02 Executive Summary

EQT Corporation is the largest U.S. natural gas producer by volume, operating exclusively in the Appalachian Basin with a cost structure that makes it one of the few large-cap E&Ps capable of generating material FCF at sub-$3.00/Mcf Henry Hub. The 2024 Equitrans Midstream acquisition transformed EQT from a pure-play upstream operator into an integrated gas producer-to-pipe platform — a strategic repositioning that is now showing up in the financials.

TTM revenue of $9.4B reflects +49.9% YoY growth, driven by both higher realized prices and the Equitrans consolidation. EQT has beaten consensus EPS in each of the last four reported quarters, with Q1 2026 delivering the most emphatic beat at $2.33 actual vs. $2.09 estimate (+11.2% surprise).

Top Catalysts:

• Natural gas demand inflection from LNG export buildout and AI data center power demand providing a structural bid for Appalachian volumes through 2028+
• Equitrans midstream integration synergies driving meaningful cost reduction — consolidated per-unit gathering costs declining as throughput scales
• FY2026E EPS consensus of $4.73 implies ~55% growth over FY2025 $3.05 actuals; four consecutive beat-and-raise quarters provide upward estimate revision momentum ^[S2]

Key Risks:

• Henry Hub price volatility — EQT's FCF is highly leveraged to spot and strip natural gas prices; a retracement toward $2.00/MMBtu compresses FCF materially
• Debt load of $7.9B (FY2025) post-Equitrans acquisition requires sustained FCF generation to delever to target leverage ratios
• Integration execution risk on Equitrans — any operational disruption to midstream infrastructure directly impacts EQT's own upstream volumes

At $51.20, EQT trades at 9.7x trailing P/E and 5.4x EV/EBITDA — both at discounts to long-run E&P comps. The 24-analyst consensus price target of $70.04 implies +36.8% upside. Our $70.00 target is anchored on a blended DCF/EV/EBITDA methodology, with the stock offering an attractive risk-reward at current gas strip and a 36.7% path to fair value.

03 Financial Performance & Health

3a. Income Statement Analysis

EQT's revenue profile has undergone two major step-changes in five years: the 2022 commodity price spike drove revenue to $12.1B, followed by a trough at ~$5.1–$5.2B in 2023–2024, before the Equitrans consolidation and gas price recovery pushed FY2025 revenue to $8.4B and TTM to $9.4B. The YoY trajectory is now firmly positive after a two-year reset.

Operating income surged to $3.0B in FY2025 (vs. $277M in FY2024), a reflection of both revenue recovery and meaningfully improved cost structure following the midstream consolidation. The TTM operating margin of 57.4% is exceptional for E&P, signaling that integrated operations are accreting value at the earnings line.

• FY2025 revenue of $8.4B: +60.0% YoY vs. FY2024's $5.2B
• FY2025 net income of $2.0B vs. $231M in FY2024 — near-9x improvement
• Q1 2026 revenue of $3.6B alone exceeded full-year FY2023 and FY2024 quarterly run-rates
• TTM gross margin of 81.0% reflects the high-margin nature of integrated gas production + gathering
• FY2022 revenue spike to $12.1B was driven by extraordinary Henry Hub pricing; 2023–2024 trough reflects commodity mean-reversion, not volume loss

Note: TTM cost of revenue and derived gross profit are estimated using locked TTM gross margin of 81.0%. TTM net income estimated from quarterly data (Q2'25 + Q3'25 + Q4'25 + Q1'26).

3b. Balance Sheet Analysis

The most significant balance sheet development is the step-up in total assets from $25.3B (FY2023) to $39.8B (FY2024) to $41.8B (FY2025), primarily reflecting the Equitrans acquisition adding ~$14B+ of midstream assets. Total debt declined from $9.4B to $7.9B between FY2024 and FY2025 — a $1.5B reduction driven by FCF-funded deleveraging — and equity expanded to $23.8B.

Net debt at FY2025 stood at approximately $7.7B ($7,858M debt minus $111M cash). With TTM EBITDA of approximately $7.7B (est., derived from EV/EBITDA of 5.4x applied to $41.1B EV), the net debt/EBITDA ratio is approximately 1.0x — a manageable level that supports continued deleveraging and incremental shareholder returns.

• Total debt reduced by $1.5B in FY2025 to $7.9B — mgmt actively prioritizing debt paydown
• Total equity of $23.8B vs. $20.6B in FY2024 — book value expansion of $3.2B in one year
• Cash position remains thin at $111M; EQT relies on revolver access and operating cash generation rather than balance sheet cash
• Debt-to-equity improved from 0.45x (FY2024) to 0.33x (FY2025)

Note: Q1 2026 quarterly balance sheet data was not available in the locked fact set. The FY2025 figures represent the most recent annual snapshot.

3c. Cash Flow Analysis

EQT generated $2.84B of FCF in FY2025, nearly 5x the $573M produced in FY2024 — the trough year impacted by both low gas prices and Equitrans integration costs. Q1 2026 alone produced $2.46B of FCF, suggesting FY2026 annualized FCF could be among the highest in the company's history if gas prices hold.

CapEx has been running at roughly $500–$630M per quarter, or ~$2.3B annually, consistent with maintenance of Appalachian volumes plus incremental midstream buildout. At TTM revenue of $9.4B, CapEx intensity is approximately 24–25% — in line with large-cap Appalachian peers.

• FY2025 FCF of $2.84B: +395% YoY vs. $573M in FY2024
• Q1 2026 FCF of $2.46B was 87% of full-year FY2025 FCF — seasonality is a factor (Q1 historically strongest), but the magnitude signals structural improvement
• TTM FCF of $2.50B at a $32.0B market cap implies a 7.8% FCF yield — attractive vs. E&P peers
• Annual CapEx has ranged from $1.4B (FY2022) to $2.3B (FY2025); the step-up reflects Equitrans integration capital
• FY2021 cash flow data was not available in the locked fact set

Note: TTM operating cash flow and CapEx estimated by summing available quarterly data (Q2'25 through Q1'26). FCF Yield calculated on current market cap of $32.0B.

3d. Return on Capital

Return metrics took a significant hit in FY2024 due to the trough earnings year and the step-up in equity/assets from the Equitrans acquisition. FY2025 showed rapid normalization, with ROE recovering to approximately 9.4% and ROA to approximately 4.9%. ROIC is estimated at approximately 8.5% on a TTM basis — approaching cost of capital, with a strong trajectory toward double digits as synergies accrue.

• FY2023 ROE of ~13.3% was inflated by a large deferred tax benefit; underlying return quality was modest
• FY2024 ROE trough of ~1.2% reflects near-zero earnings, not permanent impairment
• FY2025 ROIC of ~8.5% (est.) should cross 10%+ in FY2026 given guidance trajectory

04 Valuation

4a. Multiples Analysis

EQT screens as materially undervalued on nearly every metric relative to its closest Appalachian and large-cap gas producer peers. The three most relevant direct competitors are Coterra Energy (CTRA), Chesapeake Energy / Expand Energy (EXE), and Antero Resources (AR) — all Appalachian-weighted natural gas producers with broadly comparable asset bases.

EQT's 9.7x trailing P/E and 5.4x EV/EBITDA represent discounts of 15–30% to peer averages. The integrated midstream model should, over time, command a premium to pure-play upstream comps given more predictable cash flows, yet the market is still pricing EQT at a trough multiple.

• EQT's P/B of 1.27x is below peer median of approximately 1.6–2.0x (est.) despite superior scale
• FCF yield of 7.8% on TTM compares favorably to CTRA (~6%, est.) and EXE (~7%, est.)
• Forward P/E of 11.0x on $4.73 FY2026E EPS compares to peer group average of ~12–14x (est.)
• EV/Revenue of 4.4x reflects the large asset base relative to revenue, consistent with capital-intensive integrated midstream

Competitor multiples are estimates as of June 2026 based on available market data and analyst consensus; marked (est.) throughout. PEG ratio omitted due to insufficient multi-year EPS growth data across comps.

4b. Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

Our DCF is built on five explicit years (FY2026E–FY2030E) with the following key assumptions: revenue growth decelerates from current elevated levels as gas price volatility normalizes; operating margins compress modestly as midstream integration costs normalize; CapEx stabilizes at ~$2.0–$2.3B annually as legacy Equitrans buildout completes; WACC of 9.5% reflects EQT's leverage and commodity beta; terminal growth rate of 2.0% reflects long-run LNG-driven demand expansion offset by energy transition risk.

• FY2026E revenue anchored to analyst consensus of $9.69B; growth decelerates to ~4% by FY2028E
• EBITDA margins assumed at 68–72% range, consistent with integrated Appalachian operations
• CapEx assumed at $2.1B in FY2026E declining to $1.9B by FY2029E as midstream buildout matures
• WACC of 9.5% (base), 8.5% (bull), 10.5% (bear); terminal growth 2.0% / 2.5% / 1.5%
• Shares outstanding approximately 625M (est., as of June 2026)

4c. Valuation Conclusion

Both the multiples analysis and DCF point to the same conclusion: EQT is undervalued at $51.20. The stock's 5.4x EV/EBITDA sits at a 25% discount to its own historical average and a meaningful discount to closest peers, despite EQT holding the largest and lowest-cost Appalachian natural gas asset base in the sector.

The margin of safety is material. Even in our bear scenario — which assumes near-zero revenue growth, gas prices well below current strip, and a 200bps higher WACC — the DCF implies $42 per share, a 18% downside vs. the current $51.20. The bear case does not imply catastrophic loss of capital; the bull case implies $87.

• Base DCF implies $70.00 — aligned with 24-analyst consensus mean of $70.04
• At 6.5x NTM EV/EBITDA (peer mean), EQT would trade at ~$66–$68, still 29–33% above current price
• 52-week high of $68.24 demonstrates the market has already "seen" this valuation within the past year

05 Business Model & Competitive Moat

5a. Business Segments

EQT operates as an integrated Appalachian natural gas platform following the 2024 Equitrans Midstream acquisition. The business has two primary economic engines: upstream production (the original EQT) and midstream gathering/transmission (the former Equitrans). Together, they form a vertically integrated gas-to-market model that reduces per-unit cost and provides captive throughput for the pipeline network.

EQT's upstream segment is the dominant earnings driver, with production volume measured in billions of cubic feet equivalent (Bcfe) per day. The midstream segment — now integrated — provides gathering, compression, and water handling services across the Marcellus and Utica shale formations.

• Upstream production is approximately 2.1 Bcfe/day (est., as of Q1 2026) — the largest among Appalachian natural gas producers
• Midstream asset base includes approximately 4,000 miles of gathering lines and the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a ~304-mile FERC-regulated natural gas transmission system (est.)
• Near-100% natural gas focus (approximately 93–95% gas mix) provides simplicity but concentrated commodity exposure
• Well-level economics in core Marcellus acreage deliver sub-$1.50/Mcfe all-in cash costs at scale (est.)

Segment revenue breakdown is estimated from public disclosures and management commentary; official segment reporting should be referenced directly from EQT's annual report and 10-K filings.

5b. Economic Moat Assessment

EQT's moat is narrower than its scale might suggest — natural gas is a commodity, and above-average returns ultimately attract capital and erode margins. That said, EQT possesses genuine cost-structure advantages from its Appalachian acreage position that are difficult and expensive to replicate, combined with regulatory and infrastructure barriers that create meaningful barriers to entry for new pipeline capacity.

• Core Marcellus acreage has estimated drilling inventory of 15+ years at current pace — breadth and depth of tier-1 locations is a durable advantage
• Mountain Valley Pipeline completion (after decade-long regulatory battle) creates a captive, FERC-regulated transmission asset insulated from competitor access
• Scale-driven cost advantages: gathering, compression, and water handling per-unit costs decline materially as EQT's throughput grows vs. smaller Appalachian operators

Overall Moat Assessment: Narrow. EQT's cost position in the Marcellus and the regulatory durability of its midstream assets create a genuine but not insurmountable competitive advantage. The moat is sufficient to sustain above-industry-average returns through the cycle, but not wide enough to shield the company from prolonged commodity price weakness.

06 Growth Strategy & Future Outlook

6a. Growth Drivers

The dominant growth narrative for EQT is structural U.S. natural gas demand growth, not EQT-specific volume growth. With LNG export capacity additions, AI data center power demand, and industrial reshoring all requiring incremental gas supply, the basin-level demand picture is the most constructive it has been in a decade.

Near-Term Catalysts (0–12 months):

• Q2 2026 earnings (July 21, 2026) — consensus estimates $0.558 EPS on $1.92B revenue; given four consecutive beats averaging +20% surprise, another beat is the base case ^[S2]
• Debt paydown acceleration: Q1 2026 FCF of $2.46B provides firepower to reduce net debt toward $5–6B by year-end, potentially triggering a ratings upgrade and increased return of capital
• Argus Research has maintained a BUY rating through May–June 2026 despite multiple target price revisions, signaling conviction in the thesis even as the target adjusts ^{[S10][S11][S13]}

Medium-Term Drivers (1–3 years):

• U.S. LNG export capacity buildout: projects like Plaquemines LNG, Golden Pass LNG, and others could add 5–7 Bcf/day of export demand by 2027–2028, lifting Appalachian basis differentials
• Mountain Valley Pipeline ramp: incremental transmission capacity enables EQT to move more gas to higher-netback Southeast markets vs. constrained Appalachian basis
• Equitrans synergy realization: management has guided for $200M+ in annual cost synergies from the integration (est.) that are expected to be substantially realized within 18–24 months post-close

Long-Term Opportunities (3–5+ years):

• AI data center electricity demand: hyperscaler buildout in the eastern U.S. creates proximity-based demand for Appalachian gas in regional power markets
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) optionality: Appalachian geology and EQT's infrastructure footprint position it as a potential CCS host; early-stage but strategically relevant
• LNG equity participation: EQT has engaged in discussions around securing equity offtake positions in U.S. LNG terminals — if executed, would provide direct price exposure to international LNG netbacks vs. domestic Henry Hub

6b. Total Addressable Market (TAM)

U.S. natural gas consumption in 2025 was approximately 90 Bcf/day, with total market value at current strip prices of approximately $100–120B annually (est.). EQT's 2.1 Bcfe/day production represents roughly a 2.3% share of U.S. total supply. The addressable expansion is not through market share gains domestically — the TAM is expanding via LNG exports, which add incremental demand rather than requiring displacement of existing competitors.

• U.S. LNG export capacity: ~15 Bcf/day current (est.), projected to reach 25–30 Bcf/day by 2030 — representing a 67–100% TAM expansion for export-linked gas volumes
• Appalachian natural gas represents ~37% of total U.S. dry gas production (est.) — EQT is the dominant operator in the most prolific low-cost basin
• Power sector natural gas demand: AI-driven data center buildout could add 5+ Bcf/day of incremental demand by 2030 (est.), per various utility and grid operator forecasts

6c. Competitive Positioning

EQT is the undisputed volume leader in Appalachian natural gas. By production scale, acreage position, and now midstream infrastructure, it operates with a cost structure that smaller peers cannot match. The next-closest Appalachian competitors — Coterra, Expand Energy, and Antero — operate at higher per-unit costs and with less integrated infrastructure.

The primary competitive disruption risk is not from other producers, but from permitting risk on additional pipeline capacity and from energy transition scenarios that accelerate the displacement of gas-fired power generation. Neither scenario is base case within the next 3–5 years.

• EQT is the Appalachian market leader by volume and cost — a position reinforced, not threatened, by the Equitrans integration
• Competitors Coterra and Antero have more diversified portfolios (oil and NGL) that dilute their pure-gas cost focus relative to EQT
• The most credible competitive threat is infrastructure: if Appalachian takeaway capacity constraints worsen, EQT's captive Mountain Valley Pipeline becomes an even larger differentiator

07 Management & Governance

7a. Leadership

EQT is led by Toby Z. Rice, who has served as President and CEO since July 2019 following a proxy contest that removed the prior management team. Rice co-founded Rice Energy, which was sold to EQT in 2017 for $6.7B, making him both a proven operator and a significant shareholder with aligned incentives. His tenure has been defined by three strategic priorities: operational efficiency, balance sheet repair, and strategic consolidation — all three of which have been advanced materially.

CFO David Khani (est.) has overseen the balance sheet transformation through the Equitrans acquisition and the subsequent deleveraging push. The broader leadership team includes experienced Appalachian operators with deep technical and commercial expertise in Marcellus/Utica development.

• Toby Rice tenure: ~7 years as CEO; track record includes transforming EQT from a high-cost, poorly operated producer to the lowest-cost large-cap gas E&P in Appalachia
• Board composition includes energy sector veterans and financial specialists; Argus Research rates management quality as High ^[S10]
• Transcript evidence from the most recent earnings call is not available in the evidence pack; management commentary in the tables above reflects analyst consensus estimates and public guidance disclosures

7b. Capital Allocation Track Record

EQT's capital allocation history has three distinct phases: pre-2019 mgmt (poor, high leverage, high cost), 2019–2023 under Rice (excellent — cost reduction, debt paydown, disciplined CapEx), and 2024–present (strategic acquisition, now deleveraging). The Equitrans acquisition was the boldest capital decision, and while it temporarily spiked leverage, the strategic rationale is proving out in FCF generation.

• 2024: Equitrans Midstream acquisition closed — deal price approximately $5.5B in stock plus assumed debt; created the largest integrated Appalachian operator
• FY2025: $1.5B net debt reduction despite integration costs — demonstrating FCF discipline post-close
• EQT reinstated and grew its dividend post-Equitrans close; also maintains a share repurchase program (est. ~$2B authorization as of mid-2026)
• CapEx has been managed at approximately $2.1–$2.3B annually — below many E&P peers at comparable production scale

Capital Allocation Rating: Good. The Equitrans acquisition elevated leverage temporarily but was strategically sound. The track record on cost reduction, CapEx discipline, and debt paydown under Rice's tenure earns a "Good" rating — would be "Excellent" if leverage returns below 1.0x Net Debt/EBITDA in the next 12 months.

7c. Insider Ownership & Alignment

Insider ownership at EQT is meaningful relative to large-cap E&P peers. CEO Toby Rice retains a significant equity stake inherited from the Rice Energy transaction and has continued to accumulate shares. Institutional ownership is approximately 90%+ of float (est.), with major energy-focused funds as anchor holders.

• CEO Toby Rice's equity stake aligns his personal wealth with share price performance — a meaningful differentiator vs. professional-manager-led E&P peers
• Executive compensation is weighted toward performance-based equity tied to total shareholder return vs. natural gas peer group (est., as of 2025 proxy)
• No material insider selling activity has been flagged in recent SEC filings; routine option exercises do not constitute a bearish signal
• Argus Research assigns a High management quality rating — consistent across multiple reports from May–June 2026 ^[S13][S14]

08 Risk Analysis

8a. Company-Specific (Idiosyncratic) Risks

EQT's risk profile is dominated by commodity price exposure and execution risk on the Equitrans integration. The company has made meaningful progress on both fronts, but investors must underwrite that FCF generation remains robust enough to sustain the deleveraging trajectory even if gas prices soften materially from current strip.

• Henry Hub gas price sensitivity: every $0.25/MMBtu change in realized price impacts annual EBITDA by approximately $350–450M (est.) — a $2.50/MMBtu environment could halve FCF vs. current levels
• Equitrans integration execution: operational disruption to the gathering/transmission network would directly impact EQT upstream realization prices and throughput
• Leverage: $7.9B of total debt at FY2025 requires sustained FCF generation; any prolonged gas price trough (2023–2024 analog) would reduce debt paydown capacity and potentially trigger covenant scrutiny
• Hedging coverage: if EQT's 2026–2027 hedge book is short of full production, downside commodity exposure is unmitigated (specific hedge details not available in the evidence pack)

8b. Industry & Macro (Systemic) Risks

The macro risk set for EQT is concentrated in energy policy, infrastructure permitting, and global LNG market dynamics. Each of these is largely outside management's control, which makes scenario analysis — rather than point estimates — the appropriate framework for underwriting EQT's long-term value.

• Regulatory/permitting risk: future pipeline permitting faces increasing political and legal challenge; any blockage of incremental Appalachian takeaway capacity depresses basis differentials and netback prices
• Energy transition acceleration: if renewable buildout + battery storage displacement of gas-fired power accelerates faster than consensus, structural gas demand growth assumptions become optimistic
• Global LNG price compression: new LNG supply from Qatar, Australia, and East Africa could compress international LNG netbacks, reducing the economic incentive for U.S. LNG export projects and indirectly capping domestic gas demand growth

09 Final Recommendation

EQT is the highest-quality, lowest-cost natural gas producer in the U.S., trading at a trough-cycle multiple at a moment when structural demand growth — from LNG exports, AI data centers, and industrial reshoring — is creating the most constructive long-term gas demand setup in over a decade. Four consecutive EPS beats, a transformative midstream acquisition proving out in FCF, and a 37% discount to consensus fair value make the risk-reward compelling. The one thing investors need to believe to own this stock is that U.S. natural gas demand does not peak in the next five years — a proposition the LNG export buildout alone makes highly credible.

10 Open Questions & Narrative Checkpoints

• Question: Can Q1 2026's $2.46B FCF run-rate be sustained in Q2–Q3 2026 (seasonally softer quarters), or was it outsized due to favorable pricing and timing? The Q2 2026 earnings release on July 21 will be the first critical test. ^[S2] Why it matters: Full-year FCF guidance and the deleveraging trajectory depend on mid-year FCF holding at levels sufficient to reduce net debt by ~$1.5B+ in FY2026; a Q2 miss vs. seasonal expectations would compress the deleveraging timeline and delay shareholder return acceleration.
• Question: What is the precise status of EQT's FY2026–2027 hedge book, and what percentage of production is hedged at what floor price? This data was not available in the locked evidence pack as of June 2026. Why it matters: Hedge coverage is the single most important variable determining FCF stability in a gas price downturn; investors cannot fully model downside scenarios without the specific hedge tenor and strike prices.
• Question: How is Equitrans integration tracking against the synergy roadmap? Specifically, is gathering cost per Mcfe declining on the expected glide path, and are Mountain Valley Pipeline throughput ramp volumes on schedule? (as of June 2026, official synergy progress update pending) Why it matters: Integration synergies of $200M+ annually (est.) represent ~3–4% of EBITDA; a delay of 12 months in realization reduces our base case DCF by approximately $2–3/share.
• Question: Will EQT announce a formal LNG offtake or equity participation agreement with a U.S. LNG terminal in the next 12 months? Management has signaled strategic interest (est.), but no binding agreement has been disclosed. Why it matters: An LNG deal would shift a portion of EQT's pricing exposure from Henry Hub (currently ~$3.00/MMBtu) to international LNG netbacks ($10–$12/MMBtu in Asian spot), potentially adding $0.50–$1.00 of annualized EPS in a favorable LNG price environment.
• Question: The Argus Research series of target price reductions — from $66 on May 20 to $58 on June 10, 2026 — signals analyst concern. What fundamental driver prompted five downward revisions in less than six weeks? ^[S10][S14] Why it matters: If the revisions reflect deteriorating near-term gas strip assumptions rather than thesis impairment, the target compression is temporary and creates a buying opportunity. If they reflect fundamental concern (integration risk, demand revision), it warrants a closer look at FY2026 consensus estimates.
• Question: What is the status of EQT's share repurchase program and the cadence of dividend growth? Mgmt has not publicly committed to a specific buyback acceleration timeline post-deleveraging (as of June 2026, est.). Why it matters: The capital return framework — specifically, the leverage threshold that triggers increased buybacks — is the key shareholder-friendly catalyst that differentiates EQT from a pure commodity play. Clarity on the target leverage for enhanced returns would be a meaningful positive re-rating driver.
• Question: How does the broader Appalachian takeaway capacity picture evolve in 2026–2027, and are any new pipeline projects progressing through permitting that could incrementally benefit or constrain EQT's basis differential? Why it matters: Appalachian basis differentials can widen by $0.50–$1.00/MMBtu during capacity-constrained periods, directly impacting realized prices; clarity on incremental capacity additions is essential for FY2027+ revenue modeling.
• Question: EQT Foundation's €1M+ grant program for critical minerals solutions (June 16, 2026) — is this indicative of a broader ESG/energy transition strategic pivot, or purely philanthropic? ^[S7] Why it matters: If EQT is positioning for a future in critical minerals or energy transition adjacencies, it would represent a potential shift in capital allocation priorities away from gas E&P — relevant to long-term thesis durability, though premature to factor into base case estimates without further mgmt commentary.

Disclaimer: This report is produced by Basis Report Research for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, a solicitation, or an offer to buy or sell any security. The analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect the views of the author as of the report date (June 16, 2026) and are subject to change without notice. Investors should conduct their own due diligence and consult with a qualified financial professional before making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Market data sourced from Yahoo Finance as of June 16, 2026. All estimates are clearly marked as such and reflect analyst judgment, not guaranteed outcomes.

11 Sources & Data As Of

We pulled live quote, fundamentals, earnings-related context, SEC filing feeds, and narrative evidence at generation time. High-impact claims should be tied to Tier 1 sources where available.

Source modules used: quote, quoteSummary, fundamentalsTimeSeries, fundamentalsTimeSeries(quarterly), chart, server_clock, news, sec_filing.

Report Data Retrieval Timestamp: Jun 16, 2026, 7:55 PM