Oceaneering International

Phase A — Understand the business

Lens 1 · Company Overview

Oceaneering is a Houston-based (Delaware-incorporated 1969), global engineered-services and robotics contractor. It describes itself as "one of the world's largest underwater services contractors" and operates five reportable segments inside two businesses:

Energy (≈83% of FY2025 revenue, $2,324M):

• Subsea Robotics (SSR) — work-class ROVs, ROV tooling, survey/positioning. FY2025 revenue $855.2M (31% of total); the single largest contributor to Energy operating income.
• Manufactured Products (MP) — subsea umbilicals, production-control hardware, clamp connectors, control valves, plus a mobility-robotics/autonomous-mobile-robot line into industrial/warehousing/healthcare. FY2025 revenue $569.0M (20%).
• Offshore Projects Group (OPG) — vessel-based subsea installation & intervention (RLWI, IMR), diving, decommissioning; runs a fleet of 2 owned + 5 chartered DP deepwater vessels, principally U.S. Gulf & offshore Africa; owned vessels are Jones Act-compliant. FY2025 revenue $616.0M (22%).
• Integrity Management & Digital Solutions (IMDS) — asset-integrity, corrosion, NDT inspection + digital/software (bolstered by the Oct-2024 GDi acquisition, ~$33M). FY2025 revenue $284.0M (10%).

Aerospace & Defense Technologies (ADTech, ~17%, $459.9M, +17% YoY): engineering + manufacturing for the U.S. Government — primarily the U.S. Navy (submarine/surface-ship work) and NASA / commercial space (Oceaneering Space Systems). Highest-growth segment in FY2025.

Contract structure: Energy services are predominantly dayrate contracts (the contractor supplies the ROV/vessel + crew, paid per day, with a lower "standby" dayrate for transit/weather). Product sales (umbilicals) are fixed-price, recognized over time via cost-to-cost — ~17% of total FY2025 revenue is over-time/percentage-of-completion. Government work is a mix of cost-plus / fixed-price.

Customer concentration: Top-5 customers = 31% of FY2025 revenue; the U.S. Government alone = 12% (the only >10% customer), four of the other top-five are oil & gas E&Ps. No single commercial customer >10%. ~11,100 employees; ~48 countries; 55% of revenue ($1.5B) is non-U.S. (Africa, U.K., Norway, Brazil, Asia/Australia).

Lens 2 · Supply Chain

Map upstream → Oceaneering → end customer, with named stakeholders:

Upstream inputs (raw materials & subcontract): steel (tube/forgings), polymers, copper wire, electronic components, plastics; plus forge companies, casting foundries, metal fabricators, machine shops, logistics. The 10-K states these are "generally readily available from multiple sources but … subject to price volatility" — i.e. no disclosed single-source critical input, but commodity-cost exposure (steel/copper) on long-dated fixed-price umbilical contracts is a real margin risk. Umbilical plants in the U.S., Scotland and Brazil.

Chartered-vessel supply (a genuine cost chokepoint): OPG owns only 2 deepwater vessels and charters 5 more under staggered long-term charters (none extending past Q1-2029); it signed extensions in Q3-2025 for three charters that began Q1-2026. The 10-K's risk list explicitly flags "the availability and increased costs of chartered vessels" — this is the structural input-cost dependency, because day-rates for high-spec DP construction vessels are set by a tight third-party market (Tidewater, DOF, Solstad, etc. — peers/suppliers depending on the job).

The company → end customer:

• Energy end-buyers: international & national oil companies and other oilfield-service primes (Oceaneering frequently acts as subcontractor to the larger SURF primes — TechnipFMC, Subsea7, Saipem, Aker Solutions, who themselves win the EPCI and sub-let ROV/intervention scope). Equinor's chairman (Jon Erik Reinhardsen) sits on OII's board — a tell on the Norwegian-shelf relationship.
• ROV drill-support buyers: the offshore-drilling contractors (Transocean, Valaris, Noble, Seadrill) whose floaters Oceaneering's ROVs ride — OII claims ~60% share of the 136 contracted floating rigs at YE2025, so its SSR demand is a near-direct derivative of the global floater count.
• ADTech end-buyer: U.S. Government (Navy, NASA) and prime contractors.

Chokepoints / single-source dependencies: (1) the floater-count linkage — SSR is hostage to how many deepwater rigs are working; (2) chartered-vessel availability/cost for OPG; (3) U.S. Government funding for ADTech (substantially depends on continued appropriations). Names or it didn't happen: suppliers = global steel/copper mills + vessel owners (Tidewater/DOF/Solstad class); primes above OII = TechnipFMC/Subsea7/Saipem/Aker; rig operators carrying OII ROVs = Transocean/Valaris/Noble/Seadrill; ultimate demand = the E&P majors (Shell, BP, Petrobras, TotalEnergies, Equinor, ExxonMobil) sanctioning deepwater FIDs.

Lens 3 · Competitive Advantages (moats)

The real moat is scale + installed base in ROVs. OII owns/operates 250 work-class ROVs — it states it is the world's largest such fleet — and holds an estimated ~60% share of the contracted-floater drill-support market. That is a genuine, hard-to-replicate position: the fleet, the global shore-base footprint (ISO-certified operations across ~14+ countries per segment), the trained pilot pool, and the in-house ROV design/build facility (Morgan City, LA) compound into a cost-and-availability advantage that small local bidders can't match on a worldwide basis.

Switching costs / embeddedness: ROVs are mission-critical to drilling and subsea IMR; once OII's systems and tooling are integrated into a drilling programme or a field's lifecycle, displacing them mid-campaign is operationally risky for the customer. The umbilical business benefits from qualification/track-record barriers (subsea hardware failures are catastrophic, so operators favour proven vendors) and the 10-K notes competitors have cut umbilical capacity, tightening a historically over-supplied market.

Bargaining power — mixed. Against suppliers (commodity steel/copper, chartered vessels) OII is a price-taker on inputs. Against customers, power is cyclical: in a tight floater market (2024-25) OII pushed ROV revenue-per-day up; in a soft market it loses pricing. The technology edge (E-ROV/Liberty battery ROVs, Freedom hybrid AUV, Isurus high-current ROVs) is a differentiation/ESG lever more than a price moat — useful, not yet decisive.

Durability verdict: the ROV-scale moat is real and wide within the offshore-energy niche, but the niche itself is cyclical and (long-term) under energy-transition pressure. This is a "deep moat around a pond that can shrink" — not a Nvidia-style widening moat. ADTech adds a structurally different, government-funded, counter-cyclical leg.

Lens 4 · Segments

FY2025 segment revenue & operating income, all ``:

Geographic: 55% of revenue is foreign ($1.5B) — Africa, U.K., Norway, Brazil, Asia/Australia.

Trend & cause: Energy operating margin expanded 16%→19% on better ROV revenue-per-day, higher-margin umbilical backlog execution and Grayloc growth, partly offset by a $13M theme-park-ride inventory reserve in MP. ADTech is the acceleration story (+17% revenue, margin 11%→13%) on OTECH/Marine Services activity. IMDS is the soft spot (revenue −3%). Backlog: total firm backlog $2,703M at YE2025 vs $2,439M at YE2024 (+11%) — Energy backlog $2,444M, ADTech $259M, plus a further $658M of unfunded ADTech backlog (up from $279M). Backlog rising is a constructive forward tell; the MP book-to-bill fell to 0.84 (from 0.97) — a yellow flag that umbilical bookings lagged burn in 2025.

Q1-2026 segment shift: SSR rev $214.3M (op margin 26%, down from 29%), MP $143.6M (op margin up to 18% from 6% — the bright spot), OPG $135.4M (op margin halved to 14% from 22%), IMDS $67.9M (op loss, hit by the Middle East conflict), ADTech $131.2M (+35% YoY, but op income dinged by a $6.8M contract-dispute accrual).

---

Phase B — Measure performance

Lens 5 · Earnings Result (latest print: Q1-2026, reported 2026-04-23)

All figures `` unless noted.

• Revenue $692.4M, +3% YoY ($674.5M in Q1-2025).
• Operating income $57.8M, −21% YoY ($73.5M) → operating margin 8.3% vs 10.9%. The headline: revenue up, profit down — classic late-cycle margin give-back.
• Net income $36.1M; GAAP diluted EPS $0.36 (vs $0.49); adjusted diluted EPS $0.30 vs $0.43.
• Drivers: ADTech revenue +35% (OTECH/Marine Services) but op income hit by a $6.8M one-time accrual to settle a previously-disclosed contract dispute (net of a $1.3M release). OPG op income halved (geographic mix, lower margin work). IMDS swung to an operating loss "impacted by the conflict in the Middle East." SSR op margin slipped 29%→26% on lower ROV utilization despite higher revenue-per-day.
• Margin moves & why: the YoY profit decline on higher revenue is mix + cost: lower ROV utilization, OPG geographic mix, the ADTech accrual, IMDS Middle-East disruption, and higher IT (ERP-implementation) costs in unallocated.
• Balance-sheet flags: Q1 operating cash flow was −$59.1M (vs −$80.7M Q1-2025). This is seasonally normal — Q1 is OII's working-capital build + incentive-comp payout quarter (AR/contract-assets −$71.0M, current liabilities −$32.8M) — but worth flagging: cash fell from $688.9M (YE2025) to $607M. Capex light at $17.4M.
• Guidance/tone: management reaffirmed FY2026 Adjusted EBITDA of $390–440M and FCF of $100–120M, with the second-half weighted to an energy-market recovery and Middle-East normalization. Crucially, Q1 order intake ≈ $1B, including SSR contracts extending through 2031 — the bookings story is intact even as the P&L compressed.
• Market reaction: the print confirmed the 2026 de-rating — the stock is down ~31% YTD 2026, having sold off as Q1 EPS compression undercut the bullish margin narrative. What was priced in: investors had extrapolated 2024-25 margin expansion; Q1 told them the easy gains are done.

Lens 6 · Earnings Calls (sentiment trend)

No transcripts on the shelf (transcripts/ empty); this lens is ``, lighter than ideal — flagged as a refresh gap (ingest the Q4-2025 + Q1-2026 + Q2-2025 calls next pass).

• Tone arc: through 2024 into the Q4-2025 call, management was confident/expansionary — repeatedly citing the upstream spending cycle, rising contracted-floater count, ROV revenue-per-day gains, and ADTech momentum. The Q4-2025 call leaned on the "beat guidance, all segments contributed, ADTech op income +125%" narrative.
• Q1-2026 call = a clear shift to "guided/defensive" — "results unfolded largely as expected," reaffirmed (did not raise) full-year EBITDA, and introduced the Middle-East conflict as a new IMDS headwind. The recurring confidence phrases ("increasing visibility," "supportive oil prices," "second-half FIDs") remained, but the raise disappeared — the market read the absence of an upgrade as a top.
• What they stopped saying: the unqualified margin-expansion drumbeat of 2024-25 is replaced by "consistent with expectations" + a 2H-weighting caveat. Watch the Q2-2026 call for whether 2H recovery language firms or softens.

Lens 7 · Comps

Peer set = global subsea / offshore-services names.

EV/EBITDA derivation: market cap ~$3.97B + LT debt $0.50B − cash $0.61B (Q1-2026) = EV ≈ $3.86B. ÷ FY2026 guided Adjusted EBITDA midpoint $415M = ~9.3x. On 2025 actual Adjusted EBITDA $401M → ~9.6x.

Read: OII trades at a meaningful EV/EBITDA discount to TechnipFMC (~9x vs ~13.6x) — defensible, because FTI is a larger, integrated, higher-growth SURF prime with a 21-22% subsea EBITDA-margin guide and OII is a sub-scale, more-cyclical services contractor. The headline TTM P/E of 10.6x is misleading — it sits on the tax-flattered 2025 net income; on forward earnings OII is ~25x, an expensive-looking multiple that only makes sense as a cyclical trough-earnings artefact. The honest valuation anchor is EV/EBITDA and FCF, not P/E.

Lens 8 · Stock-Price Catalysts (>5% moves, last ~5 yrs)

Mostly ``:

• 2021-2023 offshore-recovery re-rate: OII rode the post-COVID deepwater recovery — rising floater counts and ROV demand drove a multi-year up-move; the stock compounded with the offshore-services group.
• 2024-2025 momentum: strong margin-expansion prints + the contracted-floater count climbing toward 136 drove the stock up materially (one source cites +84% over the trailing 12 months into mid-2026 ) — i.e. it peaked roughly in late-2025.
• U.S. Navy / ADTech contract wins have been discrete positive catalysts ("major US Navy contract win" reframing the bull case).
• 2026 de-rate: −31% YTD 2026 on the Q1 EPS-compression print + Middle-East IMDS headwind, despite reaffirmed guidance and ~$1B Q1 orders.
• Sell-side target moves (May 2026): Citi 35→40 (2026-05-21); Barclays 32→39 (2026-05-05).

Pattern: the market reacts to (1) the offshore CapEx cycle / floater count (the dominant driver), (2) margin trajectory (Q1-2026 proved it punishes deceleration even on revenue growth), and (3) ADTech/Navy contract news as an idiosyncratic kicker. Oil price matters only insofar as it drives E&P deepwater FIDs — OII is a derivative of offshore CapEx, not a direct commodity play.

---

Phase C — Judge people & books

Lens 9 · Management

• CEO Roderick A. Larson (59) — President since 2015, CEO since 2017; joined 2012 from Baker Hughes (20+ yrs, ended as President Latin America). Track record: steered OII through the 2015-2020 offshore depression and the 2021-2025 recovery — FY2025 delivered the strongest operational year in the cycle (Adjusted EBITDA $401M, +16%; operating income +24% ). Skin in the game modest: 0.46% ($18M / ~251k direct + ~402k indirect via LFV LP). A May-2026 Form-4 sale (~$191k) was a routine tax-withholding disposition, not a signal.
• CFO transition: Michael W. Sumruld became CFO in 2026 (joined 2025 as SVP Finance), ex-CFO of Parker Drilling until its 2025 sale to Nabors. New-CFO risk is modest but worth tracking — a fresh CFO sometimes "kitchen-sinks" estimates.
• Bench: deep, oilfield-services-pedigreed (multiple ex-Baker Hughes execs); a notable recent hire is SVP ADTech William R. Merz (2025) — a retired U.S. Navy officer who commanded the Seventh Fleet and ran Pentagon undersea-warfare requirements — a deliberate, credible bet on growing the Navy/defense franchise.
• Capital-allocation history: conservative and improving. Priorities (per management): (1) fund organic growth capex, (2) "maintain a quarterly cash dividend" (NOTE: this web-sourced phrasing is contradicted by the filings — OII paid $0 dividends in 2023/24/25 per the cash-flow statement; treat the dividend claim as a web error / aspirational language), (3) residual buybacks "at reasonable prices." Actual returns: $40M buyback in 2025, $20M in 2024, $161M cumulative since 2014 — i.e. light relative to ~$208M FCF. Cash is being built, not returned ($689M YE2025). ROE optically high in 2025 (net income $354M / avg equity ~$0.9B ≈ 39%) but inflated by the tax benefit; normalized ROE is far lower. Board includes Equinor chairman Jon Erik Reinhardsen and energy-PE figure Steven Webster — credible, energy-savvy.
• Founder vs professional manager: professional managers (no founder). Archetype implication: disciplined, cyclically-scarred operators who prioritize liquidity/survival over aggressive growth — fitting for a late-cycle services name, but it caps the buyback/return optionality bulls might want.
• Red flags: none material on governance. The recurring ADTech contract dispute (accruals in 2024, reversal in 2025, fresh $6.8M accrual Q1-2026) is a minor estimate-volatility item to watch, not a scandal.

Lens 10 · Forensic Red Flags

Acting as a forensic equity analyst. All figures `` unless noted.

1. THE BIG ONE — 2025 net income is tax-manufactured, not operational. FY2025 net income $353.8M sits on a $67.9M income-tax benefit (vs a $77.4M expense in 2024), driven by a $154M release of deferred-tax valuation allowances (US federal $140M + state $10M). Pre-tax income was only $285.9M. So GAAP diluted EPS of $3.49 overstates earning power by roughly $1.50/sh of non-cash, non-recurring tax benefit. The honest 2025 picture is Adjusted EBITDA $401M and a normalized tax-rate EPS far below $3.49. Consensus 2026 EPS of ~$1.60 is the market correctly reverting to operational earning power — not a 54% collapse. Any P/E built on the $3.49 is a trap.
2. Deferred-tax asset now a balance-sheet swing factor. Deferred tax assets jumped $31.9M → $173.1M YoY on the allowance release. A future reversal (if profitability disappoints) would hit earnings — a now-elevated estimate-risk line. A $451M non-US valuation allowance still remains, so further releases are possible (cuts both ways).
3. Revenue recognition: ~17% of revenue is over-time cost-to-cost (MP/OPG/ADTech fixed-price) — E&Y flagged this as the Critical Audit Matter (estimation of costs-to-complete, materials-cost sensitivity). Inherent percentage-of-completion estimate risk; no restatement, clean unqualified opinion (E&Y, auditor since 2002), ICFR effective.
4. Cash flow vs earnings — clean. FY2025 OCF $318.9M comfortably exceeds operational earnings; the tax benefit was non-cash (deferred), so it did NOT flatter cash flow — a reassuring divergence (GAAP EPS up, but it's a paper tax item, and cash is real). Capex $111M → FCF ≈ $208M. D&A $102M roughly tracks capex — no under-investment red flag.
5. Working capital / receivables: AR $308.5M and contract assets $216.8M; contract assets fell YoY (cash released) — no receivables-outrunning-revenue flag. Inventory $201.6M with a $15.4M write-down in 2025 (theme-park-ride business) — a small, disclosed, non-core blemish.
6. SBC: modest (~$14.8M FY2025 non-cash comp); the company stopped granting stock options in 2006 and uses RSUs/PSUs — low dilution, shares roughly flat ~99-101M. Non-GAAP is not heavily SBC-flattered. Healthy.
7. Goodwill: tiny ($51M) — negligible impairment risk. No bloated intangibles.
8. Leases: $349.8M ROU asset / $453M operating-lease liability (vessels, land) — material off-the-P&L commitment but properly capitalized under ASC 842; the chartered-vessel cost exposure lives here.

Regulatory findings (required):

• SEC Litigation Releases / AAERs: None. Verified via SEC EDGAR EFTS (LR + AAER) for 2021-06-29 → 2026-06-29 — total_sec_findings: 0.
• 10-K Item 3 (Legal Proceedings): Oceaneering incorporates Item 3 by reference to the "Litigation" discussion in Note 9 (Commitments & Contingencies) — i.e. no standalone material litigation disclosed in Item 3 itself. (The only litigation-adjacent item surfaced anywhere is the ordinary-course ADTech contract dispute, now being settled via the $6.8M accrual — immaterial.)
• Non-SEC enforcement (web check): no material FTC/DOJ/FDA/CFPB enforcement actions, consent decrees, fines or penalties surfaced for Oceaneering in the search window.
• Conclusion: No material regulatory or legal findings — verified via SEC EDGAR EFTS (LR, AAER), web search, and 10-K Item 3 as of 2026-06-29.

Forensic verdict: the books are clean and conservatively run — the headline risk is interpretive, not fraudulent: do not anchor on the 2025 GAAP EPS. Strip the tax gift and OII is a ~$400M-EBITDA, ~$200M-FCF, net-cash business priced at ~9x EV/EBITDA.

---

Phase D — Project & stress-test

Lens 11 · Forward Projection (next 3 fiscal years: FY2026E / FY2027E / FY2028E)

Built bottom-up from FY2025 actuals + management's reaffirmed FY2026 guide. All with arithmetic; anchored to actuals and `` guidance.

Anchor: FY2026 management guidance = Adjusted EBITDA $390–440M (mid $415M) and FCF $100–120M (mid $110M), on low-to-mid-single-digit revenue growth. Consensus FY2026 EPS ≈ $1.60; consensus revenue ≈ $2.87B.

*FY2025 GAAP EPS $3.49 is not the base — normalized for a ~25% tax rate on $285.9M pre-tax = ~$214M net ÷ 101.3M sh ≈ $2.12; consensus/Street uses a lower ~$1.60 normalized figure reflecting adjusted (not GAAP) earnings and a higher effective cash-tax rate. The honest 2025 "earning power" EPS sits ~$1.60–2.10 depending on tax normalization — call it ~$1.80 as the operational anchor.

Scenario paths (FY2026 EPS):

• Base ~$1.60: low-mid-single-digit revenue growth, EBITDA $415M mid-guide, 2H energy recovery materializes, Middle-East IMDS drag fades.
• Bull ~$1.90–2.10: floater count climbs (2H FIDs land), ROV revenue-per-day re-accelerates, ADTech/Navy backlog converts faster, MP margins hold the Q1 18% — EBITDA tops the $440M high end.
• Bear ~$1.10–1.30: oil/offshore CapEx softens, floater count flattens, OPG charter costs bite, Middle-East drag persists, ROV utilization stays sub-65% — EBITDA at/below the $390M low end, margins keep compressing.

Brier forecast (logged for calibration — see Open items; not auto-created in watchlist mode): OII FY2026 Adjusted EBITDA ≥ $415M, p ≈ 0.55, resolves 2026-12-31 — i.e. roughly coin-flip-plus that they hit the midpoint, given Q1 ran below run-rate and the guide is explicitly 2H-weighted (execution + Middle-East + floater-count dependent). (FY2026 GAAP EPS ≥ $1.60, p ≈ 0.50 as a secondary line.)

Lens 12 · Bull vs Bear

Acting as an institutional-grade equity analyst — adversarial.

BULL CASE. Oceaneering is the dominant-share (≈60%) ROV franchise in a multi-year offshore upcycle, trading at ~9x EV/EBITDA with net cash and ~$200M+ FCF — a balance sheet that lets it compound through volatility. Three growth levers stack: (1) offshore CapEx secular recovery — rising contracted-floater count, more 2H-2026 FIDs, ROV revenue-per-day still climbing; (2) ADTech as a counter-cyclical, government-funded grower (+17% in 2025, op income +125%, $658M unfunded Navy/NASA backlog, a Seventh-Fleet-commander now running the unit) that de-correlates the story from oil; (3) margin/mix self-help — umbilical capacity has left the market, MP margins jumped to 18% in Q1, and total backlog is up 11% to $2.7B with ~$1B booked in Q1 alone. The 31% YTD sell-off has handed you a high-quality cyclical at a trough multiple while bookings accelerate. Citi ($40) and Barclays ($39) are leaning in.

BEAR CASE (permanent-impairment candidates). (1) Cyclicality is the business, not a phase — OII's earnings are a leveraged derivative of the offshore CapEx cycle and the floater count; a 20-30% offshore-CapEx downturn (lower oil, an OPEC supply war, a global recession) compresses utilization and pricing simultaneously, and Q1-2026 already showed the company gives back margin even on rising revenue. (2) Energy-transition terminal-value erosion — the addressable market for offshore oil services structurally shrinks over a 10-20-year horizon; the renewables/robotics pivot is real but sub-scale and unproven as a margin replacement. (3) Chartered-vessel cost squeeze — OPG's reliance on 5 chartered DP vessels in a tight vessel market means input costs can outrun day-rates (OPG op margin already halved to 14% in Q1). Pre-mortem (18 months out, thesis broken): oil drifts to the low-$60s, 2H-2026 FIDs slip, the floater count flattens, ROV utilization stays sub-65%, IMDS stays Middle-East-impaired, EBITDA prints at the $390M low end, and the stock that looked "cheap at 9x" turns out to have been cheap on peak-cycle EBITDA — the multiple was a value trap on normalized-down numbers. Are multiples too high? On EV/EBITDA, no (9x is reasonable-to-cheap); on forward P/E (~25x), yes if 2026 is the cycle peak. Contrarian view the market is missing: the bears are over-indexing on the energy-transition obituary and under-pricing the ADTech defense optionality — a sticky, appropriations-funded, undersea-warfare franchise (with a literal ex-Seventh-Fleet-commander leading it) that could re-rate OII toward a defense-tech multiple over time and isn't in anyone's offshore-services model.

Lens 13 · Devil's Advocate (short-seller)

Dismantling the bull case.

• What structurally breaks the money machine: the floater count. SSR (the profit engine) is ~60% levered to the 136 contracted floaters; that number is itself a derivative of E&P deepwater sanctioning, which is a derivative of a $70+ oil strip and a green-light from majors increasingly allocating to renewables/buybacks over frontier deepwater. Two consecutive soft FID years and the bull thesis is dead — and OII can't grow its way out because it's already 60% of the market.
• Revenue concentration: the U.S. Government is 12% of revenue and substantially depends on continued appropriations — a CR/shutdown/Navy-budget reprioritization is a real, idiosyncratic ADTech air-pocket, ironically in the very segment bulls are excited about. 55% foreign revenue layers on FX (BRL/NOK/GBP) and geopolitical (Angola, Middle East — already biting IMDS) risk.
• Why the moat is weaker than bulls think: ROV scale is a cost/availability moat, not a pricing moat — in a soft market, "competitors can move vessels to where we operate with relative ease" (OII's own words) and small local bidders undercut on simple scopes. The 60% share is a ceiling on growth as much as a moat.
• Most dangerous competitor bulls underestimate: not a like-for-like ROV rival but the SURF primes (TechnipFMC, Subsea7, Saipem) in-sourcing more ROV/intervention scope as they integrate — they are OII's customers and its largest competitive threat; every scope they pull in-house is OII revenue gone.
• Worst capital-allocation / accounting tells: the $154M tax-allowance release that tripled GAAP net income is the single most misleading number in the file — a retail investor screening on "P/E 10.6x, EPS up 140%" is being fooled by an accounting entry. Buybacks are token ($40M on $208M FCF); cash is hoarded ($689M) rather than returned — fine defensively, but it means the equity story rests entirely on the cycle, not on capital returns.
• What must hold for today's ~$40 price: that FY2026 EBITDA hits ~$415M (Q1 ran below run-rate, so this needs a real 2H ramp), that the Middle-East drag is transient, and that 2027 grows off a 2026 that is not the peak. If growth disappoints 20-30%: EBITDA → ~$300-330M, the ~9x becomes ~11-12x on impaired numbers, forward P/E balloons past 30x, and a cyclical de-rate to 6-7x EV/EBITDA implies a stock in the mid-$20s — exactly where the most bearish analyst target ($27) and Simply Wall St's $33.50 "fair value" cluster sit.
• Single scenario that permanently impairs: a structural step-down in deepwater (sustained sub-$60 oil + accelerated transition capital reallocation) that resets the floater count to a lower plateau — turning OII from "cyclical compounder" into "melting-ice-cube with a defense call option." Plausibility: low-to-moderate over 18 months, moderate over 5-10 years.

Lens 14 · Management Questions (15, ordered by information value)

1. Q1-2026 EBITDA ran below the run-rate implied by the reaffirmed $390-440M guide — what specifically has to happen in 2H-2026 to bridge the gap, and how much of it is already contracted vs. dependent on new FIDs?
2. Your SSR profit is ~60% levered to the contracted-floater count — what is your internal floater-count assumption for 2026 and 2027, and at what floater count does ROV revenue-per-day stop rising?
3. The 2025 result included a $154M deferred-tax valuation-allowance release — what is the normalized cash-tax rate we should model for 2026-2028, and how much of the remaining $451M non-US allowance could reverse?
4. OPG operating margin halved YoY in Q1 — how much of that is chartered-vessel cost inflation vs. mix, and where do charter day-rates go as you roll the 2022-2024 charters?
5. ADTech has $658M of unfunded backlog and a new ex-Seventh-Fleet leader — what is the realistic funded-conversion timeline, and could ADTech be a candidate for separation/spin to surface a defense multiple?
6. You're holding $689M of cash and net-cash on the balance sheet while buying back only $40M/yr — what would change your capital-return policy, and why no dividend given the FCF stability?
7. IMDS swung to an operating loss on the Middle-East conflict — is that demand deferred or lost, and what's the segment's structural margin once normalized?
8. The energy transition is the central bear thesis — what is offshore-energy revenue as a share of the mix in 2030 in your own planning, and what replaces it?
9. MP book-to-bill fell to 0.84 in 2025 — is umbilical demand peaking, and what's the order outlook given competitor capacity exits?
10. The SURF primes (TechnipFMC, Subsea7) are integrating — how much ROV/intervention scope are you at risk of losing to in-sourcing, and how do you defend it?
11. New CFO in 2026 (ex-Parker Drilling) — are there any changes to estimate methodology, segment reporting, or guidance philosophy we should expect?
12. The mobility-robotics / autonomous-mobile-robot line (warehousing/healthcare) — is this a real growth option or a distraction, and what capital are you willing to put behind it?
13. ROV fleet utilization was 65% in 2025 — what utilization and revenue-per-day combination maximizes segment ROIC, and are you over- or under-fleeted at 250 units?
14. What is your through-cycle ROIC target, and how do you reconcile a 39% reported 2025 ROE (tax-inflated) with the normalized number?
15. The recurring ADTech contract dispute has produced accruals/reversals across three periods — what's the root cause, and is the contracting process being changed?

---