Financial data: CME, SPGI, ICE, FDS, MSCI analyzed
2026-06-23 · By Lubin Danilo, founder of Lubin Investment
CME, S&P Global, ICE, FactSet and MSCI are five natural monopolies in financial data and market infrastructure. All score 9/10 in our screener thanks to their recurring revenues, high FCF margins and near-indestructible moats. All currently trade between 14% and 45% above our disciplined entry target. The quality is there, the price is not yet.
Why this sector is a category of its own
Financial data infrastructure forms a global oligopoly. CME Group is the only American futures market for rates, commodities and indices. ICE (Intercontinental Exchange) operates the NYSE and global energy markets. S&P Global controls credit ratings (40% market share) and S&P indices. MSCI manages the benchmark indices used by virtually all global institutional managers. FactSet is one of the three fundamental data terminals used by professionals. These companies do not replace each other — each is a monopoly in its niche.
Scores and comparative data June 2026
| Company | Score | FCF multiple | Price | Target | Gap vs target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CME Group | 9/10 | 21.0x | $245.20 | $183.08 | -25.3% |
| S&P Global (SPGI) | 9/10 | 22.8x | $407.39 | $350.34 | -14.0% |
| ICE | 9/10 | 17.0x | $131.34 | $77.82 | -40.7% |
| FactSet (FDS) | 9/10 | 13.3x | $218.62 | $119.59 | -45.3% |
| MSCI | 9/10 | 29.5x | $580.85 | $433.66 | -25.3% |
Why these companies deserve a valuation premium
Their revenues are structurally recurring and resilient. MSCI derives 95% of its revenues from subscriptions indexed to assets under management (AUM) — when markets rise, its revenues rise automatically. CME earns transaction revenues on every futures contract traded, whether markets go up or down: volatility is their fuel. SPGI charges issuers to rate their debt — a quasi-regulatory requirement. These models cannot be easily disrupted. An asset manager that abandons MSCI indices loses its institutional benchmarking capability.
What our methodology says about these valuations
Our framework is not blind to moats. It recognizes the exceptional quality of these companies through their 9/10 score. But it maintains price discipline: buying 45% above our target mechanically reduces the expected ten-year return. FactSet at $218 against a target of $119 means we are today paying nearly twice our reasonable purchase price. This is not a judgment on company quality — it is a judgment on the entry price and the margin of safety it provides.
FAQ
Why does ICE have such a low target ($77.82) despite a good score?
ICE carries significant net debt from its historical acquisitions (NYSE, Ellie Mae, Black Knight). Our methodology integrates net debt into enterprise value calculation. High leverage reduces shareholder value even if EBITDA is solid. This is one reason our target is lower than for MSCI or SPGI, which have lighter balance sheets.
Is FactSet inferior to Bloomberg or Refinitiv?
FactSet is positioned in the high-end professional segment, primarily the buy-side (funds, asset managers). Bloomberg Terminal dominates trading and real-time markets. Refinitiv (LSEG) is strong in the institutional segment. FactSet has a solid niche in fundamental research and historical financial data. These three players coexist rather than competing head-on.
When could these companies reach your entry target?
Two possible scenarios: a general market correction that compresses valuation multiples (as in 2022 for quality stocks), or an earnings disappointment that would lower the price without changing the fundamentals. These companies are defensive — they do not fall as much as the market during recessions. Their target could be reached through a combination of FCF growth and slight multiple compression.
Does MSCI face disruption risk from passive ETFs?
This is the MSCI paradox: the rise of passive ETFs increases its exposure because these ETFs pay MSCI licensing fees to use its indices as benchmarks. The more ETF assets grow, the more MSCI subscription revenues grow proportionally. Disruption would require a challenge to institutional indexing standards, which is extremely slow in regulated finance.
Does your method exclude these companies from the portfolio because of their valuation?
Our method excludes them from the portfolio as long as their price exceeds our target, regardless of score. This is not a permanent exclusion — it is entry discipline. If CME corrected toward $183 or MSCI toward $433, these positions would be worth considering under our framework. Until then, we follow them without buying.
Analyser une action sur Lubin Investment
About the author
Written by Lubin Danilo, founder of Lubin Investment. A self-taught individual investor, I have analyzed stocks through their fundamentals for several years and invest my own money with this method. I codified it into a tool that judges a company's quality and its price separately, using criteria drawn from the financial literature (Warren Buffett, Michael Mauboussin, Aswath Damodaran).