Skip to main content
Preview

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

Radar
META

META Research brief

Meta Platforms

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$614.99(−1.53%)

Sagehood’s view on META

Meta Platforms · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

42Bearish50 is balancedScore change +4 since 2026-10-29, from 38 to 42; view unchanged at Bearish. Compare the two recordsConfidence 45 · 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

WhyMeta's expensive valuation drives the bearish view, because the $211.1 base fair value sits 66% below the $614.99 close. The unresolved risk is that 27.5% revenue growth and a 32.9% operating margin keep supporting the multiple.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case against the bearish view is that revenue is still compounding at 27.5%, above the 9.6% sector median. A 32.9% operating margin on a $241,605 million revenue base could keep the multiple supported even after the 10.4-point margin decline.
Break conditionA later reading showing trailing-twelve-month FCF margin above the threshold of 11.9% would break the bearish read.

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

Valuation range

Close vs. model fair value · discounted cash flow

Bear
$37.00
Base
$211.10
Bull
$530.50

Base case −66% vs. the 2026-10-30 close, on fundamentals to 2026-09-30. Estimates from this research’s valuation model, not a price target.

The peer-multiple estimate is not shown: the close is 3.2 times the estimate.

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

Communication Services
MultipleMETAGroup medianPercentile
P/E (TTM)20.98×14.53×86th
P/S6.53×2.01×71st
P/B5.79×1.79×88th
FCF yield1.82%4.21%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.

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$614.99 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day−1.53%
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 → 42 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 set8 names in Communication Services: CMCSA, DIS, GOOG, GOOGL, NFLX, SKYD, T, VZ. How they were chosen is under “Valuation & peers”. The valuation range says why the peer-multiple estimate is not shown.

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 $614.99

+13.4% from 2026-06-25

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

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

Selected 2026-10-30. META adjusted close. Continuous series. $614.99 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
2026-10-3042Bearish45Method 4
2026-10-2938Bearish62Method 4
2026-10-2838Bearish45Method 4
2026-10-2738Bearish60Method 4
2026-10-2642Bearish50Method 4
2026-10-2338Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2240Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-2145Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-1647Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-0950Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-0750Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-0250Neutral58Method 4
2026-10-0150Neutral58Method 4
2026-09-3052Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-2952Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2852Neutral65Method 4
2026-09-2554Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-24 · retrospective55Neutral62Method 4
2026-09-2354Neutral62Method 4
2026-09-1850Neutral65Method 4
2026-09-16 · retrospective44Bearish55Method 4
2026-09-09 · retrospective50Neutral72Method 4
2026-09-0444Bearish65Method 4
2026-09-01 · retrospective40Bearish45Method 4
2026-08-31 · retrospective41Bearish70Method 3
2026-08-2840Bearish70Method 3
2026-08-26 · retrospective41Bearish70Method 3
2026-08-24 · retrospective40Bearish73Method 3
2026-08-20 · retrospective40Bearish73Method 3
2026-08-19 · retrospective41Bearish73Method 3
2026-08-1440Bearish73Method 2
2026-08-1341Bearish73Method 1
2026-08-0740Bearish73Method 1
2026-08-0640Bearish73Method 1
2026-08-0441Bearish73Method 1
2026-07-3140Bearish82Method 1
2026-07-2341Bearish58Method 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

META research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Bearish

Meta's revenue base is large and still growing 27.5% over the trailing year, well above the 9.6% sector revenue-growth median, but operating margin fell 10.4 percentage points as costs rose.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: trailing-twelve-month revenue was $241,605 million with 27.5% growth, above the 9.6% sector revenue-growth median, while trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 32.9% versus the 26.1% sector operating-margin median.

Why it matters now

Revenue growth well above the sector revenue-growth median supports the growth read, but the 10.4 percentage-point operating-margin decline shows profitability is eroding even as sales expand.

What could change the view

Countercase: The 32.9% trailing-twelve-month operating margin and 27.5% revenue growth could be a peak, and the 10.4 percentage-point operating-margin decline may continue if spending keeps outpacing revenue. Falsifier: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month operating margin below the 26.1% sector operating-margin median would break the margin claim.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
44
Evidence confidence
70
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
9.10
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.18
Weighted contribution
8.11
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

Bearish

Score
44
Evidence confidence
70
Weight in the score
0.18
Weighted contribution
8.11

Risk specialist

Bearish

Score
42
Evidence confidence
62
Weight in the score
0.10
Weighted contribution
4.22

Sector specialist

Bearish

Score
44
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
4.90

SEC filings specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
62
Weight in the score
0.04
Weighted contribution
1.88

News specialist

Neutral

Score
48
Evidence confidence
45
Weight in the score
0.10
Weighted contribution
4.81

Price-trend specialist

Bearish

Score
42
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.22
Weighted contribution
9.36

Valuation specialist

Bearish

Score
30
Evidence confidence
45
Weight in the score
0.15
Weighted contribution
4.38

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.10
Weighted contribution
4.86

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

META: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

42

Bearish50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

Valuation specialist

Bearish

Specialist score 30Evidence confidence 45
What the specialist sees

The base case of the grid pairs 19.3% revenue growth with an 11.9% FCF margin for a fair value of $211.1, which is −66% versus the $614.99 close, while the peer-implied median of $190.16 is −69.1% below the close.

This view cites the peer-multiple estimate, which this page does not show. See Valuation range.
Why it matters

If the market is pricing META on revenue growth and margin expansion that the grid's base case already assumes, then the −66% gap to fair value implies the stock is expensive relative to its own cash-flow generation.

What argues against it

The grid's base case assumes 19.3% revenue growth and an 11.9% FCF margin, but trailing-twelve-month FCF margin is only 11.9% and FCF conversion is 38.1%, so the base case may be too generous.

This specialist’s break condition: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month FCF margin above the threshold of 11.9% would break the bearish read.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 42.52. Sagehood research’s adjustment was −0.52. 38 on 2026-10-29 → 42 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. Valuation specialist

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

  2. Financial specialist

    Trailing-twelve-month revenue was $241,605 million with 27.5% growth, above the 9.6% sector revenue-growth median, while trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 32.9% versus the 26.1% sector operating-margin median.

  3. Price-trend specialist

    META closed at $614.99, 2.6% below its 200-day average and 8.2% below its 50-day average, with the 90-day channel at trend-channel position −1.62 standard deviations and the 5-year channel at trend-channel position −1.15 standard deviations.

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 TTM FCF margin above the threshold of 11.9% would break the bearish read.

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

META: 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 research computed

Against the 2026-10-30 close of $614.99 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-09-30.

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

Bear
$37.00−94% vs close
Base
$211.10−66% vs close
Bull
$530.50−14% vs close

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

The peer-multiple estimate is not shown: the close is 3.2 times the estimate.

Peers: the 8 Liquid 100 names in Communication Services that this run priced. Companies outside the Liquid 100 are not in the set.

The names: CMCSA, DIS, GOOG, GOOGL, NFLX, SKYD, T, VZ.

Multiples against the peer group

Communication Services · 8 companies in the group

  • Price to earnings (trailing twelve months)20.98×

    Peer median 14.53× · middle half 11.46× to 16.27× · 86th percentile of the group

  • Price to sales6.53×

    Peer median 2.01× · middle half 1.26× to 6.30× · 71st percentile of the group

  • Price to book5.79×

    Peer median 1.79× · middle half 1.15× to 5.04× · 88th percentile of the group

  • Free cash flow yield1.82%

    Peer median 4.21% · middle half 1.48% to 9.95% · 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: 9 valuation inputs required conservative handling: another valuation input required conservative handling; no full-year gross-profit line was filed; no full-year shares-outstanding figure was filed; 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.

Meta Platforms (META) research | Sagehood