Institutional Locked Card · Full-Audit IC Memo · At a Glance
Below is the structural layout of an Institutional Locked Card · Full Audit report (NVDA, illustrative data). Live reports are generated by the engine from your inputs and public sources, with every item bound to its source.
Enter your data → a full-audit card (v1)
Saved & owned; assumptions locked
New price / fundamentals → recompute, assumptions unchanged
Assumptions changed → new version (v2, v3…)
Below is a full sample Institutional Locked Card (NVDA, illustrative data) — the exact format the engine produces, following the fixed Module 0–13 structure. Every figure is computed deterministically in code.
NVDA Locked Assumption Card (Sample)
NVDA Sample Report (demonstration data, not real-time) — for illustration of output format and depth only; not investment advice. Live reports are generated by the engine from your inputs and public sources, with every item bound to its source.
- Ticker: NVDA · NVIDIA Corporation
- Version: v1 · Run Mode: New Valuation
- As-of date (ET): 2026-06-27 · Status: Formal Locked Assumption Card
- Framework: Institutional Valuation System · Policy: VALUATION_SAVE_POLICY_latest.md
Module 0 — Card Identity / Version / Save Governance
| Sub-Module | Content |
|---|---|
| Card Identity / Version | NVDA · NVIDIA Corporation · Formal Locked Assumption Card · v1 · New Valuation |
| Data Date / Write Date | User as-of date 2026-06-27 ET · technical write date is the GitHub commit timestamp |
| File Path Ledger | Archive locked_assumption_cards/NVDA/nvda_locked_assumption_card_2026-06-27.md; active ..._latest.md; registry active path same as above |
| Save-policy Compliance | Modules 0–13 complete; fact-status labels, caveats, and Change Permission Map applied; no prohibited technical-process language |
| Save Status | Data Refresh: No · Revision: No · Portfolio Strategy Change: No |
| Prohibited Artifact Check | Pass (no correction note, overwrite rationale, or summary-only substitute) |
Module 1 — Formal Status
| Sub-Module | Content |
|---|---|
| Formal Status | Formal Locked Assumption Card |
| Framework / Policy Basis | Institutional Valuation System / VALUATION_SAVE_POLICY_latest.md |
| Active-card Role | Serves as the active prior for subsequent data refresh, revision, monitoring, and PM/IC review |
| Caveat Treatment | The historical forward P/E range partly relies on public proxies, and AI capex ROI remains uncertain — both weigh on reliability and position discipline |
| Non-action Statement | This card is a New Valuation and does not alter portfolio strategy |
| Save Completeness | Complete |
Module 2 — Core Inputs & Source Governance
2.1 User-certified Broker Inputs
| Input | Value | Source/Definition | Change Permission |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current Price | 210.69 | User IBKR / Interactive Brokers displayed price | Refreshable |
| NTM Non-GAAP EPS | 9.96 | IBKR adjusted consensus estimate | Source-bound refresh only |
| FY1–FY5 EPS | 10.20 / 13.10 / 16.40 / 19.20 / 21.07 | IBKR Non-GAAP consensus | Source-bound refresh only |
| Required Return | 15.0% | User-defined | Locked unless changed by user |
| Current Position | 8% | User input | Refreshable |
2.6 Derived Calculation Ledger
| Metric | Formula | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Standard Forward P/E | 210.69 / 9.96 | 21.2x |
| H_eff | Analysis date → end of FY5 | 4.61 years |
| NTM→FY5 EPS Growth | (21.07/9.96)^(1/4.61)-1 | 16.6% CAGR |
The remaining sub-modules (2.2 Source Ledger / 2.3 Mandatory Retrieval Evidence / 2.4 Official Fact Extraction / 2.5 Fact-Lock Check) itemize sources such as SEC 10-Q filings, FRED rates, and FMP / peer multiples, together with their definitions and reliability, in the formal card.
Module 3 — Model & Horizon
| Sub-Module | Content |
|---|---|
| Model Selection | Primary model: NTM→FY5 effective-horizon IRR (EPS-based), with a high-capex / AI overlay |
| Sector / Business Playbook | Mature, highly profitable platform in an AI / data-center capex cycle |
| NTM→FY Bridge | As-of date 2026-06-27; fiscal year-end convention; endpoint FY5; H_eff 4.61y; base EPS 9.96; terminal EPS 21.07; no FY6 |
| EPS Path Table | FY1 10.20 / FY2 13.10 / FY3 16.40 / FY4 19.20 / FY5 21.07 (IBKR Non-GAAP) |
| EPS Reconciliation | NTM 9.96 (standard denominator); FY5 21.07 (endpoint); GAAP used for cross-check only, not blended in |
Module 4 — Objective Anchor Ledger
| Anchor | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Historical Multiples | 3Y / 5Y forward P/E range (public proxy): ~22–34x; current 21.2x sits at the low end |
| Peers | Accelerated-computing peers such as AMD and AVGO; differences in quality, growth, and market share require adjustment |
| Rates / Macro | 10Y ~4.4%; long-duration assets are rate-sensitive |
| Cash Flow / ROIC | FCF is strong and ROIC is high, but rising capex means the terminal multiple requires stronger cash-flow evidence |
| Reverse-Implied | The current price implies an FY5 EPS and terminal multiple within an achievable range; fair entry price (15% required return) ~245.5 |
| Market-Implied Proxy | Secondary reference only; not treated as a real-world probability |
Module 5 — Locked Scenario Assumptions
5.1 Scenario Engine
| Scenario | Probability | Terminal EPS | Terminal P/E | Terminal Value/Share | IRR | Lock Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull | 25% | 23.50 | 27x | 634.50 | 27.0% | AI demand outstrips supply; capacity and the software moat materialize |
| Base | 45% | 21.07 | 24x | 505.68 | 20.9% | IBKR FY5 path achieved; multiple sustained on quality |
| Bear | 20% | 16.50 | 19x | 313.50 | 9.0% | Customer in-sourcing and intensifying competition slow growth, driving multiple compression |
| Stress | 10% | 12.50 | 15x | 187.50 | -2.5% | Demand-cycle downturn, stranded capex, and sharp multiple compression |
IRR = (terminal value / price)^(1/4.61) − 1. Probability-weighted terminal value = 467.63; probability-weighted IRR = 18.9%.
5.6 Assumption Fingerprint Ledger
Complete input, source, driver, probability, assumption, and evidence fingerprints (used to prevent drift across refreshes).
Module 6 — Locked Valuation Outputs
| Output | Value |
|---|---|
| Current Price / NTM EPS / Forward P/E | 210.69 / 9.96 / 21.2x |
| Base IRR | 20.9% |
| Probability-Weighted IRR | 18.9% |
| Required Return | 15.0% |
| Return Spread | +3.9 pp |
| Valuation State | Undervalued |
| Action Label | Selective Buy |
| Portfolio Fit | Current 8% position; limited room to add; scaling in is preferable |
| Reliability Score | 7.8 / 10 |
| Reverse-Implied | Fair entry price (15% required return) ~245.5; current price of 210.69 sits below fair value → undervalued |
Module 7 — Dynamic Forward P/E Zones
| Required IRR | Entry Price | Entry Forward P/E | Zone |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20.0% | 201.78 | 20.3x | Deep undervaluation / core-add review |
| 18.0% | 218.04 | 21.9x | Buy / add |
| 15.0% | 245.52 | 24.7x | Fair value at required return |
| 12.0% | 277.34 | 27.8x | Rich / upper bound |
| Current | 210.69 | 21.2x | Undervalued (IRR 18.9%) |
Action Label Cap: jointly constrained by valuation state, reliability, downside, and position size; Stress-case downside ~-11%.
Module 8 — Cross-Check Status
| Sub-Module | Conclusion |
|---|---|
| DCF / FCF Check | FCF is strong and FCF yield is reasonable; supports the current-price range (non-binding, no veto) |
| Normalized FCF / Capex Bridge | Rising capex depresses near-term FCF, but growth capex supports FY3–FY5 EPS |
| SOTP | Data-center, gaming, and other segments share similar economics and are already captured in the EPS-IRR model; no standalone SOTP required |
| High-Capex / AI Overlay | High capex intensity; the Bull case incorporates capacity upside, while the Base case does not automatically re-rate the multiple |
| Capital Return / Dilution Reconciliation | SBC dilution reflected via the multiple and probability weighting; no double-counting |
| Model Conflict Ledger | Primary EPS-IRR model consistent with the DCF and reverse-implied checks; no material conflict |
Module 9 — Thesis / Anti-thesis / Kill Criteria
- Key Thesis: The accelerated-computing platform (GPU + CUDA + networking + software) has a deep moat; AI and data-center demand drive FY5 EPS to 21.07.
- Anti-thesis: Large customers developing in-house ASICs and alternative accelerators, unproven capex ROI, and terminal-multiple compression as growth slows.
- Kill Criteria: Data-center growth falling below threshold while capex stays high; a sharp downward revision to FY5 consensus; structural multiple compression.
- Variant View: The market's central debate is the sustainability of AI capex, which requires 2–3 quarters of margin and market-share evidence to resolve.
Module 10 — Review Triggers
| Trigger | Workflow |
|---|---|
| Price Trigger | ≤218 add-review · ≤202 core add · >277 rich, no add |
| EPS / Estimate Trigger | NTM / FY path revision → data refresh or revision |
| FCF / Capex Trigger | Capex not converting to FCF → Bear-case review |
| Business Trigger | Data-center demand, market-share, and competitive evidence |
| Macro / Rate Trigger | Sustained rise in the 10Y → terminal-multiple review |
| Revision Trigger Mapping | Price change only → Data Refresh; change in long-term assumptions → Revision |
Module 11 — Change Permission Map
| Field | Permission |
|---|---|
| Price / Position / Timestamp | Updatable in a Data Refresh |
| NTM EPS / FY1–FY5 EPS | Source-bound refresh only |
| Scenario Probabilities / Terminal Multiples / Thesis / Kill Criteria / DCF Structure | Locked until the next adopted Revision |
| Required Return | Locked unless changed by user |
| Version Rule | v1 active; vN takes effect only after a Revision is adopted |
Module 12 — Reliability / Caveats / PM-IC Consistency
12.1 Reliability Table
| Dimension | Score | Deduction Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Data | 8.0 | User IBKR source binding plus partially current official facts |
| Definition | 8.5 | EPS definition is clear |
| Assumption | 7.5 | Scenario probabilities and multiples are evidence-based judgments |
| Model | 7.5 | Primary model is robust; historical multiples partly rely on public proxies |
| Risk / Decision | 7.5 | Risks identified; decision driven by the 15% required return |
| Overall | 7.8 | Historical-multiple anchoring is partially constrained |
12.3 PM/IC Consistency Check
Run Mode, inputs, H_eff, no FY6, assumptions, return spread, Action Label cap, cross-checks, and caveats — all Pass.
Module 13 — Decision Journal
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Run ID | NVDA-NV-20260627 |
| Date / Ticker / Run Mode | 2026-06-27 / NVDA / New Valuation |
| Model / Inputs / H_eff | EPS-IRR (NTM→FY5) / price 210.69, NTM EPS 9.96 / 4.61y |
| IRR / Return Spread / State | Probability-weighted 18.9% / +3.9 pp / Undervalued |
| Action / Position | Selective Buy; current 8%, scale in |
| Key Locked Assumptions | FY5 EPS 21.07; terminal multiples 27/24/19/15x; probabilities 25/45/20/10; required return 15% |
| Caveats / Missing Data | Historical forward P/E is partly a public proxy |
| Next Review Trigger | Quarterly earnings (data-center margin and direction of EPS revisions) |
Note — This is an Institutional Locked Card (full-audit sample). With a subscription, you can generate a card like this for any stock you hold, save it as a Locked Card you own, and refresh, revise, and review it as new data arrives.
Once saved, you maintain the card over time from My Cards → open the card. Two one-click actions:
New price / fundamentals come in → the card recomputes IRR, Return Spread and Action Label, while long-term assumptions stay locked.
e.g. price $210.69 → $232.10 · Return Spread +3.9pp → +1.6pp · same v1 card
Evidence shows the thesis genuinely changed → generate a new version (v2) with revised assumptions, while v1 stays in your history for audit.
e.g. terminal multiple 24x → 21x · issues card v2, keeps v1
These are Pro-member actions. Start a free Snapshot, or subscribe to create and maintain Locked Cards.
The Change Permission Map and Decision Journal above are the most distinctive parts of this card—the entire card is saved as an asset you own (your platform account or your own GitHub). Going forward, a Data Refresh simply updates price and earnings while long-term assumptions stay fixed; a Revision generates a new version only when the evidence genuinely changes. It turns a one-off valuation into an investment you can hold, review, and update as evidence evolves. This is the fundamental difference between Valoreto and asking an AI once and moving on.
Why You Need a Locked Card →