TPL
Texas Pacific Land CorpEvidence as of 2026-09-03Overview · Texas Pacific Land Corp
Texas Pacific Land Corporation engages in the land and resource management, and water services and operations businesses. The company's Land and Resource Management segment manages surface acres of land. This segment also holds own a 1/128th nonparticipating perpetual oil and gas royalty interest (NPRI) under approximately 85,000 acres of land; a 1/16th NPRI under approximately 371,000 acres of land; and approximatel…
Management team
- Mr. Micheal W. Dobbs J.D. · Senior VP, Secretary & General CounselFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Chris Steddum · Chief Financial OfficerFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Tyler Glover · President, CEO & TrusteeFind on LinkedIn
- Mr. Robert A. Crain · Executive Vice President of Texas Pacific Water Resources LLCFind on LinkedIn
Start your 7-day free trial to see the full management team.
Links open LinkedIn searches, not verified profiles. Team data from our market-data vendor's company profile.
Moneyta sentiment
Where the published evidence leans after the desk debated it — not a rating or a recommendation.
+0.4 on a −2 to +2 scale.
What builds the score
Solid bars are analyst rubric scores; faded bars are computed directly from data. Claims dropped in debate count for nothing; weakened claims count at half weight.
Editor's note
Written after the debate settled — the rest of the page is the evidence behind it.
The surviving evidence establishes that revenue rose from $ 236,818,000 in fiscal Q1 2026 (fiscal quarter ended 2026-04-30) to $ 246,059,000 in fiscal Q2 2026 (fiscal quarter ended 2026-07-31), a quarter-over-quarter increase of $ 9,241,000. Operating income increased by $ 9,489,000 to $ 191,817,000, and net income climbed by $ 11,028,000 to $ 153,930,000; diluted EPS moved from $ 2.07 to $ 2.23 across the two quarters.
Balance-sheet and cash-flow items in the set show cash and cash equivalents of $ 247,571,000 as of 2026-03-31 rising slightly to $ 248,612,000 as of 2026-06-30, stockholders' equity increasing from $ 1,555,946,000 to $ 1,672,398,000, and the statement of cash flows reporting Payments for Repurchase of Common Stock of $ 0.00 for fiscal Q1 2026. Trailing twelve‑month FCF is recorded as $ 568,558,000, yielding price-to-FCF (ttm) of 44.6, PE (ttm) of 32.65 at the reported price of $ 367.32 (price date 2026-09-02), and an implied FCF growth rate of 29.79% under the model’s stated assumptions. The desk’s evidence balance is characterized as Mixed (+ 0.4 of a possible + 2) with high confidence.
How this note was made
every stage ran before the note was writtenAnalyst desk
Mercer, Oakes, Nash, Ellis, Yates, Talbot and Archer. The desk: named AI agents, not people. Each reads one slice of the evidence and nothing else — no outside knowledge, no browsing — so every finding traces to a source you can open.
Reads the XBRL figures companies file with the SEC — revenue, margins, income, debt and share count, quarter by quarter — and reports which way the trend is running.
Revenue was $236,818,000 for the fiscal quarter 2026-01-01 to 2026-03-31 (fiscal Q1 2026) and rose to $246,059,000 for the fiscal quarter 2026-04-01 to 2026-06-30 (fiscal Q2 2026), an increase of $9,241,000 quarter-over-quarter.
XBRL companyfacts · 0001811074-26-000035Operating income was $182,328,000 for the fiscal quarter 2026-01-01 to 2026-03-31 (fiscal Q1 2026) and increased to $191,817,000 for the fiscal quarter 2026-04-01 to 2026-06-30 (fiscal Q2 2026), an increase of $9,489,000.
XBRL companyfacts · 0001811074-26-000035Reads the filings themselves, above all the year-over-year diff of Item 1A risk factors: which risks a company added, dropped or quietly reworded since its last annual report.
Which filings the desk reads
The desk reads the annual 10-K in full — its risk factors, and how they changed since last year. Quarterly 10-Qs and event filings (8-Ks, insider Form 4s) are listed for context but not read line by line: the 10-K is where the material risk disclosures live. A brand-new company, or one we have only just begun tracking, may have no annual report on file yet — its risk analysis fills in once that lands.
A Form 4 filing for the company was submitted on 2026-09-01.
4 filed 2026-09-01The only provided filing evidence is that single Form 4 (the 4 filed 1 September 2026); no text of the Form 4 or other filing types (10-Q, 10-K, 8-K, or amended risk factors) are included in the evidence set.
4 filed 2026-09-01Reads the signal panel above — momentum, volatility, drawdown, relative strength and beta — and ranks each against the whole research universe rather than judging it in isolation.
No computed signal history for this symbol yet — signals need roughly 70 trading days of price history.
Reads which funds hold the name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings, to show the exposure you may already carry through index funds.
As of 2026-09-02T13:45:47.228469+00:00, TPL was held in the IVV ETF with a reported weight of 0.04% of the fund.
ETF constituents · market dataA Form 4 insider filing for TPL was filed on 2026-09-01 (the 4 filed 1 September 2026) and is recorded with parse_status "pending" and no primary_doc_url provided.
Form 4 × 1 (90d window not enforced here)Reads recent headlines that are genuinely about this company, ignoring rating chatter and market-wide stories. Findings argue in the debate but never move the sentiment score.
Several institutional investors filed new or increased positions in Texas Pacific Land Corporation during filings covering the second quarter, with Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio reporting a 16,925-share purchase (article published 2 September 2026).
News · thelincolnianonline.com · 2026-09-02UBS Asset Management Americas reported an increase in its holdings in Texas Pacific Land Corporation of 6.9% for the second quarter, with the article published 1 September 2026.
News · thelincolnianonline.com · 2026-09-01Reads parsed Forms 3/4/5 — who bought or sold, at what size, and whether a 10b5-1 plan was involved. Flags clustered open-market officer buying; treats plan sales as routine and never counts a fund or 10%-holder as an officer.
No insider transactions on file in the trailing 180 days.
Reads the implied-expectations math built from the company's own filings (the growth rate today's price would justify, and the multiples beside it) and argues whether the market's bar looks high or low for this business. Never turns the math into a target.
The model reports an implied free cash flow (FCF) growth rate of 29.79% that today's price would justify under the stated discount and terminal assumptions.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closePrice-to-FCF (ttm) is 44.6, which implies the market price equals about 44.6 times trailing twelve‑month FCF.
Valuation inputs · SEC XBRL + stored EOD closeDebate and risk review
A bull and a bear contest the claims and the chair rules on each; the risk review stress-tests what survived.
A bull and a bear argue the analysts' claims across two rounds, then a chair rules on each one. Only what survives feeds the score — the argument is shown, not hidden, so you can judge the reasoning yourself.
Several contemporaneous operating and cash metrics in the evidence jointly support a favorable read: quarter-over-quarter revenue, operating income, net income, and diluted EPS all increased between Q1 and Q2 2026, and cash + equity on the balance sheet rose modestly over the same span. Trailing‑twelve‑month free cash flow and FCF per share are sizable on an absolute basis, and multiple institutional disclosures show new or increased positions in the second quarter, which can be read as external investor interest. The bear case leans heavily on high multiples and an implied FCF growth rate derived from the price, but those valuation points are based on model outputs that do not have debt detail or the company’s full contextual notes in the provided filings; the operating results and large absolute FCF figure weaken the force of a pure multiples-only critique. Finally, lack of full filing text in the evidence limits the strength of any claim that undisclosed risks or material changes exist.
Chair's verdict, claim by claim
Fragility · computed, not argued
balanced0.35
23 surviving claims rest on 11 distinct sources; the heaviest analyst carries 30% of them, and 100% of what the desk raised survived the debate.
The evidence set is moderately concentrated across a limited set of sources and an individual analyst contributes a sizable share of the surviving claims, so the read carries meaningful analyst- and source-dependence. The fact that everything raised at the desk survived debate (100% survival) suggests low internal contradiction but also means few independent challenges were recorded; treat the collection as informative but fragile where single-source or analyst errors would move conclusions materially.
Disconfirming evidence · base rates · falsifiers
Context
Outside consensus, and where this name already sits in your own portfolio.
Third-party consensus shown for context. It never enters Moneyta sentiment — when the two diverge, the debate above is where the why lives.
What this was built from
Every figure on this page traces to one of these. The desk reads only what is listed here — no outside knowledge, no browsing — and each card shows who read it and what it contributed to the score.
12 filings· 1 cited
SEC XBRL filings
Quarterly figures as filed with the SEC, read straight from EDGAR's structured data — not retyped or estimated.
Read by Mercer+0.6 to the score
1 document
SEC filing documents
The filings themselves, including the year-over-year comparison of Item 1A risk factors.
Read by Oakes+0.0 to the score
2 holdings records
Fund holdings
Which funds hold this name and at what weight, plus insider Form 4 filings.
Read by Ellis+0.5 to the score
8 headlines· 2 cited
News coverage
Recent headlines about this company, rating chatter excluded and nothing published after the report date.
Read by Yatesnothing survived
1 computation
Valuation inputs
TTM cash-flow figures from the company's own XBRL filings, priced with the stored closing price. Implied growth and multiples only; no fair-value dollar figure reaches the desk, by design.
Read by Archercontext only
1 record· 0 cited
Company profile
Sector, industry and company details.
1 record· 0 cited
Analyst consensus
Third-party consensus, shown for context only — it never enters Moneyta sentiment.
Read means we pulled and handed it to an analyst; cited means a claim on this page points at it. Reading twelve quarters to state one trend is normal — the gap is shown rather than hidden.
Written by AI, checked against sources
The analysts, the bull–bear debate and the editor's note are AI agents reading only the evidence listed on this page. They can misread a filing or a headline, which is why every claim cites a source you can open and check yourself. The sentiment score is arithmetic over the claims that survived the debate, not a language model's opinion.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations. Past patterns do not indicate future results.
Get this for the tickers you actually hold
Plus the one thing no sample can show: how each name correlates with your portfolio, and what hides inside your funds.
The full terminal on TPL Gold
Who holds it, who's buying, what the Street thinks: live behind the lock, updated as filings land.
Institutional holders
Net institutional flow, Q/Q
Largest holder position
Insider buys, 90 days
Clustered insider value
Street target range
The real figures are for members. Educational analysis, not advice.
Educational analysis of published data. Moneyta does not give investment advice or make recommendations.