Intuitive Surgical

None of the warning signs we check for were found.

We look for five warning signs: doubt it can keep going, weak checks on its own accounts, a notice that its past accounts can't be relied on, a change of auditor, and one customer bringing in a big share of sales. We don't check lawsuits, investigations or debt yet.

We checked the auditor's report, internal controls, restatement notices, auditor changes and big customers in the 10-K filed 3 Feb 2026, plus the 10-Q filed 21 Jul 2026 and 6 later 8-Ks.

Cheap for a reason is the question the numbers cannot answer.

Whether the price already reflects the risks is what the deep dive is for.

• More generally, several governments, including the U.S., have raised the possibility of policies to induce “re-shoring” of supply chains,…

  Could happen

  More generally, several governments, including the U.S., have raised the possibility of policies to induce “re-shoring” of supply chains, less reliance on imported supplies, and greater national production. Examples include potential “Buy America” requirements in the U.S. If such steps by local governments triggered retaliation in other markets restricting access to foreign products in purchases by their government-owned healthcare systems, the result may have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition, or result of operations.

  Read moreShow less

• In the U.S., legislation related to AI technologies has been introduced at the federal level and has been enacted by various states.

  Could happen

  In the U.S., legislation related to AI technologies has been introduced at the federal level and has been enacted by various states. At the federal level, in January 2025, the Trump administration rescinded an executive order relating to the safe and secure development of AI technologies that was previously implemented by the Biden administration. The Trump administration then issued a new executive order that, among other things, requires certain agencies to develop and submit to the president action plans to “sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance,” and to specifically review and, if possible, rescind rulemaking taken pursuant to the rescinded Biden executive order. Additionally, in December 2025, the Trump administration’s “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence” Executive Order was signed. This order calls for federal standards and legislation that would preempt conflicting state AI regulations and create a federal litigation task force focused on challenging state AI laws in court. The Trump administration may continue to rescind other existing federal orders and/or administrative policies relating to AI technologies or may implement new executive orders and/or other rule making relating to AI technologies in the future. U.S. states continue to advance a patchwork of AI regulatory frameworks, including general requirements around transparency, risk-management, and accountability for AI technologies. Several states—such as Colorado, California, and Connecticut—have enacted or proposed laws governing high-risk AI uses, including rules that address algorithmic discrimination, impact assessments, and consumer disclosures. A growing subset of these efforts specifically target health-related AI, with states like Illinois and New York adopting provisions that regulate AI used in clinical decision-support, diagnostics, and other health-related functions, often requiring heightened testing, documentation, or oversight. Such additional regulations, and uncertainty around their enforceability, may impact our ability to develop, use, and commercialize AI technologies in the future.

  Read moreShow less

• In addition, our ability to meet customers’ demands depends, in part, on our ability to timely obtain an adequate delivery of quality…

  In addition, our ability to meet customers’ demands depends, in part, on our ability to timely obtain an adequate delivery of quality materials, parts, and components from our suppliers. An information technology systems interruption, including cyberattacks, could adversely affect the ordering, distribution, and manufacturing processes of our suppliers. Furthermore, the prices of commodities and other materials used in our products, which are often volatile and outside of our control, and may be subject to tariffs, could adversely impact our supply. Current supply chain constraints include difficulties in obtaining a sufficient supply of specific component materials impacted by evolving trade requirements and certain subcontract suppliers being operationally challenged to meet our production requirements. For example, in 2025, the Chinese government announced export controls and licensing requirements applicable to certain products containing Chinese-origin rare earth elements and may implement additional controls in the future. Rare earth elements are critical to certain components contained in our products, and China is a predominant producer of these materials. If implemented in their current or a similar form, these measures may require us to obtain export licenses for certain of our products, and we may further experience supply chain disruptions as a result of limited availability of critical materials and minerals due to the restrictions. If such supply chain constraints continue, we could also fail to meet product demand, which would adversely impact our business, financial condition, or results of operations.

  Read moreShow less

• In addition, the EU regulatory landscape concerning medical devices recently evolved and continues to undergo legislative changes.

  Could happen

  In addition, the EU regulatory landscape concerning medical devices recently evolved and continues to undergo legislative changes. On May 26, 2021, the EU MDR became applicable and repealed and replaced the EU MDD and the Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive. Unlike directives, which must be implemented into the national laws of the EU member states, regulations are directly applicable (i.e., without the need for adoption of EU member state laws implementing them) in all EU member states and are intended to eliminate current differences in the regulation of medical devices among EU member states. The EU MDR, among other things, is intended to establish a uniform, transparent, predictable, and sustainable regulatory framework across the EU for medical devices and ensure a high level of safety and health while supporting innovation. These requirements are in active implementation and may change as the European Commission adopts additional implementing acts and considers targeted revisions to related medical device rules. In addition, on December 16, 2025, the European Commission published a targeted revision proposal of the EU MDR to address structural issues, certification delays, and burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The proposal will enter the ordinary legislative procedure and is not expected to be adopted before 2027.

  Read moreShow less

• The UK is in the process of overhauling its medical device regulatory framework following its departure from the European Union (“EU”).

  Could happen

  The UK is in the process of overhauling its medical device regulatory framework following its departure from the European Union (“EU”). The UK regulatory framework will apply in Great Britain only, as Northern Ireland continues to follow the EU Medical Devices Regulation (“MDR”). New post-market surveillance requirements took effect on June 16, 2025, while a draft of additional rules governing device classification and pre-market approval pathways are expected to be published in 2026. The divergence of the new UK rules from EU law could adversely affect or delay our ability to obtain approval for our medical device products in the UK. In addition, any delays in implementation, changes in interpretation, or additional requirements under the new UK regime could adversely affect our ability to market and service our products in Great Britain, which could have adverse impacts on our business.

  Read moreShow less