Skip to main content
Preview

Research from Friday’s close · next update overnight after Monday’s close

Sagehood30
LRCX

LRCX Research brief

Lam Research

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$239.11(−6.01%)

Sagehood’s view on LRCX

Lam Research · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

40Bearish50 is balancedScore change +2 since 2026-10-29, from 38 to 40; view unchanged at Bearish. Compare the two recordsConfidence 65 · It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.Confidence across the 100 names in this research run: 45 to 70, median 55.
How to read this score

In Sagehood30 · book 2026-10-30

Dated research brief

WhyLRCX looks bearish because the DCF base case of $78.2 sits 67% below the $239.11 close and price is 15.8% under 200-day average. The unresolved risk is that the 1-year channel still slopes 110.7% per year at fit R² 0.66.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case against a bearish stance is that the 1-year channel still slopes 110.7% per year at fit R² 0.66 and the latest quarterly revenue growth was 54.4%. If that growth persists, the base case's 13.5% assumption understates the franchise.
Break conditionFrom the valuation specialist: A later reading showing the peer-implied median above the traded close would break the rich-valuation claim, since the peer-implied median of $137.11 currently sits 42.7% below the close.Tests that specialist’s reading, not this page’s whole Bearish view.This view cites the peer-implied figure, whose sector median this page flags. See Valuation & peers.

Sagehood does not check this condition automatically. See research limitations below.

Valuation range

Close vs. model fair value · discounted cash flow

Bear
$34.40
Base
$78.20
Bull
$171.40

Base case −67% vs. the 2026-10-30 close, on fundamentals to 2026-09-27. Peer-implied median $137.11 from 3 peer-median multiples. Those medians include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”. Estimates from this research’s valuation model, not a price target.

The bear case sits more than 5× from the close: an extreme scenario, shown as the model computed it.

The market price implies more growth or higher margins than this model assumes, so its base case sits far below the close. The valuation specialist weighs that gap; it is not a forecast that the price will fall.

Against peers

Information Technology
MultipleLRCXGroup medianPercentile
P/E (TTM)35.63×29.89×58th
P/S11.49×6.59×74th
P/B21.59×8.30×80th
FCF yield2.18%2.61%33rd
Score details & research limitations9 unavailable fields
Conditions Sagehood can check on its ownNot available in this run. A written break condition is not an automated check; this run does not provide a source-linked rule Sagehood can verify on its own.

Where the break condition comes from: Sagehood research took this condition from the valuation specialist. It tests that specialist’s own reading, so it does not say everything that would change this page’s Bearish view.

How to read this research

The score expresses the published research view. 50 is balanced.

Bullish, Neutral or Bearish beside the score is the direction of that view, set by the research from the score: 65 and above is Bullish, 45 to 64 Neutral, 44 and below Bearish.

Confidence is how well the evidence supports this view, not which way it points: Sagehood research is asked to keep it no higher than its most confident specialist, and lower when the specialists disagree or much of the evidence is weak. It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.

Source verification checks the identity and origin of evidence. It does not prove that a claim is correct or that an investment will succeed.

Valuation estimates depend on their inputs and assumptions. They are not guaranteed future prices.

Retrospective research looks back at an earlier period. It is not a verified record of a decision made then using only information available then.

Unavailable is not zero. Read the adjacent reason: information may be missing, unverified or deliberately withheld.

How Sagehood works

The session this view is fixed to

Close$239.11 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day−6.01%
First eligible market session2026-11-02

Recorded score context

Specialist source coverage8 of 10 specialists have a verified source on this run. 2 do not.
Score reconciliationThe 8 specialist contributions shown add up to the weighted starting point this score was built from.
Change since the last accepted run38 on 2026-10-29 → 40 on 2026-10-30 (+2 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.
The run this is compared withResearch of 2026-10-29

Not in this run: Run-specific score definition, Confidence band, Horizon, Why the score changed, Today's unexplained move and Blockers.

What this was built from

Filing cited in the evidenceNot recorded on this card. The newest filing on record is under Key financials, and recent filings are listed under SEC filings.
Peer set27 names in Information Technology, listed with how they were chosen under “Valuation & peers”. The valuation range shows the peer-implied median from 3 peer-median multiples.

Not in this run: Company profile date and Standing disclosure.

Not available in this run

9 fields are unavailable. Each is identified with its reason above; missing information is not zero or a negative research signal.

Price context

· adjusted close $239.11

−40.4% from 2026-06-25

Recent price-basis check: 2026-10-02 to 2026-10-30 (20 sessions). Economic comparability outside this window remains unchecked.

LRCX adjusted close
Adjusted price · USD · viewing 2026-06-25 to 2026-10-30

Selected 2026-10-30. LRCX adjusted close. Continuous series. $239.11 US dollars.

90 daily adjusted-price observations through 2026-10-30, ending at the 2026-10-30 research date. The final point is a dated final close. Shown for context, not point-in-time research evidence: the research used the prices recorded with it.

Use the arrow keys on the chart to step through observations.

Published score history

2026-07-23 to 2026-10-30 · 37 publications

Each point is a verified published score. The line breaks where the research method changed (4 methods, numbered in the order they were first used), so scores are not joined across methods. Hollow points were published after their decision window (retrospective).

Every published score and confidence
Research dateScoreViewConfidenceMethod
2026-10-3040Bearish65Method 4
2026-10-2938Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2836Bearish49Method 4
2026-10-2736Bearish60Method 4
2026-10-2645Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-2338Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2238Bearish58Method 4
2026-10-2138Bearish52Method 4
2026-10-1636Bearish45Method 4
2026-10-0944Bearish50Method 4
2026-10-0748Neutral48Method 4
2026-10-0258Neutral58Method 4
2026-10-0154Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-3052Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-2952Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2851Neutral49Method 4
2026-09-2551Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-24 · retrospective52Neutral56Method 4
2026-09-2356Neutral62Method 4
2026-09-1851Neutral75Method 4
2026-09-16 · retrospective38Bearish55Method 4
2026-09-09 · retrospective57Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-0446Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-01 · retrospective44Bearish50Method 4
2026-08-31 · retrospective52Neutral63Method 3
2026-08-2853Neutral63Method 3
2026-08-26 · retrospective54Neutral63Method 3
2026-08-24 · retrospective56Neutral63Method 3
2026-08-20 · retrospective55Neutral63Method 3
2026-08-19 · retrospective56Neutral63Method 3
2026-08-1458Neutral63Method 2
2026-08-1357Neutral63Method 1
2026-08-0754Neutral63Method 1
2026-08-0652Neutral59Method 1
2026-08-0455Neutral59Method 1
2026-07-3147Neutral75Method 1
2026-07-2343Bearish52Method 1

Specialists

8 of 10 published specialist analyses are available.

Each specialist’s view is shown as the published research recorded it; supporting detail appears only when it was recorded with that same view.

2 unavailable

LRCX research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Bullish

Lam Research grew trailing-twelve-month revenue 33.4% to $26,128 million at a 37.0% operating margin with net debt to EBITDA of −0.43, but free cash flow conversion of 0.77 trails the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: Lam Research shows trailing-twelve-month revenue of $26,128 million, trailing-twelve-month revenue growth of 33.4%, trailing-twelve-month operating margin of 37.0%, trailing-twelve-month free cash flow of $6,537 million, and net debt to EBITDA of −0.43.

Why it matters now

Accelerating revenue growth of 33.4% and a 37.0% operating margin with net cash support a strong quality read, though free cash flow conversion of 0.77 trails the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median.

What could change the view

Countercase: If the next filing shows trailing-twelve-month revenue growth below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median or free cash flow conversion below the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, the constructive read would be wrong. Falsifier: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month revenue growth below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the growth read.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
72
Evidence confidence
70
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
9.10
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.16
Weighted contribution
11.43
Contributions & coverage details

Specialist contributions

Each specialist’s recorded numbers, in the usual specialist order, as recorded: nothing is re-ranked or recalculated. Weights and contributions show two decimals; hover for the exact value.

Financial specialist

Bullish

Score
72
Evidence confidence
70
Weight in the score
0.16
Weighted contribution
11.43

Risk specialist

Bearish

Score
22
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.08
Weighted contribution
1.69

Sector specialist

Bearish

Score
33
Evidence confidence
62
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
3.57

SEC filings specialist

Bearish

Score
44
Evidence confidence
45
Weight in the score
0.02
Weighted contribution
1.04

News specialist

Bearish

Score
42
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
4.43

Price-trend specialist

Bearish

Score
38
Evidence confidence
75
Weight in the score
0.26
Weighted contribution
9.95

Valuation specialist

Bearish

Score
22
Evidence confidence
65
Weight in the score
0.18
Weighted contribution
3.99

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.08
Weighted contribution
4.19

Published specialist analyses unavailable: Geopolitics specialist, Social-media specialist. No specialist result is inferred.

  • Geopolitics specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.
  • Social-media specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.

How this insight was formed

Each specialist view shown here is checked against the published research files. Sagehood research combined those views into the one Research Score above.

Evidence & method

Inspect the reasoning, source records and valuation behind this dated view.

Sagehood research reasoningSpecialist reasoning, selected statements and filing context
Accepted publication2026-10-30 researchNext eligible session 2026-11-02point-in-time

LRCX: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

40

Bearish50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

Valuation specialist

Bearish

Specialist score 22Evidence confidence 65
What the specialist sees

The base case pairs 13.5% revenue growth with a 25% FCF margin for a $78.2 fair value, 67% below the $239.11 close, while the peer-implied median of $137.11 is 42.7% below the close and the own price-to-book percentile is 80.

See the note under Break condition at the top of this page.
Why it matters

If the grid's 13.39% WACC and 25% FCF margin hold, the price embeds growth far above the base row, so the equity depends on a re-rating the 10.1% three-year revenue CAGR does not support.

What argues against it

The read would be wrong if the 54.4% latest quarterly revenue growth persists, since the base case assumes 13.5% growth and the grid's 13.39% WACC is an unobserved assumption rather than a filed result.

This specialist’s break condition: A later reading showing the peer-implied median above the traded close would break the rich-valuation claim, since the peer-implied median of $137.11 currently sits 42.7% below the close.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 40.29. Sagehood research’s adjustment was −0.29. 38 on 2026-10-29 → 40 on 2026-10-30 (+2 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.

Evidence Sagehood research weighed

These selected claims are evidence Sagehood research weighed, not a reconstruction of the numeric adjustment.

Claims as this research published them. Sagehood confirms each claim and its support were published together with this research. That is not an independent check, and it does not prove the claim is accurate or predict future performance.

  1. Valuation specialist

    Same statement as under “What the specialist sees” above.

  2. Risk specialist

    LRCX shows drawdown from the one-year high −44.8% against maximum one-year drawdown −46.8%, one-year large daily-move count 76, twenty-day annualized volatility 58.0% against sixty-day annualized volatility 56.5% with a stable volatility trend, downside beta 2.57 against SPY beta 3.27, and worst five-day return over one year −23.1%.

  3. Price-trend specialist

    Close 239.11 is 15.8% below 200-day average and 18.8% below 50-day average, with a golden cross 347 days old; the 1-year channel slopes 110.7% per year at fit R² 0.66 while the 90-day channel slopes −52.0% per year.

Sagehood research decision

The investment case, main risk and break condition are the ones shown under Sagehood’s view at the top of this page.

Recorded break condition
Break condition as kept in the decision trail

A later reading showing the peer-implied median above the traded close would break the rich-valuation claim, since the peer-implied median of $137.11 currently sits 42.7% below the close.

See the note under Break condition at the top of this page.
Evidence & sourcesClaim-support availability, filing-context links and research method

LRCX: This run has no checked links from its claims to their evidence. The specialists’ writing is shown as recorded, and no missing evidence is filled in.

Research evidence at a glance

Accepted specialist evidence · no score adjustment

Key figures

Fundamentals

Lam Research shows trailing-twelve-month revenue of $26,128 million, trailing-twelve-month revenue growth of 33.4%, trailing-twelve-month operating margin of 37.0%, trailing-twelve-month free cash flow of $6,537 million, and net debt to EBITDA of −0.43.

Valuation model

The base case pairs 13.5% revenue growth with a 25% FCF margin for a $78.2 fair value, 67% below the $239.11 close, while the peer-implied median of $137.11 is 42.7% below the close and the own price-to-book percentile is 80.

See the note under Break condition at the top of this page.

Potential upside

  • Lam Research grew trailing-twelve-month revenue 33.4% to $26,128 million at a 37.0% operating margin with net debt to EBITDA of −0.43, but free cash flow conversion of 0.77 trails the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median.

Potential downside

  • Base fair value of $78.2 is 67% below the $239.11 close, and even the bull case at $171.4 is 28% below, so the grid reads rich. Comps confirm: the peer-implied median of $137.11 is 42.7% below the close. The 25% FCF margin anchors the base column.

See the note under Break condition at the top of this page.

Questions to watch

  • A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month revenue growth below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the growth read.

  • A later reading showing the peer-implied median above the traded close would break the rich-valuation claim, since the peer-implied median of $137.11 currently sits 42.7% below the close.

See the note under Break condition at the top of this page.

Accepted research

Research dated 2026-10-30.

How this research was made

This research is AI-generated and is not investment advice.

Research date
2026-10-30
Valuation & peersInput limits notedFair-value cells, peer multiples and the inputs behind the range

Valuation the research computed

Against the 2026-10-30 close of $239.11 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-09-27.

Fair value by discounted cash flow, at the cells this run nominated.

Bear
$34.40−86% vs close
Base
$78.20−67% vs close
Bull
$171.40−28% vs close

The bear case sits more than 5× from the close: an extreme scenario, shown as the model computed it.

Implied by the median of 3 peer-median multiples: $137.11 (−42.7% vs close)

Peers: the 27 Liquid 100 names in Information Technology that this run priced. Companies outside the Liquid 100 are not in the set.

The 27 names

AAPL, AMD, APH, AVGO, CRM, CRWD, CSCO, DELL, GEN, GLW, HPE, HPQ, INTC, KLAC, MCHP, MRVL, MSFT, MU, NOW, NVDA, ON, ORCL, PLTR, QCOM, SMCI, SNDK, WDC.

Multiples against the peer group

Information Technology · 27 companies in the group

Sector median includes AVGO, whose per-share figure failed the share-basis check in this research.

  • Price to earnings (trailing twelve months)35.63×

    Peer median 29.89× · middle half 19.24× to 49.15× · 58th percentile of the group

  • Price to sales11.49×

    Peer median 6.59× · middle half 4.55× to 12.75× · 74th percentile of the group

  • Price to book21.59×

    Peer median 8.30× · middle half 6.41× to 15.04× · 80th percentile of the group

  • Free cash flow yield2.18%

    Peer median 2.61% · middle half 1.33% to 5.43% · 33rd percentile of the group

This run declares Enterprise value to EBITDA and computes no value for it, for this company or for its peer group.

Evidence limits: 7 valuation inputs required conservative handling: another valuation input required conservative handling; depreciation and amortization were available but not used because this version does not compute an EV/EBITDA multiple.

Includes the currently displayed specialist or comparison, not every specialist. Dates and limitations remain attached.

Sagehood research is for general information. It is not individualized investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

Lam Research (LRCX) research | Sagehood