Here's how the community voted
This poll has closed. New comments cannot be added.
CEO Alex Karp has described himself as "geographically monogomous". I'm getting Adam Neumann of WeWork vibes. Hard to see Palantir going quite the same way but no way 350x earnings holds up.
I could see them bending that to supporting any ally, similar to what other defense contractors (CAE, etc.) do. But still, it's hard to justify the current valuation...
Quite, althoguh I'm not sure that was what he was referring to with his monogamy!
There have been a lot of great innovations in history, and you can pay almost any multiple in some cases, but Palantir is so far off the normal valuation levels that you need something beyond heroic to justify fundamentally valued ownership. You need this company to grow so much (as it sells at 100x TTM revenue), and continue to generate great margins, to justify it from a valuation perspective. This comes from a guy who prefers 10x P/E as a baseline, so what do I know?
Management could probably go on an acquisition spree with such a high share price to use as their currency.
Let me just add to this. Innovations today, by their nature, have to be less impactful than past innovations such as railroads or electricity. They enabled so much (such as the use of previously unproductive land due to transportation costs) and yet along the way, many went through bankruptcy - even the ones that succeeded and are still around today. Betting with such a high valuation level doesn't usually end well.
The insider trading says it all!
I'd be selling my stock too if my CEO was spending all his time waving a silly little sword around the office, definite dud
While there are indeed three factors that could lead to further gains for Palantir in 2026 (strong defence spending; AI investment remaining high; analyst consensus on the bull market for stocks continuing)… the valuation remains very disconnected from fundamentals even with the benefit of these tailwinds. The risks associated to the Company (pullback from AI euphoria, revenue concentration, competition from other big tech companies) lead to too much downside risk for me. The markets are pricing in flawless execution in a best-case scenario, at the current valuation.
I agree with the revenue concentration part. I'd stay away from investing in a company so in geopolitical activities. Also that $950M shares sold by insiders over the last year vs $1 doesn't bring a lot of confidence...
Perfectly sums it up in my opinion. Flawless execution can’t continue forever, and the fundamentals do not seem to be there.