Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Analyst
Bill Appicelli
Period: Reporting periods mapped to calendar 2024 Q4 – 2026 Q1 (6 quarters).
- Questions
- 73on tracked calls
- Challenge rate
- 0%none of 73 questions
- Companies
- 18questioned at least once
- Reporting periods
- 6with questions
These figures cover the whole profile: every tracked question, all reporting periods.
How to read these numbers
Challenge rate is the share of questions that pushed back, pressed for specifics or questioned management’s assumptions. It describes how questions were asked on the calls tracked here; it does not measure whether any view turned out to be right.
Rounding. Rates are rounded to whole percentages, so a small share can show as 0% even when some questions were challenging. The count beside each rate is exact; “none of N questions” means no question was challenging.
No questions recorded. “—” means there is nothing to calculate: no questions were recorded for that period on the calls tracked here. It does not mean there was no activity.
Fewer than 3 questions. A company-level rate is withheld when fewer than 3 questions were recorded for that company; the questions are still counted everywhere else.
Small samples. Profiles with fewer than 10 questions are marked Limited sample.
Reporting periods. Questions are grouped by the calendar quarter each company’s fiscal reporting period maps to, not by the date of the call. Periods without a calendar mapping are listed separately under their fiscal label.
Questions asked
Grouped by company, most questions first. Open a company to read its questions, newest reporting period first.
Showing 73 of 73 questions from 18 companies
NINiSource8 questions · 4 reporting periods · 0 of 8 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
How is that resonating with the customer base and stakeholders on the political and regulatory front?
Show response
Lloyd confirmed model well received by customers and regulators. $124/year real savings plus job creation and community benefits. Positioned as competitive advantage.
how should we think about the resource mix in terms of additional generation to be built versus purchases? And related, how should we think about the incremental earnings benefit?
Show response
Shawn clarified earnings accretion is not linear but project-specific. Bespoke solutions per customer with updates at each deal announcement. Model allows both owned generation and capacity purchases.
Calendar 2025 Q4
Can you maybe explain a little bit around the significance of of senate bill one three and what that could mean for large load customer opportunities in Ohio
Show response
Shawn confirmed no Ohio data center upside in current plan. Working on optimization following December regulatory outcome and new law. Could fold in throughout 2026 without waiting for full plan refresh.
should the expectation be you know, smaller contract sizes moving forward, or any thoughts there of how you guys are are framing out the the size and scale
Show response
Lloyd declined to disclose specific sizes. Michael emphasized criteria-driven approach: balance sheet maintenance, speed to market, customer benefit. Deal size secondary to capability and contract agreement quality.
Calendar 2025 Q3
is it practical from just a planning perspective to assume that some of this could be stood up within this window of through '33
Show response
Lloyd directly confirmed additional pipeline opportunities can be realized within 2033 timeframe. Further confirmed it could drive higher EPS upside. Clear two-word affirmation.
if you could speak a little bit to maybe what the return profile or capital structure assumptions are within the GenCo
Show response
Shawn confirmed returns above NIPSCO regulated ROE but exact ROE confidential. IURC approved capital structure flexibility. Three financing priorities: 14-16% FFO/debt, safe construction cash flows, maximize shareholder value.
Calendar 2025 Q1
speak to exposure around any potential issues with the IRA as it relates to renewable tax credits and transferability
Show response
Only Templeton extends beyond 2025. Tax transferability impact limited to 40-60 bps annually. Balance sheet strength cushions any change without altering financing plan.
is it prudent or is it a preferred outcome to have sort of visibility on the declination filing before filing a special contract
Show response
Acknowledged Genco as preferred path but noted multiple mechanisms exist regardless. Highlighted SB 1007 and other alternatives. Genco best meets all stakeholder needs.
PEGPublic Service Enterprise Group7 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 7 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q4
where in the spectrum would those fall? And what types of projects are we talking about there
Show response
LaRossa identified three buckets above the base plan: PJM transmission, solar-readiness distribution investment, and regulated generation. Cregg emphasized the base plan has no single large project, it is end-of-life replacement work.
what is embedded, you know, in the plan in the six to eight? On that front
Show response
Cregg described the approach: start with inflationary baseline (3%), then pull back through cost-cutting to 2-2.25%. Labor agreements through 2027 are embedded. LaRossa characterized it as relatively flat with inflation, offset by efficiency gains.
Calendar 2025 Q3
how do you evaluate the framework for that, right? Would this be in terms of evaluating how much generation you potentially would need
Show response
LaRossa outlined multiple procurement frameworks (BPU auction, FRR) but emphasized all start with answering four fundamental questions: load forecast, reliability targets, emissions profiles, and definition of affordability.
can you maybe just speak to where you see those relative to maybe your fundamental view or at least relative to where the PTC floor is
Show response
Cregg characterized recent forward curve strength as fundamentally driven by staggering load growth projections and slow supply response. Bullish outlook appears more than temporary, though forwards remain the forwards.
is there an opportunity here in the veto session to push for some legislation that could support this
Show response
LaRossa acknowledged lame-duck legislation is possible based on NJ precedent. Personally would like to see faster state action for both affordability and economic development reasons.
Calendar 2025 Q1
just maybe a little bit more color around what that means. Is that flexibility around being on grid or the timeline
Show response
Cregg explained counterparties want regulatory certainty about interconnection rules before finalizing deals. Settlement would provide the best answer as it involves actual participants.
what are you guys seeing on the adoption for demand response
Show response
LaRossa noted demand response is limited by PSE&G's predominantly residential profile. Programs focus on thermostat management and energy efficiency rather than industrial curtailment.
VSTVistra Corp.7 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 7 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
is that generally aero derivatives? Is that what you're looking at there
Show response
Burke said they are technology-agnostic, engaging multiple OEMs. Dore confirmed this flexibility is a Vistra advantage, they match technology to customer needs.
what do you think is driving that sort of mispricing that you see in the curve
Show response
Burke identified battery oversupply, low volatility weather, and uncertainty about load connection pace as drivers. Stuckey added ERCOT forwards trade off near-term weather and pricing.
Calendar 2025 Q3
How would you consider pursuing that? Does that have to come with offtake agreements or contracting of that output
Show response
Burke confirmed nuclear uprates need customer support, current forwards alone don't justify the investment. Data center parties interested in uprate capacity given clean attributes. Online dates in early 2030s align with customers' longer-term planning.
maybe just some updated thoughts around where the curves are and as you sort of look out to the demand profile
Show response
Burke noted ERCOT showing more life in forwards but still not reflecting conservative load growth forecast. PJM energy curves haven't moved as much but capacity has. West Texas hub now trading at premium to north hub, supporting Permian peaker economics.
Calendar 2025 Q2
the investment grade over the next 12 to 18 months, can you just speak to that as to what you need to achieve?
Show response
Moldovan expects material deleveraging from debt repayment plus higher EBITDA. Targets materially below 3x leverage. Views investment grade as warranted and incrementally positive for stakeholders.
your views on the PJM capacity auction clearing at the cap and where maybe we go from here from a policy perspective
Show response
Burke gave extensive response: cost of new build has more than doubled in 5 years, so higher auction clears are necessary to incent investment. Customer bill impact of this clear is about 2%. Market is responding with new supply.
Can you just put some more color around that? I assume this is driven by the OBBB depreciation improvements
Show response
Moldovan quantified FCF conversion improvement at approximately 3pp per year (~$200M annually at $6.8-7B EBITDA), cumulating to ~$1B over 5 years. Benefit is lumpy, more weighted to 2027-2029.
AEEAmeren5 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q4
Is that something you would look to do on a future quarterly call, or would that need to wait
Show response
Lyons signaled willingness to update guidance mid-year given accelerating pace, citing IRP update and clearer sales forecasts as upcoming catalysts.
how you guys view this updated plan in terms of customer bill impact? I guess, particularly in Missouri
Show response
Lyons emphasized O&M discipline vs inflation, SB4 requirement for data centers to pay fair share, and hope that over time data center load will benefit remaining customers.
The 3.4 gigawatts of construction agreements, I guess, that is inclusive of the 2.2 ESAs, right?
Show response
Moehn confirmed 3.4 GW includes 2.2 GW ESAs, with remaining 1.2 GW at various stages of development.
Calendar 2024 Q4
Can you just share some details around that? Is that going to have minimum load commitments for a set period of time?
Show response
Lyons said it's premature to detail exact structure but confirmed discussions are going well and existing customers would be neutral at minimum.
any update on how you're feeling around maybe the possibility of settling the rate case in this upcoming window?
Show response
Moehn expressed optimism about constructive settlement discussions, citing manageable gap between staff's $398M and AEE's $446M request.
DTEDTE Energy5 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
Is there anything market conditions wise there we should focus on? Or should we just assume that you're going to be able to fully maximize the earnings potential there at RNG
Show response
CFO noted $50-60M assumptions are conservative with production at high levels. DOE/Treasury still working through rules. Saw upside in 2025 from conservative start. Waiting on rule clarity before adjusting 2026 outlook.
how should we think about that? Can you just remind us on how you would finance that?
Show response
CFO confirmed ~40% equity on average for incremental capital plus converts and hybrids. Acknowledged asset recycling now more attractive given equity needs but nothing imminent. Traditional funding assumed for now.
Calendar 2025 Q3
what is the potential upside for investment there should more supportive regulation and decisions come your way around -- in terms of just the capital outlook on that mechanism?
Show response
CEO confirmed staff supported $1B IRM beginning 2027 and suggested $200M pull-forward of pole-top maintenance into existing 2026 IRM. Intent to continue growing IRM in future cases.
when you guys say bias to the upper end, that's with the plan as it stands here today? Or would that need to require some additional capital to push you to the upper end?
Show response
CFO confirmed 6-8% with upper-end bias is the base plan as presented; additional data centers would be upside. 45Z flexibility extends even to 2030 through pull-forward of expenses from prior years.
Calendar 2024 Q4
you guys would be comfortable, you know, targeting or, you know, being disappointed if you're not sort of at the high end of the range over this forecast
Show response
CEO confirmed comfort with 6-8% long-term, with upside from data centers as the most glaring opportunity beyond that.
ESEversource Energy5 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q4
as far as the tax benefits from South Fork and how much of that is reflected in earnings for 2026
Show response
Moreira confirmed $500M South Fork ITC still unused. Will enable essentially no federal cash taxes through tail end of forecast period. ITC credits are cash-only, no P&L impact. 2026 tax benefits will not be at same level as 2025.
upper half toward the upper half, I guess, one that just to be clear, that means, you know, into the upper half in 2028
Show response
Moreira confirmed upper half means over 6% growth off 2027 earnings into 2028. No risk of rebasing off lower 2026 number. 2026 is a transformation year with 2027 as the normalized base.
any other, you know, color you can give on drivers, you know, into 2027 because of sort of the importance of that
Show response
Moreira pointed to Slide 17 showing major 2027 drivers: CL&P rate case filing mid-2026 with rates mid-2027, storm cost securitization cash in 2027, Aquarion resolution. All major overhangs solidified in 2026 providing momentum into 2027 and beyond.
Calendar 2024 Q4
can you just sort of outline the drivers of some of the acceleration to get you back in that 5% to 7%
Show response
Moreira identified four growth drivers: $2B deferred storm cost recovery, constructive rate mechanisms, O&M discipline, and holding company debt reduction from Aquarion proceeds.
you mentioned the minimal cash tax payments through 2028. Can you just maybe expand upon that and on what's driving that
Show response
Moreira explained R&D credits used in 2023-2024, with South Fork ITC of roughly $500 million still available to offset $150-170 million annual tax obligation through 2027-2028.
Show 12 more companies
LNTAlliant Energy5 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
So the CT you are talking about today is 1.1 gigawatts
Show response
Barton confirmed contract for up to 1.1 GW CT. Resource mix is primarily batteries and peakers, not baseload CCGTs. Iowa wind-rich region provides energy; CTs and batteries provide capacity and speed to market.
Does that differ from what your baseline assumes? I would assume the net capacity value of the installed base would be somewhat less and require more generation
Show response
Barton confirmed MISO accreditation changes are modeled but declined specifics. Cleaner line of sight expected by Q3. Dynamic modeling includes load, reliability, environmental changes.
Calendar 2025 Q3
What are the assumptions here in terms of earned returns? Is it just at your authorized across the plan
Show response
Durian confirmed Iowa plan assumes authorized return only. Construct provides upside sharing if returns exceed authorized. Gas side requires future rate cases.
what that could mean for the trajectory of earnings above that 7% as the load starts to come on to the system
Show response
Barton confirmed 7%+ means at least 7-8% before upside from additional data center opportunities. Timing of load ramp creates some lumpiness.
is there anything else to think about when you walk that back to earnings growth
Show response
Durian explained 12% is rate base (10%) plus CWIP (2%). Gap to 7-8% EPS driven by equity dilution, conservative interest rate assumptions, and modest regulatory lag.
WECWEC Energy Group5 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 5 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q3
Was there any additional offsets there or anything that came out?
Show response
Only offset is removal of WEC Infrastructure investments. Back-end loaded capital deployment explains gap.
from an affordability perspective, what's embedded in this plan in terms of the -- on the electric side in terms of average annual rate increases
Show response
Targeting inflation-level increases. Emphasized VLC customers pay their own costs. Rate case filing expected early 2026.
Calendar 2024 Q4
what should we make of the decision when we get it? I mean does that have any impact on the gas CapEx outlook in Illinois
Show response
Explained current $90M annual plan could ramp to $300M if SMP restored, but ramp would take time for permitting and contracting.
how quickly can that be developed? I mean, there's a lot of talk in the market about just the lead times
Show response
Provided realistic 3-4 year timeline for greenfield data center with generation and transmission.
can you just remind us of what the generation capacity looks like, and when you factor in the combustion turbines
Show response
Confirmed no excess capacity; additional data center demand would require new generation investment.
ETREntergy4 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 4 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
is the $14 billion of incremental capital entirely attributable to the expansion of that agreement
Show response
Drew clarified that while $14B is the key driver, other additions like Cottonwood were also included since the last update.
when should the full earnings run rate be realized on the meta expansion? Is that -- I know you're talking about the CODs are in
Show response
Kimberly confirmed CCCTs come online in 2030-2031, with full capital deployment by 2031. Longer-term visibility to be discussed at Investor Day.
Calendar 2025 Q2
on the tariff structure in Arkansas for the new large load customer, maybe you could just speak to that
Show response
CFO detailed Arkansas infrastructure rider: timely recovery, good credit support, enables growth beyond 4% cap. Benefits all parties for economic development.
how much additional headroom would you say you have before you would need to contemplate issuing equity in terms of the CapEx upside
Show response
CFO framed answer in terms of process rather than specific headroom. Each capital increment evaluated against cash flows and equity needs at 10-15% run rate.
NEENextEra Energy4 questions · 3 reporting periods · 0 of 4 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
can you just speak a little bit to the gas generation build contracting
Show response
Bolster identified EPC labor as the primary constraint, noting only 4 EPC contractors remain versus 9-11 historically. Same firms also building LNG terminals and data centers. Permitting reform also critical for both linear facilities and generation.
you've seen some strong progression here from about 3 gigs in Q3 to 3.6 to now 4 gig
Show response
Bolster clarified backlog growth reflects fundamental demand, not tax credit pull-forward. Acceleration from tax credit expiration hasn't started yet, implying further upside to the 4 GW quarterly run rate.
Calendar 2025 Q3
Where can that go potentially in terms of just from a capability, supply chain perspective?
Show response
John cited supply chain positioning on batteries, transformers, switchgear as natural competitive advantage in pull-forward years. Historically fared well on market share in pull-forward periods. Large load solutions incremental to bread-and-butter origination. Armando said FPL large load is later-this-decade opportunity with active engineering studies.
Calendar 2025 Q1
how should we think about that impacting the capital expenditure program relative to the $34 billion to $37 billion
Show response
Armando confirmed $50B CapEx over 4 years consistent with rate case filing. FPL expects 335,000 new customers over 4 years. Settlement possible 6 weeks before to right after mid-August technical hearings. 11.6% ROE expectation for the year based on normal weather.
AEPAmerican Electric Power3 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 3 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
you guys feel confident that there's not going to be any revisions to that at this point in terms of tightening
Show response
Fehrman expressed confidence in AEP's PJM load forecast position with respect to cost allocation requirements.
you would be interested in submitting bids for under a bilateral fully contracted structure. Is that what I heard
Show response
Fehrman was cautious, saying they will assess unregulated business opportunities but need to see final rules before committing.
how much of this incremental capital should be reflected in earnings in 2030
Show response
Mihalik confirmed the $10B is upside to the greater than 9% CAGR, with Piketon assets needing construction by 2028. Emphasis on under-promise and over-deliver.
CNPCenterPoint Energy3 questions · 2 reporting periods · 0 of 3 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
maybe you could just expand on how the firm load commitments you guys have fit within that framework
Show response
Wells explained 3.2 GW already approved qualifies for baseline. 9 GW filing will qualify for Batch 0 with load studies on track for ERCOT approval. Customers have land, fees, long-lead equipment, and signed power users.
what are you guys seeing in terms of the penetration of battery storage in your service territory
Show response
Wells noted significant battery investment has changed summer peak pricing in ERCOT. About 9 GW of generation connecting to Greater Houston region, largely solar and batteries. Tax credit expiration timeline may slow solar/battery build-out toward end of decade, with gas development filling in.
Calendar 2025 Q2
the $2.75 billion of equity or equity-like then plus the Ohio asset sale that you've highlighted, right
Show response
Foster confirmed: $2.75B equity plan with 1/3 already derisked via forward sales. Ohio sale specifically funds the $5.5B increase. No additional asset sales contemplated. Indiana rate case catch-up as example of operating cash flow improvement.
CMSCMS Energy2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q4
It looks like the D&A in '28, '29 is about $100 million lower than the prior guide
Show response
Rejji attributed the lower D&A to asset mix, noting distribution assets have longer lives than generation assets. Committed to follow up with more detail via IR.
maybe you just unpack a bit when we think about 10.5% rate base growth
Show response
Rejji outlined three affordability levers: CE Way savings ($100M+ annually), high-priced PPA roll-offs and coal retirements, and economic development load growth. Each GW of data center conversion drives about 2 points of bill CAGR reduction. Described economic development as the third leg of the affordability stool.
EXCExelon2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q1
where do you guys stand in terms of addressing the resource adequacy concerns as you look out to the amount of load that wants to come on over the next, call it five to seven years?
Show response
Calvin advocated portfolio approach including delay of closings, new gas, utility-owned generation. Jeanne added emphasis on energy efficiency, distributed resources, and demand response.
on the lessons learned docket, can you just remind us on the timeline and maybe what's the range of outcomes there?
Show response
Calvin expressed confidence in continuing NYPs, noted legislative support and anticipated lessons learned decision by end of Q2. Emphasized forward-looking construct's cost benefits.
FEFirstEnergy2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q1
as far as the some timing around clarity from FERC, I mean, you know, commissioner Christie or chairman Christie has been clear to move quickly
Show response
Tierney expects months-long process with FERC technical conference in June, doesn't think it needs to spill into next year.
can you just remind us what's in the plan, the base capital plan? And then what does the IRP represent
Show response
Tierney detailed WV generation plans: 1-4 combined cycles of ~1000 MW each at $1B+, could replace Fort Martin/Harrison or support incremental economic development.
NRGNRG Energy2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q4
how you guys are evaluating the creditworthiness of the counterparties on some of these data center deals
Show response
Rob Gaudette confirmed targeting the most creditworthy subset of hyperscalers, monitoring the same credit reports as investors.
can you maybe just unpack a little bit of how much of that is actually unallocated?
Show response
Bruce Chung indicated most of the $2.2B is committed to existing organic growth plans, not a significant source for data center project funding.
PPLPPL Corporation2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q2
should we think about this as utilizing incremental leverage and seeking returns in excess of regulated rate of returns on these projects within the JV?
Show response
Sorgi said JV likely financed like utility cap structure, returns slightly above regulated due to marginally higher risk. Blackstone could add leverage above JV level.
what is your preferred solution here? Because on 1 hand, we've got some of the bills pending in Pennsylvania. You've got the JV that you're now pursuing as well
Show response
Sorgi provided detailed rationale for JV: IPPs won't build as it cannibalizes existing fleet value, only 1,200MW dispatchable gen in PA PJM queue, and PPL is signing data center load almost weekly.
SOSouthern Company2 questions · 1 reporting period · 0 of 2 challenging
Calendar 2025 Q2
what are you baking in? Is the expectation that these costs are going to continue to increase materially
Show response
Poroch acknowledged upward pricing pressure but said they have reservations and fees in place. Womack added there's a lot of demand creating upward cost pressure in the marketplace.
the outlook is to see where you shake out in the current 5% to 7% through '27, right? And then rebates the 5% to 7% off of that number
Show response
Poroch confirmed the framework but wouldn't pin a specific date. Need to see continuing momentum solidify and be sustainable before rebasing the set point within 5-7%.
Challenge rate by company
Every company this analyst questioned, most questions first. A company-level rate is shown from 3 questions; below that it is withheld.
| Company | Questions | Challenge rate |
|---|---|---|
| NI NiSource | 8 | 0%none of 8 questions |
| PEG Public Service Enterprise Group | 7 | 0%none of 7 questions |
| VST Vistra Corp. | 7 | 0%none of 7 questions |
| AEE Ameren | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| DTE DTE Energy | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| ES Eversource Energy | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| LNT Alliant Energy | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| WEC WEC Energy Group | 5 | 0%none of 5 questions |
| ETR Entergy | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions |
| NEE NextEra Energy | 4 | 0%none of 4 questions |
- NINiSource · 8 questions0%none of 8 questions
- PEGPublic Service Enterprise Group · 7 questions0%none of 7 questions
- VSTVistra Corp. · 7 questions0%none of 7 questions
- AEEAmeren · 5 questions0%none of 5 questions
- DTEDTE Energy · 5 questions0%none of 5 questions
- ESEversource Energy · 5 questions0%none of 5 questions
- LNTAlliant Energy · 5 questions0%none of 5 questions
- WECWEC Energy Group · 5 questions0%none of 5 questions
- ETREntergy · 4 questions0%none of 4 questions
- NEENextEra Energy · 4 questions0%none of 4 questions
Show all 18 companies
| Company | Questions | Challenge rate |
|---|---|---|
| AEP American Electric Power | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions |
| CNP CenterPoint Energy | 3 | 0%none of 3 questions |
| CMS CMS Energy | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| EXC Exelon | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| FE FirstEnergy | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| NRG NRG Energy | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| PPL PPL Corporation | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
| SO Southern Company | 2 | —Rate withheld: fewer than 3 questions |
- AEPAmerican Electric Power · 3 questions0%none of 3 questions
- CNPCenterPoint Energy · 3 questions0%none of 3 questions
- CMSCMS Energy · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- EXCExelon · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- FEFirstEnergy · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- NRGNRG Energy · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- PPLPPL Corporation · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
- SOSouthern Company · 2 questions—rate withheld: under 3 questions
Activity by reporting period
Questions recorded for each calendar quarter that companies’ reporting periods map to (not the call date), with the challenge rate for that period. Periods inside the range with no questions are shown as “No questions recorded”.
| Calendar period | Questions | Challenge rate | Companies |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Q4 | 8 | 0%none of 8 questions | 4 |
| 2025 Q1 | 9 | 0%none of 9 questions | 5 |
| 2025 Q2 | 10 | 0%none of 10 questions | 5 |
| 2025 Q3 | 15 | 0%none of 15 questions | 7 |
| 2025 Q4 | 14 | 0%none of 14 questions | 6 |
| 2026 Q1 | 17 | 0%none of 17 questions | 8 |
- 2024 Q48 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 8 questions) · 4 companies
- 2025 Q19 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 9 questions) · 5 companies
- 2025 Q210 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 10 questions) · 5 companies
- 2025 Q315 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 15 questions) · 7 companies
- 2025 Q414 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 14 questions) · 6 companies
- 2026 Q117 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 17 questions) · 8 companies
Topics
Topics tagged on this analyst’s questions.
- Regulation Policy31
- Capex Investment21
- Demand14
- Revenue Growth12
- Capital Allocation10
- Guidance Reliability9
- Margin9
- Supply Chain5
- Competitive Dynamics4
- Cloud & AI4
Show all 17 topics
- Cost Pressure4
- Pricing4
- Innovation & R&D3
- Credit2
- Macroeconomic2
- Labor Market1
- Subscriber Growth1