuator tool.
Create NarrativeHow well do narratives help inform your perspective?
Disclaimer
tripledub is an employee of Simply Wall St, but has written this narrative in their capacity as an individual investor. tripledub has a position in NasdaqGS:MSFT.. Simply Wall St has no position in any companies mentioned. Simply Wall St may provide the securities issuer or related entities with website advertising services for a fee, on an arm's length basis. These relationships have no impact on the way we conduct our business, the content we host, or how our content is served to users. This narrative is general in nature and explores scenarios and estimates created by the author. The narrative does not reflect the opinions of Simply Wall St, and the views expressed are the opinion of the author alone, acting on their own behalf. These scenarios are not indicative of the company's future performance and are exploratory in the ideas they cover. The fair value estimate's are estimations only, and does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and they do not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. Note that the author's analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material.
