Skip to main content
Preview

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

Radar
MCHP

MCHP Research brief

Microchip Technology

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$77.34(−4.66%)

Sagehood’s view on MCHP

Microchip Technology · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

48Neutral50 is balancedScore change −4 since 2026-10-29, from 52 to 48; view unchanged at Neutral. Compare the two recordsConfidence 49 · 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

Dated research brief

WhyMCHP looks neutral because 20.9% trailing-twelve-month revenue growth is offset by a 15.5% operating margin and net debt to EBITDA of 3.46. The unresolved risk is that the latest quarterly growth of 38.0% marks a durable cycle turn.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case against a neutral stance is that the latest quarterly revenue growth was 38.0%, far above the base case's −0.5% assumption. If that marks a durable cycle turn, the $8.9 base fair value understates the recovery.This view cites the model's $8.90 cash-flow estimate, which the valuation model itself declined. See Valuation range.
Break conditionFrom the financial specialist: A later reading showing net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median would break the balance-sheet read.Tests that specialist’s reading, not this page’s whole Neutral view.

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

Valuation range

No model fair value · the discounted cash flow model declined

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the close ($77.34) was 8.7 times the model’s cash-flow estimate ($8.90), and no other valuation method came within 3 times of that estimate (the peer-multiple estimate was $61.32). The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.

Close $77.34 (recorded) on 2026-10-30; estimates use fundamentals to 2026-06-30.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)
Bear
$2.10
Base
$8.90
Bull
$28.60

The model’s own grid cells, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Against peers

Information Technology
MultipleMCHPGroup medianPercentile
P/E (TTM)113.74×29.89×88th
P/S8.31×6.59×59th
P/B6.60×8.35×32nd
FCF yield2.61%2.54%52nd
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 financial specialist. It tests that specialist’s own reading, so it does not say everything that would change this page’s Neutral 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$77.34 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day−4.66%
First eligible market session2026-11-02

Recorded score context

Specialist source coverage7 of 10 specialists have a verified source on this run. 3 do not.
Score reconciliationThe 7 specialist contributions shown add up to the weighted starting point this score was built from.
Change since the last accepted run52 on 2026-10-29 → 48 on 2026-10-30 (−4 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 peer-implied median is under “Valuation & peers”.

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 $77.34

−17.3% from 2026-06-25

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

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

Selected 2026-10-30. MCHP adjusted close. Continuous series. $77.34 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
2026-10-3048Neutral49Method 4
2026-10-2952Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2846Neutral49Method 4
2026-10-2750Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2648Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2347Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2250Neutral52Method 4
2026-10-2147Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-1640Bearish45Method 4
2026-10-0945Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-0744Bearish45Method 4
2026-10-0250Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-0150Neutral45Method 4
2026-09-3046Neutral45Method 4
2026-09-2946Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2845Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-2545Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-24 · retrospective46Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2346Neutral58Method 4
2026-09-1845Neutral65Method 4
2026-09-16 · retrospective37Bearish55Method 4
2026-09-09 · retrospective43Bearish58Method 4
2026-09-0444Bearish50Method 4
2026-09-01 · retrospective42Bearish50Method 4
2026-08-31 · retrospective49Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-2848Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-26 · retrospective49Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-24 · retrospective48Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-20 · retrospective49Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-19 · retrospective49Neutral61Method 3
2026-08-1448Neutral61Method 2
2026-08-1347Neutral61Method 1
2026-08-0748Neutral61Method 1
2026-08-0650Neutral61Method 1
2026-08-0452Neutral61Method 1
2026-07-3139Bearish61Method 1
2026-07-2340Bearish52Method 1

Specialists

7 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.

3 unavailable

MCHP research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Neutral

Microchip pairs $5,122 million of trailing-twelve-month revenue growing 20.9% with a 15.5% operating margin, but net debt to EBITDA of 3.46 is well above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median, so leverage is the material constraint.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: Microchip shows trailing-twelve-month revenue of $5,122 million, trailing-twelve-month revenue growth of 20.9%, trailing-twelve-month operating margin of 15.5%, trailing-twelve-month free cash flow of $1,111 million, and net debt to EBITDA of 3.46.

Why it matters now

A 15.5% operating margin and net debt to EBITDA of 3.46 sit below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median, so leverage and margin are the material constraints.

What could change the view

Countercase: If the next filing shows trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median or net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median, the balanced read would be wrong. Falsifier: A later reading showing net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median would break the balance-sheet read.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
58
Evidence confidence
50
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
6.50
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.16
Weighted contribution
9.32
Business driver
Microchip shows trailing-twelve-month revenue of $5,122 million, trailing-twelve-month revenue growth of 20.9%, trailing-twelve-month operating margin of 15.5%, trailing-twelve-month free cash flow of $1,111 million, and net debt to EBITDA of 3.46.
Mechanism
A 15.5% operating margin and net debt to EBITDA of 3.46 sit below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median, so leverage and margin are the material constraints.
Countercase
If the next filing shows trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median or net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median, the balanced read would be wrong.
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

Neutral

Score
58
Evidence confidence
50
Weight in the score
0.16
Weighted contribution
9.32

Risk specialist

Bearish

Score
34
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
3.70

Sector specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
58
Weight in the score
0.14
Weighted contribution
7.17

SEC filings specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.04
Weighted contribution
2.04

News specialist

Neutral

Score
46
Evidence confidence
48
Weight in the score
0.13
Weighted contribution
6.01

Price-trend specialist

Neutral

Score
48
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.30
Weighted contribution
14.25

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.12
Weighted contribution
5.94

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

  • Valuation specialist: The valuation specialist did not vote on this run because the valuation model declined to give a fair value: the close ($77.34) was 8.7 times the model’s cash-flow estimate ($8.90), and no other valuation method came within 3 times of that estimate (the peer-multiple estimate was $61.32). The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.
  • 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

MCHP: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

48

Neutral50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

Financial specialist

Neutral

Specialist score 58Evidence confidence 50
What the specialist sees

Microchip shows trailing-twelve-month revenue of $5,122 million, trailing-twelve-month revenue growth of 20.9%, trailing-twelve-month operating margin of 15.5%, trailing-twelve-month free cash flow of $1,111 million, and net debt to EBITDA of 3.46.

Why it matters

A 15.5% operating margin and net debt to EBITDA of 3.46 sit below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median, so leverage and margin are the material constraints.

What argues against it

If the next filing shows trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median or net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median, the balanced read would be wrong.

This specialist’s break condition: A later reading showing net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median would break the balance-sheet read.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 48.43. Sagehood research’s adjustment was −0.43. 52 on 2026-10-29 → 48 on 2026-10-30 (−4 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. Financial specialist

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

  2. Risk specialist

    MCHP shows days to earnings 6, drawdown from the one-year high −24.2% against maximum one-year drawdown −31.8%, one-year large daily-move count 38, twenty-day annualized volatility 43.0% against sixty-day annualized volatility 46.9% with a stable volatility trend, downside beta 2.42 against SPY beta 2.19, and worst five-day return over one year −16.1%.

  3. Price-trend specialist

    Close 77.34 is 2.2% below 200-day average and 2.8% above 50-day average, with a death cross 32 days old; the 1-year channel slopes 35.8% per year at fit R² 0.30 while the 90-day channel slopes −30.1% 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 net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median would break the balance-sheet read.

Evidence & sourcesClaim-support availability, filing-context links and research method

MCHP: 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.

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 model declined to give a fair value

Against the 2026-10-30 close of $77.34 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-06-30.

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the close ($77.34) was 8.7 times the model’s cash-flow estimate ($8.90), and no other valuation method came within 3 times of that estimate (the peer-multiple estimate was $61.32).

Rejected model output (not a valuation)

The discounted cash flow grid cells this run nominated, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Bear
$2.10−97% vs close
Base
$8.90−88% vs close
Bull
$28.60−63% vs close

The bear and base cases sit more than 5× from the close: extreme scenarios, shown as the model computed them.

Implied by the median of 3 peer-median multiples: $61.32 (−20.7% 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, LRCX, 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)113.74×

    Peer median 29.89× · middle half 19.24× to 45.53× · 88th percentile of the group

  • Price to sales8.31×

    Peer median 6.59× · middle half 4.55× to 12.88× · 59th percentile of the group

  • Price to book6.60×

    Peer median 8.35× · middle half 6.41× to 15.99× · 32nd percentile of the group

  • Free cash flow yield2.61%

    Peer median 2.54% · middle half 1.33% to 5.43% · 52nd 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: 5 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.

Microchip Technology (MCHP) research | Sagehood