Recent well liked threads
I’m starting a new series: Working Notes.
Twitter is full of beautiful, finished design artifacts.
But this is about the tiny heuristics, visual judgment calls, and lessons learned from my time at IDEO and running my design practice.
With all the mistakes and re-do’s.
The stuff that helps you escape junior mode.
aaaand best unexpected thing: I got a cool partner for this series, who cares about the next generation of designers - @framer!
let's go - bookmark this tweet so you can come back to the thread!
Twitter is full of beautiful, finished design artifacts.
But this is about the tiny heuristics, visual judgment calls, and lessons learned from my time at IDEO and running my design practice.
With all the mistakes and re-do’s.
The stuff that helps you escape junior mode.
aaaand best unexpected thing: I got a cool partner for this series, who cares about the next generation of designers - @framer!
let's go - bookmark this tweet so you can come back to the thread!
Tip #1 (this one works for me EVERY TIME)
Does your layout feel meh or too safe? Are you stuck?
Try this:
Take one element and make it HUGE.
It’ll break the composition in a good way and help you unstuck and find a new direction fast.
Does your layout feel meh or too safe? Are you stuck?
Try this:
Take one element and make it HUGE.
It’ll break the composition in a good way and help you unstuck and find a new direction fast.
Tip #1 (p2)
Often, the layout feels off because everything is kinda the same size.
Playing with scale introduces hierarchy, tension, and direction.
In this example of a web hero section that I built with @framer, I made the image / button / type HUGE.
You can always dial it back later.
But, first: break it.
Often, the layout feels off because everything is kinda the same size.
Playing with scale introduces hierarchy, tension, and direction.
In this example of a web hero section that I built with @framer, I made the image / button / type HUGE.
You can always dial it back later.
But, first: break it.
Ya limpiaste la energía de la puerta de entrada de tu casa? 🔥🐎
No esperes más: antes del 17/2 activá la abundancia del Caballo de Fuego.
“Feng Shui”
Si la puerta está bloqueada, la abundancia también 🐎🔥
Dale RT y compartí abundancia
Hilo 🧵
No esperes más: antes del 17/2 activá la abundancia del Caballo de Fuego.
“Feng Shui”
Si la puerta está bloqueada, la abundancia también 🐎🔥
Dale RT y compartí abundancia
Hilo 🧵
El 17 de febrero inicia el Año Nuevo Chino
y entra la energía del Caballo de Fuego:
avance, oportunidades y expansión. 🔥🐎
y entra la energía del Caballo de Fuego:
avance, oportunidades y expansión. 🔥🐎
En Feng Shui, la puerta de tu casa o de tu negocio
no es solo una puerta.
Es la entrada del Chi: la energía, la abundancia
y las oportunidades que llegan a tu vida.
no es solo una puerta.
Es la entrada del Chi: la energía, la abundancia
y las oportunidades que llegan a tu vida.
🔥🔥🔥Breaking! The UK Online Harms bill was a joint Democrat US and UK project! Sponsored by Soros partner Omidyar! And they also created AN INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF CENSORSHIP NGO’s!
*Note : @CCDHWATCH introduced me to Carnegie UK and contributed significantly to research
The UK Online Safety origins were funded and worked on by a Soros Democracy Alliance Partner (Omidyar’s Reset/Luminate). And also the Global Trump resistance org, Avaaz.
Omidyar Reset CEO, Ben Scott was a Hillary Clinton/Obama State Dept staffer. Omidyar Luminate also worked with the State depts Global Engagement Center and also Biden’s State Depts International Fund for Public Interest Media. Both active in censorship.
🔥Conveniently, the European Commission and the UK, both on the same day, published their proposals for regulating online harms.🤔
Carnegie UK primary staff are:
Lorna Woods
William Perrin
Maeve Walsh
William Perrin was given credit for the creation of the UK Ofcom. Obviously William and his cohorts pushed to have online harms regulated by Ofcom.
William Perrins wife, Fran, is presently on the board of directors of, Labour Together. Fran is the daughter of Lord Sainsbury. Also, Labour Together earlier started the Center For Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Both William and Fran donated to Labour Together.
William Perrin and Professor Woods received OBEs in recognition for their work in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List in 2020 (For Online Safety Act).
Also Carnegie UK worked with 50 activist orgs in writing the UK Online Hate bill. Although I could never find a complete list of those 50.
But later when they completed writing this bill in Oct 2023, they moved their work to a new website called the Online Safety Act Network. (OSA)Where they discuss implementation and changes as needed.
At the OSA site I found a list of half of their activist orgs which likely mirrors those from Carnegie UK.
Here’s a few noteworthy ones:
Avaaz - Global Trump Resistance
CCDH - Started By Labour Together
Demos UK
Isd global - Worked with Hamilton68 hoaxers
Reset - Soros Democracy Alliance partner (Omidyar)
Carnegie UK Trust, Reset.Tech, Institute for Strategic Dialogue and The German Marshall Fund (hamilton68 Russian bot hoaxers) of the USA worked together to support G7 Deliberations convening an internet safety INTERNATIONAL pathfinder GROUP of NGOs for the UK Chair. I imagine this is why many of the same NGO’s work on EU and other countries censorship efforts.
I did find an International group that all these folks belong to, so it’s likely this. It’s called the Global Alliance Against Digital Hate & Extremism. Here’s some from their massive list:
Carnegie UK
Avaaz
Center For Countering Digital Hate
Demos UK
Fair Vote UK
Far Right Observatory
ISD Global
MEDIA MATTERS (oh my goodness )
Reset
The Sparrow Project (Charged Terrorist founded / Pro Marx revolutionary activism)
Vote Run Lead
This Global Alliance doesn’t like Trump very much either.
“Trump is a known racist populist demagogue with a dark record of capitalising on popular rage and frustration over economic hardships and scapegoating racial minorities and refugees.”
“We are concerned that Trump could use his online presence to spread conspiracy theories and support anti-democratic far-right movements across the world. Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Russian dictator Putin.”
Carnegie UK also admits that their work was reflected in the approach adopted in the European Union’s Digital Services Act and to some extent in the UNESCO Guidelines on Internet for Trust.”
Another interesting element is that Carnegie UK Trust came from the same family as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP). Carnegie folks talk, and mingle on occasions. Ex CIA William Burns worked at CEIP when this UK censorship craze was started at Carnegie UK. And he was CIA director yet again as Biden developed his global censorship collusion utilizing Luminate
*Note : @CCDHWATCH introduced me to Carnegie UK and contributed significantly to research
The UK Online Safety origins were funded and worked on by a Soros Democracy Alliance Partner (Omidyar’s Reset/Luminate). And also the Global Trump resistance org, Avaaz.
Omidyar Reset CEO, Ben Scott was a Hillary Clinton/Obama State Dept staffer. Omidyar Luminate also worked with the State depts Global Engagement Center and also Biden’s State Depts International Fund for Public Interest Media. Both active in censorship.
🔥Conveniently, the European Commission and the UK, both on the same day, published their proposals for regulating online harms.🤔
Carnegie UK primary staff are:
Lorna Woods
William Perrin
Maeve Walsh
William Perrin was given credit for the creation of the UK Ofcom. Obviously William and his cohorts pushed to have online harms regulated by Ofcom.
William Perrins wife, Fran, is presently on the board of directors of, Labour Together. Fran is the daughter of Lord Sainsbury. Also, Labour Together earlier started the Center For Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). Both William and Fran donated to Labour Together.
William Perrin and Professor Woods received OBEs in recognition for their work in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List in 2020 (For Online Safety Act).
Also Carnegie UK worked with 50 activist orgs in writing the UK Online Hate bill. Although I could never find a complete list of those 50.
But later when they completed writing this bill in Oct 2023, they moved their work to a new website called the Online Safety Act Network. (OSA)Where they discuss implementation and changes as needed.
At the OSA site I found a list of half of their activist orgs which likely mirrors those from Carnegie UK.
Here’s a few noteworthy ones:
Avaaz - Global Trump Resistance
CCDH - Started By Labour Together
Demos UK
Isd global - Worked with Hamilton68 hoaxers
Reset - Soros Democracy Alliance partner (Omidyar)
Carnegie UK Trust, Reset.Tech, Institute for Strategic Dialogue and The German Marshall Fund (hamilton68 Russian bot hoaxers) of the USA worked together to support G7 Deliberations convening an internet safety INTERNATIONAL pathfinder GROUP of NGOs for the UK Chair. I imagine this is why many of the same NGO’s work on EU and other countries censorship efforts.
I did find an International group that all these folks belong to, so it’s likely this. It’s called the Global Alliance Against Digital Hate & Extremism. Here’s some from their massive list:
Carnegie UK
Avaaz
Center For Countering Digital Hate
Demos UK
Fair Vote UK
Far Right Observatory
ISD Global
MEDIA MATTERS (oh my goodness )
Reset
The Sparrow Project (Charged Terrorist founded / Pro Marx revolutionary activism)
Vote Run Lead
This Global Alliance doesn’t like Trump very much either.
“Trump is a known racist populist demagogue with a dark record of capitalising on popular rage and frustration over economic hardships and scapegoating racial minorities and refugees.”
“We are concerned that Trump could use his online presence to spread conspiracy theories and support anti-democratic far-right movements across the world. Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Russian dictator Putin.”
Carnegie UK also admits that their work was reflected in the approach adopted in the European Union’s Digital Services Act and to some extent in the UNESCO Guidelines on Internet for Trust.”
Another interesting element is that Carnegie UK Trust came from the same family as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP). Carnegie folks talk, and mingle on occasions. Ex CIA William Burns worked at CEIP when this UK censorship craze was started at Carnegie UK. And he was CIA director yet again as Biden developed his global censorship collusion utilizing Luminate
Welp, as you know, everything stated above can be sourced.
Egads, what a job.
William Perrin:
“(Online Harms bill) The proposals are based upon principles and detailed work we put forward at Carnegie UK Trust “
“The European Commission, on the same day as the UK published their proposals for regulating online harms: which also focus on making systems and processes of larger companies safer through regulation of systemic risks. The Commission uses 'due diligence' which, when applied is similar to a duty of care.”
“Carnegie's approach to national wellbeing supported by Andrew Carnegie's endowment and in this workstream resources from Luminate and Reset.tech for which we are most grateful have given the project team a stable foundation on which to build.”
“Given Carnegie's United Kingdom and Ireland brief we are paying careful attention to issues arising from devolution. We are also watching out for proposals in development in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the USA via President-Elect.”
archive.is/ywXL0
Egads, what a job.
William Perrin:
“(Online Harms bill) The proposals are based upon principles and detailed work we put forward at Carnegie UK Trust “
“The European Commission, on the same day as the UK published their proposals for regulating online harms: which also focus on making systems and processes of larger companies safer through regulation of systemic risks. The Commission uses 'due diligence' which, when applied is similar to a duty of care.”
“Carnegie's approach to national wellbeing supported by Andrew Carnegie's endowment and in this workstream resources from Luminate and Reset.tech for which we are most grateful have given the project team a stable foundation on which to build.”
“Given Carnegie's United Kingdom and Ireland brief we are paying careful attention to issues arising from devolution. We are also watching out for proposals in development in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the USA via President-Elect.”
archive.is/ywXL0
I have tons of evidence on Lorna Woods and William Perrin writing the UK online harms bill. This is a start, and I’ll show you more later. It’s 💯 non negotiable. Down to Lorna scribbling its beginnings on sugar packs.
“Carnegie UK worked for over four years to develop and promote a systemic, risk-based approach to regulation to tackle online harm in the UK and has influenced the development of the UK’s Online Safety Act.”
“Carnegie UK working with Professor Lorna Woods pioneered in 2018 a completely new approach to social media regulation – imposing a statutory duty of care on platform companies and enforcing that with a powerful regulator independent of government.”
“The proposal has been developed by Professor Lorna Woods OBE (Professor of Internet Law, University of Essex), William Perrin OBE (Carnegie UK Trustee) and Maeve Walsh (Carnegie UK Associate). William Perrin and Professor Woods received OBEs in recognition for their work in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List in 2020.”
web.archive.org/web/2024081511…
“Carnegie UK worked for over four years to develop and promote a systemic, risk-based approach to regulation to tackle online harm in the UK and has influenced the development of the UK’s Online Safety Act.”
“Carnegie UK working with Professor Lorna Woods pioneered in 2018 a completely new approach to social media regulation – imposing a statutory duty of care on platform companies and enforcing that with a powerful regulator independent of government.”
“The proposal has been developed by Professor Lorna Woods OBE (Professor of Internet Law, University of Essex), William Perrin OBE (Carnegie UK Trustee) and Maeve Walsh (Carnegie UK Associate). William Perrin and Professor Woods received OBEs in recognition for their work in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List in 2020.”
web.archive.org/web/2024081511…
1/10 Södra Sverige betalar höga elpriser eftersom elen från norr inte kan överföras i tillräcklig omfattning. Den prisskillnaden skapar miljardintäkter till Svenska kraftnät. Nu vill EU att 25% (!) av dessa pengar ska reserveras för elnätsprojekt i andra länder. 🧵Häng med.
2/10 Flaskhalsintäkter uppstår när priset skiljer sig mellan elområden. Sverige har fyra elområden. När SE1/SE2 är billiga och SE3/SE4 dyra uppstår intäkter. De finns därför att vårt interna nät inte räcker till.
3/10 Sverige införde elområden 2011 efter tryck från EU-kommissionen, som ansåg att exportbegränsningar stred mot marknadsreglerna. Modellen skulle öka marknadsintegration och transparens. Sverige anpassade sig, tyvärr..
NO ONE CAN EVER CONTROL YOU IF YOU LEARN THESE PSYCHOLOGY TRICKS.
1. Validate people
1. Validate people
2.
3.
1/7 🚨 BREAKING: The U.S. State Department just filed a sworn record in federal court calling the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and its CEO Imran Ahmed 'a key collaborator with the Biden administration on weaponizing the national security bureaucracy to censor U.S. citizens.'"
Not our words. The government's.
Certified under penalty of perjury. Signed by Secretary Rubio personally.
Here's what this means for every American. 🧵👇
Not our words. The government's.
Certified under penalty of perjury. Signed by Secretary Rubio personally.
Here's what this means for every American. 🧵👇
2/7 For 4 years they told us nobody coordinated anything.
The government was "just sharing views." The platforms were "just enforcing policies." CCDH was "just publishing reports."
3 weeks ago, CCDH told a Florida court it never even COMMUNICATED with the White House.
21 days later, the State Dept called its CEO a "key collaborator."
Both are now in the federal record. Only one can be true.
🔥 See it for yourself — what they told the court vs. what the government found:
The government was "just sharing views." The platforms were "just enforcing policies." CCDH was "just publishing reports."
3 weeks ago, CCDH told a Florida court it never even COMMUNICATED with the White House.
21 days later, the State Dept called its CEO a "key collaborator."
Both are now in the federal record. Only one can be true.
🔥 See it for yourself — what they told the court vs. what the government found:
3/7 CCDH's own leaked internal docs listed their priorities:
☠️ "Kill Musk's Twitter" 🇪🇺 "Trigger EU and UK regulatory action"
These aren't the words of a "watchdog." They're the objectives of a foreign organization running what its own staff called "black ops" against Americans.
And the State Dept confirmed they SUCCEEDED.
Read @thackerpd and @mtaibbi's original reporting on CCDH's leaked memo and election interference: disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/election-exc…
☠️ "Kill Musk's Twitter" 🇪🇺 "Trigger EU and UK regulatory action"
These aren't the words of a "watchdog." They're the objectives of a foreign organization running what its own staff called "black ops" against Americans.
And the State Dept confirmed they SUCCEEDED.
Read @thackerpd and @mtaibbi's original reporting on CCDH's leaked memo and election interference: disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/election-exc…
The Blood on the Media’s Hands: The Cover-Up of Trans Violence (THREAD)
1/24 We are witnessing a synchronized media blackout. When a shooter fits the "white male" narrative, it’s front-page news for weeks. When the shooter identifies as transgender, the story vanishes, the manifestos are buried, and the motives are scrubbed. It is a calculated deception.
1/24 We are witnessing a synchronized media blackout. When a shooter fits the "white male" narrative, it’s front-page news for weeks. When the shooter identifies as transgender, the story vanishes, the manifestos are buried, and the motives are scrubbed. It is a calculated deception.
2/24 The Nashville Massacre (Audrey Hale)
In March 2023, Audrey "Aiden" Hale stormed a Christian school and murdered six people, including three children. The media immediately pivoted to Hale’s "victimhood," claiming the shooter was "marginalized." They mourned the killer more than the kids.
In March 2023, Audrey "Aiden" Hale stormed a Christian school and murdered six people, including three children. The media immediately pivoted to Hale’s "victimhood," claiming the shooter was "marginalized." They mourned the killer more than the kids.
3/24 The Buried Manifesto
Why did the FBI and local police fight to keep Hale's manifesto secret for months? Leaked pages revealed Hale wanted to "kill all you little crackers" and "white privileges." It was an anti-white, anti-Christian hate crime. The media called it "motive unclear."
Why did the FBI and local police fight to keep Hale's manifesto secret for months? Leaked pages revealed Hale wanted to "kill all you little crackers" and "white privileges." It was an anti-white, anti-Christian hate crime. The media called it "motive unclear."
$VRT EXECUTIVE CALL SUMMARY: (Vertiv Holdings Co, 02/11/26)
Fourth quarter 2025 results reinforced a sharp re-acceleration in demand indicators, led by a step-change in orders and backlog, while reported revenue growth remained constrained by delivery capacity and regional weakness outside the Americas. Management framed the quarter as validation of multi-year investments in capacity, engineering, and customer engagement, with an explicit emphasis on AI-driven data center infrastructure as the dominant end-market driver. Organic orders increased 252% year-over-year and 117% sequentially, producing a 2.9x book-to-bill and expanding backlog to approximately $15.0B, up 109% year-over-year and up 57% sequentially. Fourth quarter organic net sales increased 19% year-over-year, adjusted operating margin expanded 170 bps year-over-year to 23.2%, adjusted diluted EPS increased 37% year-over-year to $1.36, and adjusted free cash flow increased 151% year-over-year to $910M. Full year 2025 adjusted diluted EPS increased 47% to $4.20 and adjusted free cash flow increased 66% to $1.887B, implying 115% adjusted free cash flow conversion. Financial figures and guidance ranges referenced below are from Vertiv’s Fourth Quarter 2025 Results presentation dated 02/11/26.
Management guidance for 2026 implied another step-up year in scale and profitability, with organic net sales growth of 27% to 29% (midpoint 28%), adjusted operating margin of 22.0% to 23.0% (midpoint 22.5%), adjusted diluted EPS of $5.97 to $6.07 (midpoint $6.02, +43% vs 2025), and adjusted free cash flow of $2.1B to $2.3B (midpoint $2.2B, +17% vs 2025). First quarter 2026 guidance called for $2.5B to $2.7B of net sales (midpoint $2.6B; 22% organic growth), adjusted operating margin of 18.5% to 19.5% (midpoint 19.0%), and adjusted diluted EPS of $0.95 to $1.01 (midpoint $0.98; +53% year-over-year). The call also introduced a major disclosure policy change: quarterly reporting of actual orders, orders forecasts, and backlog will be discontinued, with management asserting that order lumpiness generates volatility that is not representative of underlying performance.
Key call elements with direct investment relevance included: 1) exceptionally strong orders and backlog expansion, paired with commentary that the pipeline continued to grow even after the large fourth quarter intake; 2) explicit confirmation that backlog reflects binding purchase orders; 3) stated customer-requested delivery lead times of 12 to 18 months for larger orders, implying that the late-2025 order surge likely extends revenue visibility into 2027; 4) guidance that embeds continued price-cost favorability and incremental margin performance while increasing growth investment, including capex stepping up to 3% to 4% of sales in 2026; and 5) a cash flow profile materially aided by advance payments associated with large orders, with 2026 guidance assuming less working-capital benefit than 2025 and meaningfully higher cash taxes.
CALL HIGHLIGHTS AND MANAGEMENT MESSAGING
Tone and messaging were unambiguously confident on demand durability and competitive positioning. The Executive Chairman emphasized a multi-year strategy payoff and framed AI infrastructure as an early-cycle secular build. A representative statement was: “The AI-driven infrastructure build-out is accelerating, and data centers are at the center of it all. We’re still in the early innings of this secular growth trend.” Management repeatedly linked order magnitude to customer trust in Vertiv’s ability to deliver at scale and to rising adoption of “system-level” solutions rather than discrete components.
A particularly consequential message for market structure and investor expectations was the decision to cease quarterly orders and backlog disclosure. Management’s stated rationale was that order lumpiness “can generate unnecessary volatility” and that quarterly disclosure “is not representative of the sustained performance of the company and is not beneficial to our investors.” This change increases the burden of proof on revenue conversion, pricing, and margin execution as the observable proxies for demand, and it reduces external ability to detect real-time turning points in the order cycle.
QUARTER PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY OF RESULTS
Top-line performance in fourth quarter 2025 reflected strong conversion in the Americas and mixed regional execution elsewhere. Net sales were $2.880B, up 22.7% year-over-year and up 7.6% sequentially. Organic net sales were up 19.3% year-over-year. By segment, Americas net sales were $1.886B, up 50.2% year-over-year (46.2% organic); APAC net sales were $492M, down 9.6% year-over-year (9.3% organic); and EMEA net sales were $502M, down 8.2% year-over-year (14.1% organic). Sequentially, Americas increased from $1.712B to $1.886B (+10%), EMEA increased from $444M to $502M (+13%), and APAC declined from $520M to $492M (approximately 5% decline), indicating that quarter-to-quarter volatility remained meaningfully regional.
Profitability was driven by volume leverage, productivity, and price-cost. Adjusted operating profit was $668M, up 33% year-over-year, and adjusted operating margin expanded to 23.2% from 21.5% in fourth quarter 2024 (+170 bps). The implied year-over-year incremental margin was approximately 31%, consistent with management’s stated incremental margin for the quarter. Management described “strong operational leverage on higher volumes, productivity gains, and favorable price-cost execution,” and noted that tariff impacts partially offset the margin expansion. This combination suggests that the quarter’s margin strength was not purely mix-driven and, importantly, was achieved while continuing to invest in capacity and engineering.
Adjusted diluted EPS was $1.36 versus $0.99 in fourth quarter 2024 (+37%). GAAP diluted EPS was $1.14. The quarter’s adjusted outperformance was explicitly framed as above guidance, with management stating adjusted diluted EPS was “$0.10 above our prior guidance” and adjusted operating profit was “$29M higher than prior guidance.” The presentation implies a prior guidance midpoint of approximately $1.26 for adjusted diluted EPS (given a $0.10 beat), $2.85B for net sales (given $30M above guidance), $639M for adjusted operating profit (given $29M above guidance), and approximately 22.4% for adjusted operating margin (given 80 bps above guidance).
Cash generation in fourth quarter 2025 was unusually strong and was directly linked to both profitability and working-capital inflows. Adjusted free cash flow was $910M versus $362M in fourth quarter 2024 (+151%). Management attributed this to higher operating profit and “working capital efficiency,” with a specific callout that “The larger orders in the quarter came with corresponding larger advanced payments, which benefited our Q4 cash-flow.” This characterization supports a view that cash performance reflected both structural leverage (profit growth) and a potentially timing-sensitive working-capital tailwind (advance payments), which should be treated as a key variable in modeling and risk management.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND TREND COMPARISONS
The fourth quarter extended a multi-quarter trajectory of both sales growth and rising adjusted operating margins, albeit with notable seasonality and regional dispersion. From first quarter 2024 through fourth quarter 2025, total net sales increased from $1.639B to $2.880B. Adjusted operating margin increased from 15.2% in first quarter 2024 to 23.2% in fourth quarter 2025, with the strongest margin expansion occurring in the second half of 2025 (22.3% in third quarter 2025 and 23.2% in fourth quarter 2025). This pattern indicates both operating leverage and productivity gains scaling meaningfully as volumes rise, with the Americas segment becoming increasingly dominant in profit contribution.
Segment-level historical comparisons highlighted: 1) Americas adjusted operating margin reached 30.1% in fourth quarter 2025, up from 25.6% in fourth quarter 2024 and 29.3% in third quarter 2025, consistent with scale benefits and strong price-cost; 2) APAC adjusted operating margin declined to 9.9% in fourth quarter 2025 from 12.6% in fourth quarter 2024 and 13.2% in third quarter 2025, consistent with volume deleverage and China-driven weakness; 3) EMEA adjusted operating margin declined to 22.1% from 26.6% year-over-year but improved from 18.8% sequentially, aligning with management’s commentary that sequential margin improved as anticipated even as year-over-year volume deleverage remained a headwind.
Full year 2025 results provide additional context for the magnitude of the 2026 step-up. Net sales were $10.230B, up 27.7% year-over-year (26.3% organic). Adjusted operating profit was $2.090B, up 35% year-over-year, and adjusted operating margin expanded to 20.4% from 19.4% (+100 bps). Adjusted diluted EPS was $4.20, up 47%. Management stated that full year results exceeded guidance by $0.10 in adjusted EPS and by $30M in net sales, implying a prior guidance midpoint of approximately $4.10 in adjusted EPS and $10.200B in net sales.
DEMAND, ORDERS, BACKLOG, AND VISIBILITY
The defining feature of the call was the divergence between revenue growth (19% organic) and orders/backlog growth (252% organic orders growth; backlog +109% year-over-year), implying a rapid increase in demand capture relative to current delivery capacity. Management repeatedly framed this as customer confidence in Vertiv’s ability to execute at scale and a shift toward larger, more integrated system-level orders.
Key quantitative demand indicators cited:
Fourth quarter organic orders: +252% year-over-year; +117% sequentially.
Trailing 12-month organic orders growth: 81%.
Book-to-bill: 2.9x.
Backlog: approximately $15.0B, up 109% year-over-year and up 57% sequentially.
Management provided two critical qualitative clarifications about the backlog:
Backlog consists of binding purchase orders. As stated: “Everything backlog… is a binding purchase order.”
The backlog has become more elongated into a 12 to 18-month delivery window, consistent with large-project phasing and customer-requested lead times. As stated: “Our customers requested lead-time pretty much ranges from 12 months to 18 months, especially when we talk about the bigger orders.”
This combination supports an interpretation that the late-2025 demand surge is not purely speculative and is likely to carry meaningful conversion into 2026 and 2027. However, the call also reiterated structural order lumpiness and unpredictability, which can cause quarter-to-quarter volatility in order timing and revenue conversion.
A central concern raised by analysts was whether the magnitude of fourth quarter orders reflected anomalous factors (year-end ordering behavior, pricing incentives, or queue positioning). Management explicitly rejected the existence of abnormal incentives, stating: “The answer… from the normal-course of business in terms of price and whatever else, the answer is no… no big anomalies here.” The explanation was instead attributed to the market’s evolving dynamic of larger orders and broader adoption of system-level solutions.
The pipeline discussion was unusually supportive given the scale of fourth quarter orders. Management stated that the pipeline did not deplete and “despite… the very strong order intake… we are seeing the pipeline to grow a quarter-to-quarter.” This comment reduces the probability that fourth quarter represented a one-time pull-forward at the expense of near-term demand, but it does not eliminate the risk that orders normalize from an unusually high base.
The decision to stop quarterly order and backlog reporting is material for valuation and investor confidence. Management’s stated intent was to reduce noise and reflect sustained performance, but the timing (immediately following a historically large order quarter) will likely be interpreted as lowering transparency precisely when cyclicality and conversion risk become most important. This has 2 potential investment impacts: 1) reduced real-time data may increase the equity risk premium demanded by some investors, especially if revenue growth begins to lag expectations; 2) reduced disclosure can dampen near-term volatility if the market increasingly anchors on revenue/margin execution rather than orders.
REGIONAL AND END-MARKET DYNAMICS
Americas remained the primary engine of both revenue and profit, with the call emphasizing that the market is “very strong and accelerating” and that Vertiv is “outpacing market.” Fourth quarter organic sales growth in the Americas was 46.2%, and adjusted operating margin reached 30.1%. For 2026, the company guided to Americas growth in the high 30% range, indicating continued confidence in sustained demand and conversion.
EMEA commentary shifted from softness to improving sentiment and accelerating pipelines, captured by the phrase “the coiled spring is uncoiling.” Revenue remained weak (fourth quarter organic sales down 14.1%), and management cited “data center industry constraints” and permitting-related frictions as persistent issues. The 2026 outlook assumed EMEA net sales “flat to down mid single digits” for the year, with a return to year-over-year sales growth in the second half. This suggests a back-half-weighted European recovery and implies that near-term consolidated growth will remain more dependent on the Americas and selected APAC markets.
APAC remained bifurcated, with China muted and India/rest of Asia described as robust. Fourth quarter organic sales declined 9.3%, and margin compressed due to volume deleverage. Management rejected a thesis that Western suppliers are being structurally excluded in China, emphasizing that “the market demand is not very strong in this moment” and noting that Vertiv operates as a “Chinese player in China” and is “silicon agnostic.” The 2026 outlook assumed APAC growth in the mid 20% range, implying that strength outside China can more than offset ongoing China softness.
MARGINS, PRICE-COST, AND THE INVESTMENT INTENSITY TRADE-OFF
Margin performance was a key bullish element of the quarter, with expanding operating margins even as the company scaled rapidly and absorbed tariff-related headwinds. Fourth quarter adjusted operating margin of 23.2% was described as driven by leverage, productivity, and price-cost, partially offset by tariff impact. For full year 2025, adjusted operating margin expanded 100 bps to 20.4%, with productivity and positive price-cost cited as primary drivers.
For 2026, guidance implied 210 bps of adjusted operating margin expansion to 22.5% at the midpoint on 28% organic growth. That magnitude of margin expansion at this growth rate implies confidence in continued operating leverage, sustained pricing power, and supply-chain productivity. However, management also acknowledged that incremental margins are being restrained by growth investments. In response to an analyst question about incrementals potentially rising above the guided low end, the CFO stated that “There is a higher-level of investment” and that investment ramp has “a little bit of pressure… as we drive those incremental margins,” while reiterating the longer-term incremental margin trajectory.
Pricing commentary remained favorable. Management stated: “2025 pricing exceeded inflation, and we expect the same in ’26.” This is a central support for the margin outlook, particularly given the presence of tariffs and commodity volatility. The call’s tariff commentary suggested mitigation is progressing: “We expect on an exit-rate basis to have materially offset unfavorable margin impact from tariffs as of the first-quarter of this year.” This implies that tariff impact should be less of a margin headwind exiting first quarter 2026 than in late 2025, although the phrase “exit-rate basis” implies some intra-quarter and early-year pressure could remain.
CASH FLOW, WORKING CAPITAL, AND BALANCE SHEET POSITIONING
Cash performance in 2025 was strong and supported management’s claims of operational discipline. Full year adjusted free cash flow was approximately $1.887B, up 66% year-over-year, and management cited working capital efficiency and advance payments as important contributors. The fourth quarter cash result ($910M) was specifically tied to larger customer advance payments associated with large orders.
Guidance for 2026 implied a shift in the composition of free cash flow. Midpoint adjusted free cash flow of $2.2B (+17%) lags midpoint EPS growth (+43%), largely due to:
Higher cash taxes (2026: $775M vs 2025: $428M, a $347M headwind).
Higher net capital expenditures (2026: $475M vs 2025: $226M, a $249M headwind).
Lower working-capital benefit (change in working capital 2026: $300M vs 2025: $415M; plus “working capital & other” of negative $60M year-over-year in the bridge).
This guidance implicitly reduces reliance on the unusually strong 2025 working-capital inflow and positions free cash flow growth as more structurally tied to profit growth, but it also highlights that 2025’s cash conversion level may not be a steady-state assumption. The sustainability of advance payments and progress billing terms remains a key swing factor for cash generation, particularly if competitive dynamics change or if order mix shifts.
Balance sheet commentary indicated low leverage and flexibility. Net leverage was stated at approximately 0.5x at quarter-end, positioning the company for incremental capex, strategic M&A, and shareholder returns. No specific capital return framework was quantified on the call, but strategic flexibility was emphasized.
GUIDANCE, COMPARISONS, AND CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT
Management provided both first quarter 2026 and full year 2026 guidance and framed the outlook as underpinned by demand momentum and backlog visibility.
Full year 2026 guidance (midpoint):
Net sales: $13.5B, +28% organic growth.
Adjusted operating profit: $3.04B, +45% year-over-year.
Adjusted operating margin: 22.5%, +210 bps.
Adjusted diluted EPS: $6.02, +43%.
Adjusted free cash flow: $2.2B, +17%.
First quarter 2026 guidance (midpoint):
Net sales: $2.6B, +22% organic growth.
Adjusted operating profit: $495M, +47%.
Adjusted operating margin: 19.0%, +250 bps.
Adjusted diluted EPS: $0.98, +53%.
Regional assumptions embedded in 2026 sales guidance:
Americas: high 30% growth; net sales range $9.1B to $9.3B.
APAC: mid 20% growth; net sales range $2.4B to $2.6B.
EMEA: flat to down mid single digits; net sales range $1.7B to $1.8B, with a return to growth in the second half.
Guidance vs prior company guidance for 2025:
Fourth quarter 2025: adjusted EPS beat prior guidance by $0.10; net sales beat by $30M; adjusted operating profit beat by $29M; adjusted operating margin exceeded guidance by 80 bps.
Full year 2025: adjusted EPS beat prior guidance by $0.10; net sales beat by $30M; adjusted operating profit beat by $30M; adjusted operating margin exceeded guidance by 20 bps.
Tax rate: fourth quarter 2025 adjusted ETR was 21% versus prior guidance of 23%, primarily due to stock-based compensation-related benefits and changes in tax attributes. Guidance for first quarter and full year 2026 assumes a 23% adjusted ETR, implying a tax headwind versus the unusually favorable fourth quarter 2025 rate.
Guidance vs street expectations (as provided in the Bloomberg summary included in source material):
First quarter: adjusted EPS guidance of $0.95 to $1.01 versus consensus estimate of $0.93; sales guidance of $2.50B to $2.70B versus consensus of $2.54B.
Full year: sales guidance of $13.25B to $13.75B versus consensus of $12.43B; adjusted EPS guidance of $5.97 to $6.07 versus consensus of $5.29.
The magnitude of the full-year guide uplift versus consensus implies that either: 1) the market materially under-modeled backlog conversion and/or margin expansion into 2026; 2) management has increased confidence in the durability of demand and pricing; or 3) management is taking a more aggressive stance on growth conversion that will require sustained execution on capacity, supply chain, and project delivery. Given the company’s pattern of modest beats versus guidance in 2025 and the scale of backlog expansion exiting 2025, guidance credibility appears improved versus typical industrial cyclicals, but risk remains elevated due to the discontinuation of quarterly orders disclosure and the inherent lumpiness of large-project ordering.
STRATEGIC AND TECHNOLOGY POSITIONING
The call reinforced a strategic shift toward higher-integration offerings and services attach, which has implications for content per megawatt, margin structure, competitive differentiation, and recurring revenue mix.
System-level and prefabricated solutions were highlighted as key growth drivers:
OneCore: described as an “end-to-end full data center solution” designed to reduce “time to token” and scale to gigawatt sites via 12.5MW building blocks.
SmartRun: described as a converged, prefabricated whitespace infrastructure solution to accelerate data hall readiness, scalable across compute generations, and deployed at scale with large customers.
The strategic implication is a move from component-level procurement to solution-level procurement, increasing Vertiv’s share of wallet and potentially improving pricing power through delivered-value selling. This also increases execution complexity, as solution-level scope introduces more integration risk, field commissioning intensity, and schedule sensitivity.
Services were positioned as a competitive moat and a source of recurring revenue expansion. Lifecycle services orders growth was stated as “north of 25% year-on-year.” Field service headcount was described as approaching 5,000, with services capacity intended to scale alongside delivery capacity and installed base growth. The PurgeRite acquisition was framed as strengthening fluid management capabilities for liquid-cooled AI data centers, emphasizing that fluid network cleanliness and stability can materially impact compute throughput and downtime risk. The service narrative supports a longer-duration revenue stream that may reduce cyclicality if the installed base expands as expected.
Cooling architecture commentary addressed investor concerns about shifting thermal designs. Management argued that higher-temperature operation of some GPU loads does not remove the need for heat rejection and that future designs are likely to be more hybrid, combining different cooling approaches across loads and climates. The company expressed confidence in long-term relevance of CDU-based approaches, stating that alternatives to cooling chips via CDUs are not broadly expected because “blast radius is a little bit too big” in most cases. A product focus was highlighted on a “trailing cooler,” described as a chiller optimized for higher-temperature operation with flexibility for lower temperatures, intended to maximize free cooling. The net implication is that increased design complexity should benefit suppliers with broad portfolios and systems expertise, supporting content stability or upside over time.
On content per megawatt, management did not explicitly raise the historical framework but indicated it remains usable as a baseline. In response to a question referencing $3.0M to $3.5M per megawatt, management stated that this can be used “as a framework,” while also suggesting that technology complexity is favorable for TAM per megawatt, but that quantification was “a little premature” and may become clearer over the coming quarters.
Fourth quarter 2025 results reinforced a sharp re-acceleration in demand indicators, led by a step-change in orders and backlog, while reported revenue growth remained constrained by delivery capacity and regional weakness outside the Americas. Management framed the quarter as validation of multi-year investments in capacity, engineering, and customer engagement, with an explicit emphasis on AI-driven data center infrastructure as the dominant end-market driver. Organic orders increased 252% year-over-year and 117% sequentially, producing a 2.9x book-to-bill and expanding backlog to approximately $15.0B, up 109% year-over-year and up 57% sequentially. Fourth quarter organic net sales increased 19% year-over-year, adjusted operating margin expanded 170 bps year-over-year to 23.2%, adjusted diluted EPS increased 37% year-over-year to $1.36, and adjusted free cash flow increased 151% year-over-year to $910M. Full year 2025 adjusted diluted EPS increased 47% to $4.20 and adjusted free cash flow increased 66% to $1.887B, implying 115% adjusted free cash flow conversion. Financial figures and guidance ranges referenced below are from Vertiv’s Fourth Quarter 2025 Results presentation dated 02/11/26.
Management guidance for 2026 implied another step-up year in scale and profitability, with organic net sales growth of 27% to 29% (midpoint 28%), adjusted operating margin of 22.0% to 23.0% (midpoint 22.5%), adjusted diluted EPS of $5.97 to $6.07 (midpoint $6.02, +43% vs 2025), and adjusted free cash flow of $2.1B to $2.3B (midpoint $2.2B, +17% vs 2025). First quarter 2026 guidance called for $2.5B to $2.7B of net sales (midpoint $2.6B; 22% organic growth), adjusted operating margin of 18.5% to 19.5% (midpoint 19.0%), and adjusted diluted EPS of $0.95 to $1.01 (midpoint $0.98; +53% year-over-year). The call also introduced a major disclosure policy change: quarterly reporting of actual orders, orders forecasts, and backlog will be discontinued, with management asserting that order lumpiness generates volatility that is not representative of underlying performance.
Key call elements with direct investment relevance included: 1) exceptionally strong orders and backlog expansion, paired with commentary that the pipeline continued to grow even after the large fourth quarter intake; 2) explicit confirmation that backlog reflects binding purchase orders; 3) stated customer-requested delivery lead times of 12 to 18 months for larger orders, implying that the late-2025 order surge likely extends revenue visibility into 2027; 4) guidance that embeds continued price-cost favorability and incremental margin performance while increasing growth investment, including capex stepping up to 3% to 4% of sales in 2026; and 5) a cash flow profile materially aided by advance payments associated with large orders, with 2026 guidance assuming less working-capital benefit than 2025 and meaningfully higher cash taxes.
CALL HIGHLIGHTS AND MANAGEMENT MESSAGING
Tone and messaging were unambiguously confident on demand durability and competitive positioning. The Executive Chairman emphasized a multi-year strategy payoff and framed AI infrastructure as an early-cycle secular build. A representative statement was: “The AI-driven infrastructure build-out is accelerating, and data centers are at the center of it all. We’re still in the early innings of this secular growth trend.” Management repeatedly linked order magnitude to customer trust in Vertiv’s ability to deliver at scale and to rising adoption of “system-level” solutions rather than discrete components.
A particularly consequential message for market structure and investor expectations was the decision to cease quarterly orders and backlog disclosure. Management’s stated rationale was that order lumpiness “can generate unnecessary volatility” and that quarterly disclosure “is not representative of the sustained performance of the company and is not beneficial to our investors.” This change increases the burden of proof on revenue conversion, pricing, and margin execution as the observable proxies for demand, and it reduces external ability to detect real-time turning points in the order cycle.
QUARTER PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY OF RESULTS
Top-line performance in fourth quarter 2025 reflected strong conversion in the Americas and mixed regional execution elsewhere. Net sales were $2.880B, up 22.7% year-over-year and up 7.6% sequentially. Organic net sales were up 19.3% year-over-year. By segment, Americas net sales were $1.886B, up 50.2% year-over-year (46.2% organic); APAC net sales were $492M, down 9.6% year-over-year (9.3% organic); and EMEA net sales were $502M, down 8.2% year-over-year (14.1% organic). Sequentially, Americas increased from $1.712B to $1.886B (+10%), EMEA increased from $444M to $502M (+13%), and APAC declined from $520M to $492M (approximately 5% decline), indicating that quarter-to-quarter volatility remained meaningfully regional.
Profitability was driven by volume leverage, productivity, and price-cost. Adjusted operating profit was $668M, up 33% year-over-year, and adjusted operating margin expanded to 23.2% from 21.5% in fourth quarter 2024 (+170 bps). The implied year-over-year incremental margin was approximately 31%, consistent with management’s stated incremental margin for the quarter. Management described “strong operational leverage on higher volumes, productivity gains, and favorable price-cost execution,” and noted that tariff impacts partially offset the margin expansion. This combination suggests that the quarter’s margin strength was not purely mix-driven and, importantly, was achieved while continuing to invest in capacity and engineering.
Adjusted diluted EPS was $1.36 versus $0.99 in fourth quarter 2024 (+37%). GAAP diluted EPS was $1.14. The quarter’s adjusted outperformance was explicitly framed as above guidance, with management stating adjusted diluted EPS was “$0.10 above our prior guidance” and adjusted operating profit was “$29M higher than prior guidance.” The presentation implies a prior guidance midpoint of approximately $1.26 for adjusted diluted EPS (given a $0.10 beat), $2.85B for net sales (given $30M above guidance), $639M for adjusted operating profit (given $29M above guidance), and approximately 22.4% for adjusted operating margin (given 80 bps above guidance).
Cash generation in fourth quarter 2025 was unusually strong and was directly linked to both profitability and working-capital inflows. Adjusted free cash flow was $910M versus $362M in fourth quarter 2024 (+151%). Management attributed this to higher operating profit and “working capital efficiency,” with a specific callout that “The larger orders in the quarter came with corresponding larger advanced payments, which benefited our Q4 cash-flow.” This characterization supports a view that cash performance reflected both structural leverage (profit growth) and a potentially timing-sensitive working-capital tailwind (advance payments), which should be treated as a key variable in modeling and risk management.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND TREND COMPARISONS
The fourth quarter extended a multi-quarter trajectory of both sales growth and rising adjusted operating margins, albeit with notable seasonality and regional dispersion. From first quarter 2024 through fourth quarter 2025, total net sales increased from $1.639B to $2.880B. Adjusted operating margin increased from 15.2% in first quarter 2024 to 23.2% in fourth quarter 2025, with the strongest margin expansion occurring in the second half of 2025 (22.3% in third quarter 2025 and 23.2% in fourth quarter 2025). This pattern indicates both operating leverage and productivity gains scaling meaningfully as volumes rise, with the Americas segment becoming increasingly dominant in profit contribution.
Segment-level historical comparisons highlighted: 1) Americas adjusted operating margin reached 30.1% in fourth quarter 2025, up from 25.6% in fourth quarter 2024 and 29.3% in third quarter 2025, consistent with scale benefits and strong price-cost; 2) APAC adjusted operating margin declined to 9.9% in fourth quarter 2025 from 12.6% in fourth quarter 2024 and 13.2% in third quarter 2025, consistent with volume deleverage and China-driven weakness; 3) EMEA adjusted operating margin declined to 22.1% from 26.6% year-over-year but improved from 18.8% sequentially, aligning with management’s commentary that sequential margin improved as anticipated even as year-over-year volume deleverage remained a headwind.
Full year 2025 results provide additional context for the magnitude of the 2026 step-up. Net sales were $10.230B, up 27.7% year-over-year (26.3% organic). Adjusted operating profit was $2.090B, up 35% year-over-year, and adjusted operating margin expanded to 20.4% from 19.4% (+100 bps). Adjusted diluted EPS was $4.20, up 47%. Management stated that full year results exceeded guidance by $0.10 in adjusted EPS and by $30M in net sales, implying a prior guidance midpoint of approximately $4.10 in adjusted EPS and $10.200B in net sales.
DEMAND, ORDERS, BACKLOG, AND VISIBILITY
The defining feature of the call was the divergence between revenue growth (19% organic) and orders/backlog growth (252% organic orders growth; backlog +109% year-over-year), implying a rapid increase in demand capture relative to current delivery capacity. Management repeatedly framed this as customer confidence in Vertiv’s ability to execute at scale and a shift toward larger, more integrated system-level orders.
Key quantitative demand indicators cited:
Fourth quarter organic orders: +252% year-over-year; +117% sequentially.
Trailing 12-month organic orders growth: 81%.
Book-to-bill: 2.9x.
Backlog: approximately $15.0B, up 109% year-over-year and up 57% sequentially.
Management provided two critical qualitative clarifications about the backlog:
Backlog consists of binding purchase orders. As stated: “Everything backlog… is a binding purchase order.”
The backlog has become more elongated into a 12 to 18-month delivery window, consistent with large-project phasing and customer-requested lead times. As stated: “Our customers requested lead-time pretty much ranges from 12 months to 18 months, especially when we talk about the bigger orders.”
This combination supports an interpretation that the late-2025 demand surge is not purely speculative and is likely to carry meaningful conversion into 2026 and 2027. However, the call also reiterated structural order lumpiness and unpredictability, which can cause quarter-to-quarter volatility in order timing and revenue conversion.
A central concern raised by analysts was whether the magnitude of fourth quarter orders reflected anomalous factors (year-end ordering behavior, pricing incentives, or queue positioning). Management explicitly rejected the existence of abnormal incentives, stating: “The answer… from the normal-course of business in terms of price and whatever else, the answer is no… no big anomalies here.” The explanation was instead attributed to the market’s evolving dynamic of larger orders and broader adoption of system-level solutions.
The pipeline discussion was unusually supportive given the scale of fourth quarter orders. Management stated that the pipeline did not deplete and “despite… the very strong order intake… we are seeing the pipeline to grow a quarter-to-quarter.” This comment reduces the probability that fourth quarter represented a one-time pull-forward at the expense of near-term demand, but it does not eliminate the risk that orders normalize from an unusually high base.
The decision to stop quarterly order and backlog reporting is material for valuation and investor confidence. Management’s stated intent was to reduce noise and reflect sustained performance, but the timing (immediately following a historically large order quarter) will likely be interpreted as lowering transparency precisely when cyclicality and conversion risk become most important. This has 2 potential investment impacts: 1) reduced real-time data may increase the equity risk premium demanded by some investors, especially if revenue growth begins to lag expectations; 2) reduced disclosure can dampen near-term volatility if the market increasingly anchors on revenue/margin execution rather than orders.
REGIONAL AND END-MARKET DYNAMICS
Americas remained the primary engine of both revenue and profit, with the call emphasizing that the market is “very strong and accelerating” and that Vertiv is “outpacing market.” Fourth quarter organic sales growth in the Americas was 46.2%, and adjusted operating margin reached 30.1%. For 2026, the company guided to Americas growth in the high 30% range, indicating continued confidence in sustained demand and conversion.
EMEA commentary shifted from softness to improving sentiment and accelerating pipelines, captured by the phrase “the coiled spring is uncoiling.” Revenue remained weak (fourth quarter organic sales down 14.1%), and management cited “data center industry constraints” and permitting-related frictions as persistent issues. The 2026 outlook assumed EMEA net sales “flat to down mid single digits” for the year, with a return to year-over-year sales growth in the second half. This suggests a back-half-weighted European recovery and implies that near-term consolidated growth will remain more dependent on the Americas and selected APAC markets.
APAC remained bifurcated, with China muted and India/rest of Asia described as robust. Fourth quarter organic sales declined 9.3%, and margin compressed due to volume deleverage. Management rejected a thesis that Western suppliers are being structurally excluded in China, emphasizing that “the market demand is not very strong in this moment” and noting that Vertiv operates as a “Chinese player in China” and is “silicon agnostic.” The 2026 outlook assumed APAC growth in the mid 20% range, implying that strength outside China can more than offset ongoing China softness.
MARGINS, PRICE-COST, AND THE INVESTMENT INTENSITY TRADE-OFF
Margin performance was a key bullish element of the quarter, with expanding operating margins even as the company scaled rapidly and absorbed tariff-related headwinds. Fourth quarter adjusted operating margin of 23.2% was described as driven by leverage, productivity, and price-cost, partially offset by tariff impact. For full year 2025, adjusted operating margin expanded 100 bps to 20.4%, with productivity and positive price-cost cited as primary drivers.
For 2026, guidance implied 210 bps of adjusted operating margin expansion to 22.5% at the midpoint on 28% organic growth. That magnitude of margin expansion at this growth rate implies confidence in continued operating leverage, sustained pricing power, and supply-chain productivity. However, management also acknowledged that incremental margins are being restrained by growth investments. In response to an analyst question about incrementals potentially rising above the guided low end, the CFO stated that “There is a higher-level of investment” and that investment ramp has “a little bit of pressure… as we drive those incremental margins,” while reiterating the longer-term incremental margin trajectory.
Pricing commentary remained favorable. Management stated: “2025 pricing exceeded inflation, and we expect the same in ’26.” This is a central support for the margin outlook, particularly given the presence of tariffs and commodity volatility. The call’s tariff commentary suggested mitigation is progressing: “We expect on an exit-rate basis to have materially offset unfavorable margin impact from tariffs as of the first-quarter of this year.” This implies that tariff impact should be less of a margin headwind exiting first quarter 2026 than in late 2025, although the phrase “exit-rate basis” implies some intra-quarter and early-year pressure could remain.
CASH FLOW, WORKING CAPITAL, AND BALANCE SHEET POSITIONING
Cash performance in 2025 was strong and supported management’s claims of operational discipline. Full year adjusted free cash flow was approximately $1.887B, up 66% year-over-year, and management cited working capital efficiency and advance payments as important contributors. The fourth quarter cash result ($910M) was specifically tied to larger customer advance payments associated with large orders.
Guidance for 2026 implied a shift in the composition of free cash flow. Midpoint adjusted free cash flow of $2.2B (+17%) lags midpoint EPS growth (+43%), largely due to:
Higher cash taxes (2026: $775M vs 2025: $428M, a $347M headwind).
Higher net capital expenditures (2026: $475M vs 2025: $226M, a $249M headwind).
Lower working-capital benefit (change in working capital 2026: $300M vs 2025: $415M; plus “working capital & other” of negative $60M year-over-year in the bridge).
This guidance implicitly reduces reliance on the unusually strong 2025 working-capital inflow and positions free cash flow growth as more structurally tied to profit growth, but it also highlights that 2025’s cash conversion level may not be a steady-state assumption. The sustainability of advance payments and progress billing terms remains a key swing factor for cash generation, particularly if competitive dynamics change or if order mix shifts.
Balance sheet commentary indicated low leverage and flexibility. Net leverage was stated at approximately 0.5x at quarter-end, positioning the company for incremental capex, strategic M&A, and shareholder returns. No specific capital return framework was quantified on the call, but strategic flexibility was emphasized.
GUIDANCE, COMPARISONS, AND CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT
Management provided both first quarter 2026 and full year 2026 guidance and framed the outlook as underpinned by demand momentum and backlog visibility.
Full year 2026 guidance (midpoint):
Net sales: $13.5B, +28% organic growth.
Adjusted operating profit: $3.04B, +45% year-over-year.
Adjusted operating margin: 22.5%, +210 bps.
Adjusted diluted EPS: $6.02, +43%.
Adjusted free cash flow: $2.2B, +17%.
First quarter 2026 guidance (midpoint):
Net sales: $2.6B, +22% organic growth.
Adjusted operating profit: $495M, +47%.
Adjusted operating margin: 19.0%, +250 bps.
Adjusted diluted EPS: $0.98, +53%.
Regional assumptions embedded in 2026 sales guidance:
Americas: high 30% growth; net sales range $9.1B to $9.3B.
APAC: mid 20% growth; net sales range $2.4B to $2.6B.
EMEA: flat to down mid single digits; net sales range $1.7B to $1.8B, with a return to growth in the second half.
Guidance vs prior company guidance for 2025:
Fourth quarter 2025: adjusted EPS beat prior guidance by $0.10; net sales beat by $30M; adjusted operating profit beat by $29M; adjusted operating margin exceeded guidance by 80 bps.
Full year 2025: adjusted EPS beat prior guidance by $0.10; net sales beat by $30M; adjusted operating profit beat by $30M; adjusted operating margin exceeded guidance by 20 bps.
Tax rate: fourth quarter 2025 adjusted ETR was 21% versus prior guidance of 23%, primarily due to stock-based compensation-related benefits and changes in tax attributes. Guidance for first quarter and full year 2026 assumes a 23% adjusted ETR, implying a tax headwind versus the unusually favorable fourth quarter 2025 rate.
Guidance vs street expectations (as provided in the Bloomberg summary included in source material):
First quarter: adjusted EPS guidance of $0.95 to $1.01 versus consensus estimate of $0.93; sales guidance of $2.50B to $2.70B versus consensus of $2.54B.
Full year: sales guidance of $13.25B to $13.75B versus consensus of $12.43B; adjusted EPS guidance of $5.97 to $6.07 versus consensus of $5.29.
The magnitude of the full-year guide uplift versus consensus implies that either: 1) the market materially under-modeled backlog conversion and/or margin expansion into 2026; 2) management has increased confidence in the durability of demand and pricing; or 3) management is taking a more aggressive stance on growth conversion that will require sustained execution on capacity, supply chain, and project delivery. Given the company’s pattern of modest beats versus guidance in 2025 and the scale of backlog expansion exiting 2025, guidance credibility appears improved versus typical industrial cyclicals, but risk remains elevated due to the discontinuation of quarterly orders disclosure and the inherent lumpiness of large-project ordering.
STRATEGIC AND TECHNOLOGY POSITIONING
The call reinforced a strategic shift toward higher-integration offerings and services attach, which has implications for content per megawatt, margin structure, competitive differentiation, and recurring revenue mix.
System-level and prefabricated solutions were highlighted as key growth drivers:
OneCore: described as an “end-to-end full data center solution” designed to reduce “time to token” and scale to gigawatt sites via 12.5MW building blocks.
SmartRun: described as a converged, prefabricated whitespace infrastructure solution to accelerate data hall readiness, scalable across compute generations, and deployed at scale with large customers.
The strategic implication is a move from component-level procurement to solution-level procurement, increasing Vertiv’s share of wallet and potentially improving pricing power through delivered-value selling. This also increases execution complexity, as solution-level scope introduces more integration risk, field commissioning intensity, and schedule sensitivity.
Services were positioned as a competitive moat and a source of recurring revenue expansion. Lifecycle services orders growth was stated as “north of 25% year-on-year.” Field service headcount was described as approaching 5,000, with services capacity intended to scale alongside delivery capacity and installed base growth. The PurgeRite acquisition was framed as strengthening fluid management capabilities for liquid-cooled AI data centers, emphasizing that fluid network cleanliness and stability can materially impact compute throughput and downtime risk. The service narrative supports a longer-duration revenue stream that may reduce cyclicality if the installed base expands as expected.
Cooling architecture commentary addressed investor concerns about shifting thermal designs. Management argued that higher-temperature operation of some GPU loads does not remove the need for heat rejection and that future designs are likely to be more hybrid, combining different cooling approaches across loads and climates. The company expressed confidence in long-term relevance of CDU-based approaches, stating that alternatives to cooling chips via CDUs are not broadly expected because “blast radius is a little bit too big” in most cases. A product focus was highlighted on a “trailing cooler,” described as a chiller optimized for higher-temperature operation with flexibility for lower temperatures, intended to maximize free cooling. The net implication is that increased design complexity should benefit suppliers with broad portfolios and systems expertise, supporting content stability or upside over time.
On content per megawatt, management did not explicitly raise the historical framework but indicated it remains usable as a baseline. In response to a question referencing $3.0M to $3.5M per megawatt, management stated that this can be used “as a framework,” while also suggesting that technology complexity is favorable for TAM per megawatt, but that quantification was “a little premature” and may become clearer over the coming quarters.
KEY RISKS, DISCONFIRMATION POINTS, AND MONITORABLES
Demand and backlog conversion risks:
Order lumpiness remains a structural feature and has been repeatedly emphasized by management, increasing quarter-to-quarter forecasting risk.
Discontinuation of quarterly orders/backlog reporting reduces transparency; weaker-than-expected demand would be detected later via revenue and margin impacts rather than via leading indicators.
Backlog lead times of 12 to 18 months support multi-year visibility, but also introduce higher exposure to customer reprioritization risk if macro conditions shift or if AI infrastructure spend moderates.
Execution risks:
Capacity expansion and supply-chain scaling must keep pace with backlog conversion. Capex is rising to 3% to 4% of sales in 2026, but physical capacity, supplier capacity, and field execution remain potential bottlenecks.
Project complexity increases as system-level scope expands, raising integration, commissioning, and delivery schedule risks.
Margin and pricing risks:
Price-cost tailwinds are a central pillar of the margin outlook; competitive pricing pressure or mix shifts could compress margins, particularly if component categories normalize or if solution-level bids become more competitive.
Tariff mitigation is expected to improve by the end of first quarter 2026 on an exit-rate basis, but tariff volatility remains a modeling and margin-risk factor.
Cash flow and working-capital risks:
2025 cash flow benefited materially from advance payments; changes in customer terms, mix, or competitive dynamics could reduce this tailwind.
2026 cash taxes are guided sharply higher, creating sensitivity to geographic profit mix and tax attribute utilization.
Elevated capex reduces near-term free cash flow conversion; a sustained period of high growth may require continued above-normal capex beyond 2026.
Regional risks:
China remains weak and is the primary driver of APAC underperformance; a prolonged China downturn would weigh on both growth and margin in the region.
EMEA recovery is expected only in the second half of 2026; delays in permitting or infrastructure constraints could push recovery out further and reduce consolidated growth contribution.
INVESTMENT IMPLICATIONS
The quarter and guidance materially increase the probability of an upward earnings and cash flow trajectory through 2026, supported by the combination of backlog expansion, stated pipeline growth, continued price-cost tailwinds, and operating leverage. The primary positive investment implications are: 1) enhanced revenue visibility given backlog size and stated lead times; 2) structural margin expansion potential evidenced by sustained improvement through 2024 and 2025 and a 2026 guide implying further 210 bps expansion; 3) increasing strategic differentiation as procurement shifts toward system-level solutions and services attach; and 4) balance sheet flexibility that can support capex, targeted M&A, and potential capital returns.
At the same time, the call introduced 2 structural sources of incremental uncertainty that can affect valuation and risk management: 1) reduced transparency on orders and backlog on a quarterly basis; and 2) increased reliance on execution across capacity, suppliers, and field services to convert a much larger backlog while maintaining margin targets. In practice, the discontinuation of quarterly order metrics is likely to shift the market’s focus from demand momentum to conversion and profitability proof points. Consequently, short-term multiple support may become more sensitive to revenue conversion cadence, gross margin stability, working-capital performance, and any evidence of project delays.
Net investment-relevant conclusions from the call’s content:
The magnitude and breadth of order acceleration, combined with explicit commentary that pipeline continued to grow and that backlog reflects binding purchase orders, strengthens the base-case view of sustained demand into 2026 and partial visibility into 2027.
The 2026 guide meaningfully above consensus implies a likely reset of forward estimates, but it also raises the bar for execution and increases downside convexity if conversion is delayed or if margins compress due to capacity constraints, project complexity, or competitive pricing.
The cash flow profile should be modeled with greater attention to advance payments, taxes, and capex. Free cash flow growth guidance (+17%) substantially trails EPS growth guidance (+43%), highlighting that earnings strength is expected to be partially reinvested and partially absorbed by higher cash taxes.
Regional dispersion remains an important swing factor. The Americas is increasingly the consolidated earnings driver, while APAC and EMEA represent both potential upside (reacceleration) and downside (prolonged weakness).
The disclosure change may reduce near-term volatility in reported leading indicators but increases the probability of delayed market recognition of a demand inflection, either positive or negative. This increases the importance of channel checks, customer capex tracking, and competitor commentary for ongoing demand assessment.
COMPANY PARTICIPANTS
Craig Chamberlin, Chief Financial Officer
Dave Cote, Executive Chairman
Giordano Albertazzi, Chief Executive Officer
Lynne Maxeiner, Vice President, Global Treasury & Investor Relations
RESEARCH ANALYSTS
Steve Tusa, JP Morgan
Scott Davis, Melius Research
Amit Darani, Evercore
Jeff Sprague, Vertical Research
Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley
Nigel Coe, Wolfe Research
Andrew Obin, Bank of America
Nicole DeBlase, Deutsche Bank
Mark Delaney, Goldman Sachs
Andy Kaplowitz, Citigroup
Michael Elias, TD Cowen
Amit Mehrotra, UBS
Julian Mitchell, Barclays
Demand and backlog conversion risks:
Order lumpiness remains a structural feature and has been repeatedly emphasized by management, increasing quarter-to-quarter forecasting risk.
Discontinuation of quarterly orders/backlog reporting reduces transparency; weaker-than-expected demand would be detected later via revenue and margin impacts rather than via leading indicators.
Backlog lead times of 12 to 18 months support multi-year visibility, but also introduce higher exposure to customer reprioritization risk if macro conditions shift or if AI infrastructure spend moderates.
Execution risks:
Capacity expansion and supply-chain scaling must keep pace with backlog conversion. Capex is rising to 3% to 4% of sales in 2026, but physical capacity, supplier capacity, and field execution remain potential bottlenecks.
Project complexity increases as system-level scope expands, raising integration, commissioning, and delivery schedule risks.
Margin and pricing risks:
Price-cost tailwinds are a central pillar of the margin outlook; competitive pricing pressure or mix shifts could compress margins, particularly if component categories normalize or if solution-level bids become more competitive.
Tariff mitigation is expected to improve by the end of first quarter 2026 on an exit-rate basis, but tariff volatility remains a modeling and margin-risk factor.
Cash flow and working-capital risks:
2025 cash flow benefited materially from advance payments; changes in customer terms, mix, or competitive dynamics could reduce this tailwind.
2026 cash taxes are guided sharply higher, creating sensitivity to geographic profit mix and tax attribute utilization.
Elevated capex reduces near-term free cash flow conversion; a sustained period of high growth may require continued above-normal capex beyond 2026.
Regional risks:
China remains weak and is the primary driver of APAC underperformance; a prolonged China downturn would weigh on both growth and margin in the region.
EMEA recovery is expected only in the second half of 2026; delays in permitting or infrastructure constraints could push recovery out further and reduce consolidated growth contribution.
INVESTMENT IMPLICATIONS
The quarter and guidance materially increase the probability of an upward earnings and cash flow trajectory through 2026, supported by the combination of backlog expansion, stated pipeline growth, continued price-cost tailwinds, and operating leverage. The primary positive investment implications are: 1) enhanced revenue visibility given backlog size and stated lead times; 2) structural margin expansion potential evidenced by sustained improvement through 2024 and 2025 and a 2026 guide implying further 210 bps expansion; 3) increasing strategic differentiation as procurement shifts toward system-level solutions and services attach; and 4) balance sheet flexibility that can support capex, targeted M&A, and potential capital returns.
At the same time, the call introduced 2 structural sources of incremental uncertainty that can affect valuation and risk management: 1) reduced transparency on orders and backlog on a quarterly basis; and 2) increased reliance on execution across capacity, suppliers, and field services to convert a much larger backlog while maintaining margin targets. In practice, the discontinuation of quarterly order metrics is likely to shift the market’s focus from demand momentum to conversion and profitability proof points. Consequently, short-term multiple support may become more sensitive to revenue conversion cadence, gross margin stability, working-capital performance, and any evidence of project delays.
Net investment-relevant conclusions from the call’s content:
The magnitude and breadth of order acceleration, combined with explicit commentary that pipeline continued to grow and that backlog reflects binding purchase orders, strengthens the base-case view of sustained demand into 2026 and partial visibility into 2027.
The 2026 guide meaningfully above consensus implies a likely reset of forward estimates, but it also raises the bar for execution and increases downside convexity if conversion is delayed or if margins compress due to capacity constraints, project complexity, or competitive pricing.
The cash flow profile should be modeled with greater attention to advance payments, taxes, and capex. Free cash flow growth guidance (+17%) substantially trails EPS growth guidance (+43%), highlighting that earnings strength is expected to be partially reinvested and partially absorbed by higher cash taxes.
Regional dispersion remains an important swing factor. The Americas is increasingly the consolidated earnings driver, while APAC and EMEA represent both potential upside (reacceleration) and downside (prolonged weakness).
The disclosure change may reduce near-term volatility in reported leading indicators but increases the probability of delayed market recognition of a demand inflection, either positive or negative. This increases the importance of channel checks, customer capex tracking, and competitor commentary for ongoing demand assessment.
COMPANY PARTICIPANTS
Craig Chamberlin, Chief Financial Officer
Dave Cote, Executive Chairman
Giordano Albertazzi, Chief Executive Officer
Lynne Maxeiner, Vice President, Global Treasury & Investor Relations
RESEARCH ANALYSTS
Steve Tusa, JP Morgan
Scott Davis, Melius Research
Amit Darani, Evercore
Jeff Sprague, Vertical Research
Chris Snyder, Morgan Stanley
Nigel Coe, Wolfe Research
Andrew Obin, Bank of America
Nicole DeBlase, Deutsche Bank
Mark Delaney, Goldman Sachs
Andy Kaplowitz, Citigroup
Michael Elias, TD Cowen
Amit Mehrotra, UBS
Julian Mitchell, Barclays
It’s May 1996. New Albany, Ohio.
Maria Farmer is 26 years old. An artist. She’s been working at a billionaire’s estate for three weeks. Today she needs to leave the guesthouse to buy art supplies.
She calls the billionaire’s wife. Asks permission.
The wife says she’ll think about it.
Maria is a grown woman. But armed guards patrol this property. She can’t leave without approval. She’s starting to understand: this isn’t an artist residency.
It’s a prison.
That night, Jeffrey Epstein walks into her room. By morning, she’s been assaulted. She escapes the estate. She reports him to the FBI.
Nothing happens.
Thirty years later—February 10, 2026—Congressman Ro Khanna stands on the House floor. He’s holding FBI documents. Documents the Department of Justice tried to keep secret.
He reads a list of six names. Men the FBI suspected of helping Jeffrey Epstein traffic children.
The first name: Leslie Wexner.
Owner of Victoria’s Secret. One of the richest men in America. The man who gave Epstein power of attorney over billions of dollars. The man who transferred a $56 million Manhattan mansion to Epstein with no record of payment.
The FBI called him a suspected co-conspirator.
This is the story of how it happened.
The Genius Who Built an Empire
Columbus, Ohio.
Les Wexner is 26 years old. His parents own a small clothing store in Dayton. Les has an idea: what if you only sold one thing? Women’s sportswear. Young professionals. Simple, focused, fast.
He borrows $5,000 from his aunt. Opens one store. Calls it The Limited.
Within a year, he opens a second store. Then a third. Then ten.
By 1969, The Limited is a chain. By 1980, Wexner has 187 stores across America. He’s a retail genius. He understands what women want before they know it themselves.
In 1982, he’s in San Francisco. He walks into a struggling lingerie store called Victoria’s Secret. Six locations. Losing money. Victorian-themed, frilly, old-fashioned.
Wexner sees potential.
He buys the company for $1 million. Then he transforms it. Out go the Victorians. In come supermodels. Fashion shows. Fantasy. Glamour.
By 1990, Victoria’s Secret isn’t just a store. It’s a cultural phenomenon. The fashion show becomes appointment television. Angels become celebrities. Sales exceed $1 billion.
Les Wexner becomes one of the richest men in America.
He builds a private town in Ohio called New Albany. He designs every building himself. He donates hundreds of millions to charity. Ohio State University. Medical research. Jewish causes.
But by the mid-1980s, Wexner wants more. Retail is good. But he wants sophisticated wealth management. Offshore investments. Tax strategies. Complex financial structures.
He needs someone brilliant with money.
In 1986, a friend offers to introduce him to just such a person.
That introduction will destroy everything.
The Warning: “I Smell a Rat”
Robert Meister is sitting on a plane. Mid-1980s. Flying to Palm Beach.
The man next to him is charming. Well-dressed. Says his name is Jeffrey Epstein. Says he works in finance. High-net-worth clients. Offshore accounts. Complex tax structures.
They talk. Meister mentions he’s an insurance executive. His firm handles policies for The Limited. He knows Les Wexner personally.
Epstein becomes very interested.
Later, Epstein calls Meister. He has a story. He says he’s discovered that Wexner’s current money manager—Harold Levin—is stealing from him. Epstein describes himself as a financial “bounty hunter.” He can recover the stolen money.
It sounds convincing.
Meister arranges a meeting. Wexner’s house in Aspen. Epstein makes his pitch.
But Meister has a colleague who wants to meet Epstein first. Harold Levin himself. The man Epstein is accusing.
They meet. One meeting.
Levin walks out. Finds Meister. Says: “I smell a rat. I don’t trust him”.
He tells Wexner the same thing. Stay away from this man.
Wexner ignores him.
By 1987, Jeffrey Epstein is Wexner’s financial adviser. Soon, he’s the only adviser. Levin is pushed aside. Eventually, Levin quits rather than work under Epstein.
Before he leaves, Levin learns something disturbing: Epstein had told Wexner that Levin was stealing. It was a lie. But Wexner believed Epstein, not Levin.
The man who warned “I smell a rat” is gone.
Epstein is in.
Friends of Wexner are confused. Who is this Jeffrey Epstein? Where did he come from? What are his credentials?
No one can find answers. Epstein has no other clients. No verifiable track record. He’d worked at Bear Stearns in the late 1970s, but left in 1981 under unclear circumstances.
Some people ask questions. Wexner doesn’t answer them.
By the early 1990s, Epstein isn’t just Wexner’s financial adviser. He’s part of the family. He attends dinners. Vacations. Celebrations.
But Robert Meister—the man who introduced them—is worried.
September 1997. Wexner’s 60th birthday party. His estate in New Albany. Hundreds of guests. Senator Joe Lieberman. Prominent developers. Ohio’s elite.
Meister is there with his wife.
During the party, Meister pulls Wexner aside. In front of other guests, he begs Wexner to cut ties with Epstein. “My wife and I told him and Abigail hundreds of times to stay away from Epstein,” Meister says later.
Wexner won’t listen.
It’s the last time Meister visits Wexner’s house.
What Meister doesn’t know—what no one knows—is that by 1997, it’s already too late.
Six years earlier, Wexner had signed something. Three pages. A document that gave Jeffrey Epstein total control.
And by 1997, Epstein is already using that control to build an empire of abuse.
Thread 🪡 continue reading 📖 next Tweet.
usnews.mstfootball.com/lam1/the-billi…
Maria Farmer is 26 years old. An artist. She’s been working at a billionaire’s estate for three weeks. Today she needs to leave the guesthouse to buy art supplies.
She calls the billionaire’s wife. Asks permission.
The wife says she’ll think about it.
Maria is a grown woman. But armed guards patrol this property. She can’t leave without approval. She’s starting to understand: this isn’t an artist residency.
It’s a prison.
That night, Jeffrey Epstein walks into her room. By morning, she’s been assaulted. She escapes the estate. She reports him to the FBI.
Nothing happens.
Thirty years later—February 10, 2026—Congressman Ro Khanna stands on the House floor. He’s holding FBI documents. Documents the Department of Justice tried to keep secret.
He reads a list of six names. Men the FBI suspected of helping Jeffrey Epstein traffic children.
The first name: Leslie Wexner.
Owner of Victoria’s Secret. One of the richest men in America. The man who gave Epstein power of attorney over billions of dollars. The man who transferred a $56 million Manhattan mansion to Epstein with no record of payment.
The FBI called him a suspected co-conspirator.
This is the story of how it happened.
The Genius Who Built an Empire
Columbus, Ohio.
Les Wexner is 26 years old. His parents own a small clothing store in Dayton. Les has an idea: what if you only sold one thing? Women’s sportswear. Young professionals. Simple, focused, fast.
He borrows $5,000 from his aunt. Opens one store. Calls it The Limited.
Within a year, he opens a second store. Then a third. Then ten.
By 1969, The Limited is a chain. By 1980, Wexner has 187 stores across America. He’s a retail genius. He understands what women want before they know it themselves.
In 1982, he’s in San Francisco. He walks into a struggling lingerie store called Victoria’s Secret. Six locations. Losing money. Victorian-themed, frilly, old-fashioned.
Wexner sees potential.
He buys the company for $1 million. Then he transforms it. Out go the Victorians. In come supermodels. Fashion shows. Fantasy. Glamour.
By 1990, Victoria’s Secret isn’t just a store. It’s a cultural phenomenon. The fashion show becomes appointment television. Angels become celebrities. Sales exceed $1 billion.
Les Wexner becomes one of the richest men in America.
He builds a private town in Ohio called New Albany. He designs every building himself. He donates hundreds of millions to charity. Ohio State University. Medical research. Jewish causes.
But by the mid-1980s, Wexner wants more. Retail is good. But he wants sophisticated wealth management. Offshore investments. Tax strategies. Complex financial structures.
He needs someone brilliant with money.
In 1986, a friend offers to introduce him to just such a person.
That introduction will destroy everything.
The Warning: “I Smell a Rat”
Robert Meister is sitting on a plane. Mid-1980s. Flying to Palm Beach.
The man next to him is charming. Well-dressed. Says his name is Jeffrey Epstein. Says he works in finance. High-net-worth clients. Offshore accounts. Complex tax structures.
They talk. Meister mentions he’s an insurance executive. His firm handles policies for The Limited. He knows Les Wexner personally.
Epstein becomes very interested.
Later, Epstein calls Meister. He has a story. He says he’s discovered that Wexner’s current money manager—Harold Levin—is stealing from him. Epstein describes himself as a financial “bounty hunter.” He can recover the stolen money.
It sounds convincing.
Meister arranges a meeting. Wexner’s house in Aspen. Epstein makes his pitch.
But Meister has a colleague who wants to meet Epstein first. Harold Levin himself. The man Epstein is accusing.
They meet. One meeting.
Levin walks out. Finds Meister. Says: “I smell a rat. I don’t trust him”.
He tells Wexner the same thing. Stay away from this man.
Wexner ignores him.
By 1987, Jeffrey Epstein is Wexner’s financial adviser. Soon, he’s the only adviser. Levin is pushed aside. Eventually, Levin quits rather than work under Epstein.
Before he leaves, Levin learns something disturbing: Epstein had told Wexner that Levin was stealing. It was a lie. But Wexner believed Epstein, not Levin.
The man who warned “I smell a rat” is gone.
Epstein is in.
Friends of Wexner are confused. Who is this Jeffrey Epstein? Where did he come from? What are his credentials?
No one can find answers. Epstein has no other clients. No verifiable track record. He’d worked at Bear Stearns in the late 1970s, but left in 1981 under unclear circumstances.
Some people ask questions. Wexner doesn’t answer them.
By the early 1990s, Epstein isn’t just Wexner’s financial adviser. He’s part of the family. He attends dinners. Vacations. Celebrations.
But Robert Meister—the man who introduced them—is worried.
September 1997. Wexner’s 60th birthday party. His estate in New Albany. Hundreds of guests. Senator Joe Lieberman. Prominent developers. Ohio’s elite.
Meister is there with his wife.
During the party, Meister pulls Wexner aside. In front of other guests, he begs Wexner to cut ties with Epstein. “My wife and I told him and Abigail hundreds of times to stay away from Epstein,” Meister says later.
Wexner won’t listen.
It’s the last time Meister visits Wexner’s house.
What Meister doesn’t know—what no one knows—is that by 1997, it’s already too late.
Six years earlier, Wexner had signed something. Three pages. A document that gave Jeffrey Epstein total control.
And by 1997, Epstein is already using that control to build an empire of abuse.
Thread 🪡 continue reading 📖 next Tweet.
usnews.mstfootball.com/lam1/the-billi…
July 1991: Signing Away Everything
Three pages. That’s all it takes.
Power of attorney. Signed July 1991.
Les Wexner grants Jeffrey Epstein the legal right to sign Wexner’s name. On anything. Any document. Any contract. Any check.
Epstein can buy properties. Sell them. Borrow money. Access accounts. Hire employees. Fire them. Make investments. All in Wexner’s name.
It’s not limited. It’s not temporary. It’s total authority.
Lawyers who later review the document are stunned. One tells New York Magazine: “I’ve never seen anyone give power of attorney that broad to someone who wasn’t a family member”.
Most people don’t even give their spouses this kind of power.
Why would a billionaire give it to a man he’d known for five years? A man with no verifiable credentials? A man his best advisers called “a rat”?
In 2019, Wexner offers an explanation. He says Epstein came “highly recommended” by friends. He says he trusted those recommendations.
But the warnings were explicit. Multiple advisers had urged caution. Harold Levin didn’t trust him. Robert Meister begged him to walk away.
Wexner gave Epstein everything anyway.
For 16 years—1991 to 2007—Epstein operates with complete legal authority. He manages billions. He moves assets across borders. He represents Wexner in business deals.
Friends are mystified. One tells Vanity Fair: “We couldn’t understand it. Les is a brilliant businessman. How could he be so blind?”.
The assets under Epstein’s control aren’t small. By the mid-1990s, Wexner’s net worth exceeds $5 billion. Properties include estates in Ohio, New Albany, vacation homes, private jets.
And one particular property.
A seven-story mansion at 9 East 71st Street in Manhattan. The largest private residence in New York City.
In 1989, Wexner bought it for $13.2 million.
By 1996, Jeffrey Epstein is living there.
By 1998, it’s transferred to Epstein’s name.
Public records show no payment.
That mansion becomes the center of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal empire.
But before it became his headquarters, it became his trap.
And Maria Farmer walked right into it.
May 1996: The Guesthouse
Maria Farmer is packing her rental truck. Art supplies. Canvases. Brushes. Paint.
She’s 26 years old. She studied at the New York Academy of Art. She’s talented. She has a future.
A professor introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein. Said he was an art collector. A patron. Someone who helped young artists.
Epstein seemed legitimate. He attended gallery shows. He bought pieces. He introduced Maria to Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell seemed cultured. Connected. She talked about art, travel, high society.
Then Epstein made an offer.
He’d arranged for Maria to work as artist-in-residence on a property in Ohio. She’d paint backdrops for a Hollywood movie—”As Good As It Gets.” She’d have space. Time. Materials. It was the opportunity she’d been dreaming of.
Maria says yes.
She packs everything. Drives from New York to New Albany, Ohio.
The property belongs to Les Wexner.
Maria arrives. The estate is massive. Sprawling. Isolated. But she’s not staying in the main house. She’s in a guesthouse.
The first day, she tries to leave. To buy supplies in town.
A guard stops her.
He says she needs permission.
Maria calls the main house. Speaks to Abigail Wexner—Les Wexner’s wife. Asks if she can go into town.
Abigail says she’ll think about it.
Maria is 26 years old. An adult. But she can’t leave without asking permission.
She realizes something is very wrong.
Days pass. Maria works on the paintings. But the guards are always watching. She can’t leave the property. Every trip into town requires a phone call. Approval. Supervision.
Then Epstein and Maxwell visit.
One night, they assault her.
Maria is terrified. She finishes the work as quickly as possible. She leaves the estate. She drives back to New York.
And she does something almost no one had done before.
She reports Jeffrey Epstein to the police.
She files a criminal complaint with the FBI. Then the NYPD. She gives details. The assault. The Ohio estate. Ghislaine Maxwell’s involvement. Les Wexner’s property.
The FBI takes her statement.
Nothing happens.
No investigation. No charges. No follow-up.
Maria doesn’t understand. She reported a crime. She gave names, locations, dates. Why isn’t anyone doing anything?
Years later, she’ll learn the truth. Epstein has connections. Powerful connections. Complaints against him have a way of disappearing.
In 1996, Maria is one of the first to report him.
She won’t be the last.
One year later. May 1997. Santa Monica, California. Another woman gets a phone call. The man on the line says he’s a Victoria’s Secret talent scout.
His name is Jeffrey Epstein.
May 1997: “Let Me Manhandle You”
Alicia Arden is 27. An actress. A model. She’d appeared on “Baywatch” a few years ago. Now she’s trying to break into high fashion.
The phone rings.
A man. Says his name is Jeffrey Epstein. Says he’s a talent scout for Victoria’s Secret. Says he’s in Los Angeles looking for models for the catalog.
Alicia can’t believe it. Victoria’s Secret. The dream. Every model wants that job.
They arrange to meet. Shutters on the Beach. A luxury hotel in Santa Monica. Epstein books a room. Says it’s easier to review her portfolio there, away from distractions.
Alicia arrives. Professional photos. Comp cards. Measurements. She’s nervous. Excited.
Epstein opens the door. Invites her in. At first, everything seems normal. He looks through her photos. Asks about her experience. Seems professional.
Then he asks her to sit closer.
She does. She wants this job.
He starts touching her. Shoulder. Back. Thigh.
Alicia tenses. This doesn’t feel right.
Epstein says: “Let me manhandle you”.
He grabs her. Pulls her shirt over her head. Yanks her skirt down. Gropes her.
Alicia realizes what’s happening. This isn’t an audition. This is assault.
She fights. Pushes him away. Grabs her clothes. Runs.
Outside the hotel, she’s shaking. Crying. She calls the police.
Santa Monica Police Department. She files a sexual battery report. Gives them everything. Epstein’s name. The hotel room number. What he did.
A detective takes her statement. He seems to believe her.
But nothing happens.
No arrest. No charges. No investigation.
Alicia doesn’t understand. She reported it immediately. She had evidence. She gave them his name.
Why isn’t anyone doing anything?
She’ll learn later: Epstein used the Victoria’s Secret connection repeatedly. He approached models. Aspiring actresses. Young women desperate for a break. Promised them catalog work. Runway shows. Exposure.
Then he assaulted them.
And he got away with it.
Because the Victoria’s Secret connection wasn’t fake. It was real. He had Les Wexner.
In fact, two executives at Victoria’s Secret eventually warned Wexner. They told him Epstein was using the company’s name to approach women. They said it was damaging the brand. Creating liability.
Wexner told them: “I’ll take care of it”.
He didn’t.
The relationship between Wexner and Epstein continued.
And Epstein’s abuse escalated.
But here’s what’s strange. Epstein wasn’t just using Wexner’s company name. He was using Wexner’s money. In 2004, he gave a man named Jean-Luc Brunel up to $1 million.
That money launched one of the most notorious modeling agencies in history.
An agency that, according to victims, supplied Epstein with dozens of underage girls
Three pages. That’s all it takes.
Power of attorney. Signed July 1991.
Les Wexner grants Jeffrey Epstein the legal right to sign Wexner’s name. On anything. Any document. Any contract. Any check.
Epstein can buy properties. Sell them. Borrow money. Access accounts. Hire employees. Fire them. Make investments. All in Wexner’s name.
It’s not limited. It’s not temporary. It’s total authority.
Lawyers who later review the document are stunned. One tells New York Magazine: “I’ve never seen anyone give power of attorney that broad to someone who wasn’t a family member”.
Most people don’t even give their spouses this kind of power.
Why would a billionaire give it to a man he’d known for five years? A man with no verifiable credentials? A man his best advisers called “a rat”?
In 2019, Wexner offers an explanation. He says Epstein came “highly recommended” by friends. He says he trusted those recommendations.
But the warnings were explicit. Multiple advisers had urged caution. Harold Levin didn’t trust him. Robert Meister begged him to walk away.
Wexner gave Epstein everything anyway.
For 16 years—1991 to 2007—Epstein operates with complete legal authority. He manages billions. He moves assets across borders. He represents Wexner in business deals.
Friends are mystified. One tells Vanity Fair: “We couldn’t understand it. Les is a brilliant businessman. How could he be so blind?”.
The assets under Epstein’s control aren’t small. By the mid-1990s, Wexner’s net worth exceeds $5 billion. Properties include estates in Ohio, New Albany, vacation homes, private jets.
And one particular property.
A seven-story mansion at 9 East 71st Street in Manhattan. The largest private residence in New York City.
In 1989, Wexner bought it for $13.2 million.
By 1996, Jeffrey Epstein is living there.
By 1998, it’s transferred to Epstein’s name.
Public records show no payment.
That mansion becomes the center of Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal empire.
But before it became his headquarters, it became his trap.
And Maria Farmer walked right into it.
May 1996: The Guesthouse
Maria Farmer is packing her rental truck. Art supplies. Canvases. Brushes. Paint.
She’s 26 years old. She studied at the New York Academy of Art. She’s talented. She has a future.
A professor introduced her to Jeffrey Epstein. Said he was an art collector. A patron. Someone who helped young artists.
Epstein seemed legitimate. He attended gallery shows. He bought pieces. He introduced Maria to Ghislaine Maxwell. Maxwell seemed cultured. Connected. She talked about art, travel, high society.
Then Epstein made an offer.
He’d arranged for Maria to work as artist-in-residence on a property in Ohio. She’d paint backdrops for a Hollywood movie—”As Good As It Gets.” She’d have space. Time. Materials. It was the opportunity she’d been dreaming of.
Maria says yes.
She packs everything. Drives from New York to New Albany, Ohio.
The property belongs to Les Wexner.
Maria arrives. The estate is massive. Sprawling. Isolated. But she’s not staying in the main house. She’s in a guesthouse.
The first day, she tries to leave. To buy supplies in town.
A guard stops her.
He says she needs permission.
Maria calls the main house. Speaks to Abigail Wexner—Les Wexner’s wife. Asks if she can go into town.
Abigail says she’ll think about it.
Maria is 26 years old. An adult. But she can’t leave without asking permission.
She realizes something is very wrong.
Days pass. Maria works on the paintings. But the guards are always watching. She can’t leave the property. Every trip into town requires a phone call. Approval. Supervision.
Then Epstein and Maxwell visit.
One night, they assault her.
Maria is terrified. She finishes the work as quickly as possible. She leaves the estate. She drives back to New York.
And she does something almost no one had done before.
She reports Jeffrey Epstein to the police.
She files a criminal complaint with the FBI. Then the NYPD. She gives details. The assault. The Ohio estate. Ghislaine Maxwell’s involvement. Les Wexner’s property.
The FBI takes her statement.
Nothing happens.
No investigation. No charges. No follow-up.
Maria doesn’t understand. She reported a crime. She gave names, locations, dates. Why isn’t anyone doing anything?
Years later, she’ll learn the truth. Epstein has connections. Powerful connections. Complaints against him have a way of disappearing.
In 1996, Maria is one of the first to report him.
She won’t be the last.
One year later. May 1997. Santa Monica, California. Another woman gets a phone call. The man on the line says he’s a Victoria’s Secret talent scout.
His name is Jeffrey Epstein.
May 1997: “Let Me Manhandle You”
Alicia Arden is 27. An actress. A model. She’d appeared on “Baywatch” a few years ago. Now she’s trying to break into high fashion.
The phone rings.
A man. Says his name is Jeffrey Epstein. Says he’s a talent scout for Victoria’s Secret. Says he’s in Los Angeles looking for models for the catalog.
Alicia can’t believe it. Victoria’s Secret. The dream. Every model wants that job.
They arrange to meet. Shutters on the Beach. A luxury hotel in Santa Monica. Epstein books a room. Says it’s easier to review her portfolio there, away from distractions.
Alicia arrives. Professional photos. Comp cards. Measurements. She’s nervous. Excited.
Epstein opens the door. Invites her in. At first, everything seems normal. He looks through her photos. Asks about her experience. Seems professional.
Then he asks her to sit closer.
She does. She wants this job.
He starts touching her. Shoulder. Back. Thigh.
Alicia tenses. This doesn’t feel right.
Epstein says: “Let me manhandle you”.
He grabs her. Pulls her shirt over her head. Yanks her skirt down. Gropes her.
Alicia realizes what’s happening. This isn’t an audition. This is assault.
She fights. Pushes him away. Grabs her clothes. Runs.
Outside the hotel, she’s shaking. Crying. She calls the police.
Santa Monica Police Department. She files a sexual battery report. Gives them everything. Epstein’s name. The hotel room number. What he did.
A detective takes her statement. He seems to believe her.
But nothing happens.
No arrest. No charges. No investigation.
Alicia doesn’t understand. She reported it immediately. She had evidence. She gave them his name.
Why isn’t anyone doing anything?
She’ll learn later: Epstein used the Victoria’s Secret connection repeatedly. He approached models. Aspiring actresses. Young women desperate for a break. Promised them catalog work. Runway shows. Exposure.
Then he assaulted them.
And he got away with it.
Because the Victoria’s Secret connection wasn’t fake. It was real. He had Les Wexner.
In fact, two executives at Victoria’s Secret eventually warned Wexner. They told him Epstein was using the company’s name to approach women. They said it was damaging the brand. Creating liability.
Wexner told them: “I’ll take care of it”.
He didn’t.
The relationship between Wexner and Epstein continued.
And Epstein’s abuse escalated.
But here’s what’s strange. Epstein wasn’t just using Wexner’s company name. He was using Wexner’s money. In 2004, he gave a man named Jean-Luc Brunel up to $1 million.
That money launched one of the most notorious modeling agencies in history.
An agency that, according to victims, supplied Epstein with dozens of underage girls
2004: The Model Pipeline
Jean-Luc Brunel is a French modeling scout. In the 1980s, models accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting them. In 1988, a “60 Minutes” segment featured models describing his predatory behavior.
But Brunel is connected. He works with major agencies. He scouts across Eastern Europe.
And he knows Jeffrey Epstein.
In 2004, Epstein gives Brunel up to $1 million. The purpose: launch a modeling agency called MC2 Model Management.
Brunel opens offices in New York. Miami. He recruits young women from Eastern Europe. Poor countries. Promises them modeling careers in America. Visas. Housing. Work.
But according to court testimony, MC2 wasn’t just a modeling agency.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre—one of Epstein’s most vocal accusers—states in a 2015 deposition that Brunel “supplied Epstein with dozens of underage girls”. She says Brunel recruited girls as young as 12. Brought them to America. Delivered them to Epstein’s mansions.
In 2020, French authorities arrest Brunel. Charges: rape and sex trafficking of minors.
In February 2022, he’s found dead in his Paris jail cell. Apparent suicide.
But here’s the disturbing part.
Victoria’s Secret continued working with MC2 Model Management even after Wexner claimed to have cut ties with Epstein in 2007.
Models represented by MC2 walked in Victoria’s Secret fashion shows. Appeared in catalogs. Were part of brand campaigns.
Victoria’s Secret finally ended the relationship in 2015. The same year Virginia Giuffre publicly accused Brunel of trafficking.
For eight years after Wexner supposedly severed ties with Epstein, the company Wexner built kept working with an agency Epstein had funded.
An agency accused of supplying Epstein with victims.
When reporters asked Victoria’s Secret about this, a spokesperson said the company “took allegations seriously”.
No explanation for the eight-year relationship.
And just this month—February 2026—new evidence emerged.
Videos. The FBI obtained them during their investigation. They show Epstein conducting fake “catwalk auditions” with young girls.
The girls walk back and forth. Epstein films them. Former models who saw the videos said it looked exactly like legitimate talent scouts audition models.
Except these weren’t legitimate auditions.
They were grooming.
And they were happening while Epstein still had access to Les Wexner’s fortune. Still had power of attorney. Still lived in the Manhattan mansion Wexner had given him.
That mansion—9 East 71st Street—is worth examining closely.
Because the way it transferred from Wexner to Epstein raises a question no one has been able to answer.
How do you give away $56 million and leave no trace?
The $56 Million Mystery: A Mansion for $0
Les Wexner buys a mansion at 9 East 71st Street in Manhattan. Purchase price: $13.2 million.
It’s one of the largest private homes in New York City. Seven stories. 21,000 square feet. Built in 1930 for Herbert Straus, founder of Macy’s department store.
Wexner says he’ll use it for business trips to New York.
But he rarely stays there. In 1996, Epstein tells The New York Times: “Les never spent more than two months there”.
Instead, Epstein moves in.
He decorates it. A life-size female doll hanging from a chandelier. Taxidermied animals. A painting of Bill Clinton in a dress. Security cameras in every room.
Visitors notice the cameras. Some say they felt watched. Uncomfortable.
Epstein dismisses concerns. Says he needs security.
Then, in 1998, something happens.
The mansion transfers from Les Wexner’s name to a corporation: Nine East 71st Street Corporation.
Public records don’t show how much Epstein paid.
One source claims $20 million. But no documents confirm this.
Then, in 2011, another transfer. From Nine East 71st Street Corporation—which Epstein controls—to another Epstein company: Maple Inc., registered in the Virgin Islands.
The deed is dated December 25, 2011. Christmas Day.
It’s signed by Jeffrey E. Epstein, President.
The consideration—the amount paid—is listed on the official document.
$10.
Ten dollars.
A mansion worth tens of millions. Transferred for the price of lunch.
By 2019, the property is valued at $77 million.
Real estate lawyers say such transfers can be legal. They happen in family trusts. Corporate restructuring. But they’re unusual.
And they raise questions.
How did Jeffrey Epstein—a man with no money in 1987—acquire a $13.2 million mansion from Les Wexner?
Why are there no public records showing payment?
Why would Wexner, a brilliant businessman, give away one of Manhattan’s most valuable properties?
Wexner has never fully explained it. In his 2019 letter, he acknowledged that Epstein had “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him.
He said he was “deeply embarrassed” by his relationship with Epstein.
But he didn’t explain the mansion.
And he never sued to get it back.
In fact, when Wexner discovered in 2007 that Epstein had stolen $46 million, he did something that baffled legal experts.
He did nothing.
The $46 Million Question: Why No Lawsuit?
Les Wexner makes a discovery.
Jeffrey Epstein—his trusted financial adviser for 16 years—has “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him.
The amount: over $46 million.
This isn’t a minor accounting error. This is massive theft.
Most people, when they discover someone has stolen $46 million, do two things. They call the police. They file a lawsuit.
Les Wexner does neither.
Jean-Luc Brunel is a French modeling scout. In the 1980s, models accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting them. In 1988, a “60 Minutes” segment featured models describing his predatory behavior.
But Brunel is connected. He works with major agencies. He scouts across Eastern Europe.
And he knows Jeffrey Epstein.
In 2004, Epstein gives Brunel up to $1 million. The purpose: launch a modeling agency called MC2 Model Management.
Brunel opens offices in New York. Miami. He recruits young women from Eastern Europe. Poor countries. Promises them modeling careers in America. Visas. Housing. Work.
But according to court testimony, MC2 wasn’t just a modeling agency.
Virginia Roberts Giuffre—one of Epstein’s most vocal accusers—states in a 2015 deposition that Brunel “supplied Epstein with dozens of underage girls”. She says Brunel recruited girls as young as 12. Brought them to America. Delivered them to Epstein’s mansions.
In 2020, French authorities arrest Brunel. Charges: rape and sex trafficking of minors.
In February 2022, he’s found dead in his Paris jail cell. Apparent suicide.
But here’s the disturbing part.
Victoria’s Secret continued working with MC2 Model Management even after Wexner claimed to have cut ties with Epstein in 2007.
Models represented by MC2 walked in Victoria’s Secret fashion shows. Appeared in catalogs. Were part of brand campaigns.
Victoria’s Secret finally ended the relationship in 2015. The same year Virginia Giuffre publicly accused Brunel of trafficking.
For eight years after Wexner supposedly severed ties with Epstein, the company Wexner built kept working with an agency Epstein had funded.
An agency accused of supplying Epstein with victims.
When reporters asked Victoria’s Secret about this, a spokesperson said the company “took allegations seriously”.
No explanation for the eight-year relationship.
And just this month—February 2026—new evidence emerged.
Videos. The FBI obtained them during their investigation. They show Epstein conducting fake “catwalk auditions” with young girls.
The girls walk back and forth. Epstein films them. Former models who saw the videos said it looked exactly like legitimate talent scouts audition models.
Except these weren’t legitimate auditions.
They were grooming.
And they were happening while Epstein still had access to Les Wexner’s fortune. Still had power of attorney. Still lived in the Manhattan mansion Wexner had given him.
That mansion—9 East 71st Street—is worth examining closely.
Because the way it transferred from Wexner to Epstein raises a question no one has been able to answer.
How do you give away $56 million and leave no trace?
The $56 Million Mystery: A Mansion for $0
Les Wexner buys a mansion at 9 East 71st Street in Manhattan. Purchase price: $13.2 million.
It’s one of the largest private homes in New York City. Seven stories. 21,000 square feet. Built in 1930 for Herbert Straus, founder of Macy’s department store.
Wexner says he’ll use it for business trips to New York.
But he rarely stays there. In 1996, Epstein tells The New York Times: “Les never spent more than two months there”.
Instead, Epstein moves in.
He decorates it. A life-size female doll hanging from a chandelier. Taxidermied animals. A painting of Bill Clinton in a dress. Security cameras in every room.
Visitors notice the cameras. Some say they felt watched. Uncomfortable.
Epstein dismisses concerns. Says he needs security.
Then, in 1998, something happens.
The mansion transfers from Les Wexner’s name to a corporation: Nine East 71st Street Corporation.
Public records don’t show how much Epstein paid.
One source claims $20 million. But no documents confirm this.
Then, in 2011, another transfer. From Nine East 71st Street Corporation—which Epstein controls—to another Epstein company: Maple Inc., registered in the Virgin Islands.
The deed is dated December 25, 2011. Christmas Day.
It’s signed by Jeffrey E. Epstein, President.
The consideration—the amount paid—is listed on the official document.
$10.
Ten dollars.
A mansion worth tens of millions. Transferred for the price of lunch.
By 2019, the property is valued at $77 million.
Real estate lawyers say such transfers can be legal. They happen in family trusts. Corporate restructuring. But they’re unusual.
And they raise questions.
How did Jeffrey Epstein—a man with no money in 1987—acquire a $13.2 million mansion from Les Wexner?
Why are there no public records showing payment?
Why would Wexner, a brilliant businessman, give away one of Manhattan’s most valuable properties?
Wexner has never fully explained it. In his 2019 letter, he acknowledged that Epstein had “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him.
He said he was “deeply embarrassed” by his relationship with Epstein.
But he didn’t explain the mansion.
And he never sued to get it back.
In fact, when Wexner discovered in 2007 that Epstein had stolen $46 million, he did something that baffled legal experts.
He did nothing.
The $46 Million Question: Why No Lawsuit?
Les Wexner makes a discovery.
Jeffrey Epstein—his trusted financial adviser for 16 years—has “misappropriated vast sums of money” from him.
The amount: over $46 million.
This isn’t a minor accounting error. This is massive theft.
Most people, when they discover someone has stolen $46 million, do two things. They call the police. They file a lawsuit.
Les Wexner does neither.
Aerial Lidar is now easy to do thanks to DJI. Tap the frog @TiskTusk to build handheld.
Create a digital twin of Nairobi & Mombasa and have all infrastructure bodies with shared access.
Plus contractors apply for access based on work.
Bury utilities & have ducts.
Create a digital twin of Nairobi & Mombasa and have all infrastructure bodies with shared access.
Plus contractors apply for access based on work.
Bury utilities & have ducts.
@EricKigada Does burying utilities need tunnelling or it is strictly cut and cover?
Assuming storm drainage is part of it and needs to cross busy roads.
Assuming storm drainage is part of it and needs to cross busy roads.
GOODBYE ASTROLOGERS.
CHATGPT JUST MADE IT EASY AND FREE.
JUST GIVE IT YOUR BIRTHDATE.
NO HOROSCOPES, NO TAROT.
Copy these 6 prompts for results that will blow your mind:
CHATGPT JUST MADE IT EASY AND FREE.
JUST GIVE IT YOUR BIRTHDATE.
NO HOROSCOPES, NO TAROT.
Copy these 6 prompts for results that will blow your mind:
1. The Life Decoder Blueprint
Prompt:
"I want you to act as a life-path decoder. I will give you my date of birth: [insert DOB]. Analyze it using psychology, numerology logic, and life-pattern mapping to uncover my deepest personality traits, hidden strengths, weaknesses, and destiny blueprint. Deliver a brutally honest analysis that feels like you've known me forever, and highlight the single biggest purpose I'm meant to pursue in this lifetime."
Prompt:
"I want you to act as a life-path decoder. I will give you my date of birth: [insert DOB]. Analyze it using psychology, numerology logic, and life-pattern mapping to uncover my deepest personality traits, hidden strengths, weaknesses, and destiny blueprint. Deliver a brutally honest analysis that feels like you've known me forever, and highlight the single biggest purpose I'm meant to pursue in this lifetime."
2. The Soul Purpose Finder
Prompt:
"Using my date of birth [Insert DOB], act as my soul-purpose guide. Reveal the core mission of my life, the lessons I am meant to learn, and the contribution I am destined to make to the world. Don't just describe, give me clear, actionable advice on how to align my daily life with this soul purpose starting today."
Prompt:
"Using my date of birth [Insert DOB], act as my soul-purpose guide. Reveal the core mission of my life, the lessons I am meant to learn, and the contribution I am destined to make to the world. Don't just describe, give me clear, actionable advice on how to align my daily life with this soul purpose starting today."
(1/10 🧵) If you live in NY, you may see a new warning: “THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA.” This mandatory disclosure went into effect late last year, and it’s the first attempt by a US state to grapple with a new generation of surveillance pricing.
(2/10) You know dynamic pricing—think Ubers, flights, or concert tickets that surge based on supply and demand. “Surveillance pricing” takes this to a new level: using your data to set a “price for you” based on your predicted breaking point. This is, increasingly, everywhere.
(3/10) A December 2025 Consumer Reports investigation found that Instacart prices for identical items varied by as much as 23% between different users. Instacart characterizes these discrepancies as routine ‘A/B testing’. consumerreports.org/money/question…
Angela Stent, Former National Intel Officer: Every time Witkoff claims progress on Ukraine, the next day Putin or Lavrov restate the same demands — withdrawal from Donbas and “denazification”.
They also cite an “Anchorage formula” no US official confirms. It’s obfuscation. 1/
They also cite an “Anchorage formula” no US official confirms. It’s obfuscation. 1/
Stent: Russia's negotiations are entirely performative.
They follow Soviet and post-Soviet tactics: negotiate to create a process and wear people down. Putin wants to humor Trump to avoid more punitive actions from the US administration. 2X
They follow Soviet and post-Soviet tactics: negotiate to create a process and wear people down. Putin wants to humor Trump to avoid more punitive actions from the US administration. 2X
Source:
Reflecting on what engineers love about Claude Code, one thing that jumps out is its customizability: hooks, plugins, LSPs, MCPs, skills, effort, custom agents, status lines, output styles, etc.
Every engineer uses their tools differently. We built Claude Code from the ground up to not just have great defaults, but to also be incredibly customizable. This is a reason why developers fall in love with the product, and why Claude Code's growth continues to accelerate.
I wanted to share a few ways we're seeing people and teams customize their Claudes.
Every engineer uses their tools differently. We built Claude Code from the ground up to not just have great defaults, but to also be incredibly customizable. This is a reason why developers fall in love with the product, and why Claude Code's growth continues to accelerate.
I wanted to share a few ways we're seeing people and teams customize their Claudes.
1/ Configure your terminal
- Theme: Run /config to set light/dark mode
- Notifs: Enable notifications for iTerm2, or use a custom notifs hook
- Newlines: If you use Claude Code in an IDE terminal, Apple Terminal, Warp, or Alacritty, run /terminal-setup to enable shift+enter for newlines (so you don't need to type \)
- Vim mode: run /vim
code.claude.com/docs/en/termin…
- Theme: Run /config to set light/dark mode
- Notifs: Enable notifications for iTerm2, or use a custom notifs hook
- Newlines: If you use Claude Code in an IDE terminal, Apple Terminal, Warp, or Alacritty, run /terminal-setup to enable shift+enter for newlines (so you don't need to type \)
- Vim mode: run /vim
code.claude.com/docs/en/termin…
2/ Adjust effort level
Run /model to pick your preferred effort level. Set it to:
- Low, for less tokens & faster responses
- Medium, for balanced behavior
- High, for more tokens & more intelligence
Personally, I use High for everything.
Run /model to pick your preferred effort level. Set it to:
- Low, for less tokens & faster responses
- Medium, for balanced behavior
- High, for more tokens & more intelligence
Personally, I use High for everything.
Si querés saber un poco más del rol de McCartney bajista y compositor, en este hilo te tiro un par de curiosidades de la minisèrie disponible en Hulu. Conversando Con el productor Rick Rubin. Sigue...👇
The quarrymen empezó con John y Paul haciendo skiffle. Cambiaron su look "grease" después de conocer unos amigos alemanes que les dieron el flequillo "artie" después Epstein les mandaría a cambiar esas camperas de cuero por trajes de sastre. Paul aquí no era bajista...(sigue)
Se baja Stuart el bajista de los primeros Beatles, John y George cantaron "pri" para no ser bajista. Ahí fue Paul con las cuatro cuerdas. El acorde inicial y arpegio en fade out de a hard day's night fue hecho como intro para la película homónima. Idea de George Martin.
@jkbjournalist @Shayan86 1).
„Julie K. Brown has been credited with re-opening the Jeffrey Epstein sexual abuse case with a series of reports published in Nov. 2018 [1] [2] [3] [4].
„Julie K. Brown has been credited with re-opening the Jeffrey Epstein sexual abuse case with a series of reports published in Nov. 2018 [1] [2] [3] [4].
@jkbjournalist @Shayan86 2).
She began investigating Epstein in early 2017 and persisted in uncovering facts about the large number of accusers and the pressure campaign to silence them [5] [6].
She began investigating Epstein in early 2017 and persisted in uncovering facts about the large number of accusers and the pressure campaign to silence them [5] [6].
@jkbjournalist @Shayan86 3).
Brown uncovered 80 potential victims (as young as 13 and 14 years old when the abuse occurred) and documented the eight individuals who agreed to tell their stories [6].”
Brown uncovered 80 potential victims (as young as 13 and 14 years old when the abuse occurred) and documented the eight individuals who agreed to tell their stories [6].”
Former CIA Director Petraeus: I said from the start Russia would not take Kyiv. Others predicted it would fall in 3–5 days. Kyiv is a vast city with brave defenders.
It would be extremely hard to break in — and Ukraine’s actions denied Russia the airfield north of the capital.1/
It would be extremely hard to break in — and Ukraine’s actions denied Russia the airfield north of the capital.1/
Petraeus: The Budapest Memorandum was a major failure.
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from the US, Russia, and the UK and those guarantees weren’t upheld. This is Ukraine’s war for independence — a fight for its very survival.
2/
Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for security assurances from the US, Russia, and the UK and those guarantees weren’t upheld. This is Ukraine’s war for independence — a fight for its very survival.
2/
Petraeus: US sanctions are under Senate review.
If paired with the EU’s 19th package and continued military support, the pressure could be strong enough to push Putin toward a ceasefire by the end of the year.
3/
If paired with the EU’s 19th package and continued military support, the pressure could be strong enough to push Putin toward a ceasefire by the end of the year.
3/
$1.1B flowed from the state budget into the pockets of ministers, police generals and judges. Now Russia claws it back.
Over 5–7 years, authorities seized 100B rubles in corruption cases.
In total, the state grabbed 4T rubles ($44B) in assets. It sold only 8%. ––Moscow Times.1/
Over 5–7 years, authorities seized 100B rubles in corruption cases.
In total, the state grabbed 4T rubles ($44B) in assets. It sold only 8%. ––Moscow Times.1/
Example: billionaire Konstantin Strukov.
The state seized his gold company Yuzhuralzoloto. He had funded United Russia for years. Now he sits in pretrial detention. 2/
The state seized his gold company Yuzhuralzoloto. He had funded United Russia for years. Now he sits in pretrial detention. 2/
Mid-level officials fell too. Former Ural road chief Alexei Borisov owned: 19 land plots, 15 houses, 26 apartments, 40 commercial spaces. Authorities moved to confiscate them. 3/