Palantir Technologies Inc.

Good morning. Welcome to Palantir's fourth quarter 2020 earnings call. We'll be discussing the results announced in our press release issued prior to the market open and posted on our investor relations website. During the call, we will make statements regarding our business that may be considered forward-looking within applicable securities laws, including statements regarding our first quarter 2021 and multi-year outlook, management's expectations for our future financial and operational performance, and other statements regarding our plans, prospects, and expectations. These statements are not promises or guarantees and are subject to risks and uncertainties, which could cause them to differ materially from actual results. Information concerning those risks is available in our earnings press release distributed prior to market open today and in our SEC filings. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements except as required by law. Further, during the course of today's call, we will refer to certain adjusted financial measures. These non-GAAP financial measures should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for, or in isolation from, GAAP measures. Additional information about these non-GAAP measures, including reconciliation of non-GAAP to comparable GAAP measures, is included in our press release and investor presentation provided today. Our press release, investor presentation, and SEC filings are available on our investor relations website at investors.palantir.com.

Welcome. Palantir had a very strong year last year. And then because of the strength of the year, it might be worth taking a second and asking, well, what do the numbers actually mean? Obviously, on the face of them, they're strong and even curiously strong. We believe, I believe, that Palantir's numbers are a lagging indicator of several macro trends that we got right. First is the obvious macro trend that has almost become a banality, that the world is becoming a software world. And the institutions that survive and thrive and provide benefits to their citizens, both in terms of actual output but also real output, meaning output that includes data protection, that makes sure that the data is actually preserved in a way that guarantees its veracity, that gives comfort to its citizens, that makes sure the citizens aren't merely a product to be monetized. And second, that as diverse as the institutions are that we work in, from clandestine services to providing AI in the most sensitive military contexts, to working with oil and gas companies, to airlines, to pharmaceutical research, to all aspects of helping to ameliorate the plague that is COVID. There's one trend, institutions, countries, individuals that can assess the value of software that can work now. are the institutions that survive and provide value both in the government, commercial, and even moral context. Moral as defined by they increase the legitimacy of institutions. One of the primary issues we have in the West is the dearth of legitimacy of commercial and government institutions, of experts. And this makes it very impossible to navigate issues around how do you rebuild your company internally and externally to conform and thrive in a very difficult context where there's COVID, rebuilding the supply chain, political volatility, uncertainty, and general skepticism about anything you say. That is a software problem. How do you actually look at the data Understand that the data is actually true. Understand the veracity of the model. How can you prove to people that their data is not being abused, monetized, used to discriminate against them, where the people listening to you have a great deal of skepticism? How do people who are on this call presumably trying to evaluate the actual value and meaning of our numbers It's very hard for them to understand this without understanding what is the actual background of the numbers. Are they a forward indicator or a lagging indicator of a macro trend that you either got it right or wrong? One of the interesting things about philosophy, history, and software is that when something becomes crucial to a society, absolutely determinative, it sets off a dialectic of learning so that what we understand about what it means to procure software, use software, integrate into a world that is defined by software. is very different than what we would have thought about it when it was a luxury product. And that's largely how software has been viewed heretofore. It's something that can augment your enterprise, your government. It can make your enterprise slightly better than your competitor in a myriad of contexts. It can make your military slightly more efficacious, slightly more transparent, or in some contexts, less transparent. It can make things more cost effective. But that's not the context we're in now. We're in a context where it is basically binary. Institutions and societies which implement software effectively will dramatically outperform in every context, in the military context, in the clandestine context, in the COVID context, in the context of every commercial entity that we're involved in and everyone I've ever seen and everyone you've seen. And then the real questions like, well, what does it mean to survive in a COVID-like context? Or how do you stop the next pandemic? In a Western constellation where civil liberties, data protection is crucial. You can't just reorchestrate the society and reorchestrate the data without having buy-in from the people that nominally or hopefully completely control the society. Those are software problems. And then the people who are in charge are going to learn and will learn over time. What does it mean when someone says that software works? What does it mean for software to be implemented effectively? What is the actual alpha? Is the alpha just the output or is it the output? also measured against the moral context, the moral imperatives that allow us to unify in a society. You know, there's a very famous quote from Wittgenstein, which means, roughly paraphrase, to believe you're following a rule isn't to follow a rule. This is typically used to explain an important trend in language philosophy. But you could also look at this as like, to use software, it doesn't mean to actually use software. If software is absolutely determinative of the current condition, just like language was, it's like, in a philosophical sense, you could say we've had a shift from the language imperative or language is actually what determines meaning to a software context where it's actually software is determining meaning, value and legitimacy. Why do commercial government institutions struggle with legitimacy? Because in many cases, it's very hard to understand what is the output? How did it happen? Under what context? What was paid for it? What did we get? The structures we've built are treating software as a cosmetic, augmentative attribute, when in fact software is the language of our time. And a mastery of software will determine what works and what doesn't. The numbers that you've seen are a reflection of our bet that this would happen. They are a lagging indicator. And we believe that the transformation which is happening in the world now will accelerate. And that the way in which we're providing software, both Foundry, Gotham, and our ability to scale this through Apollo, will be the way that everyone at some point will actually try to build software and the way in which institutions will procure software. Because of a dialectic of macro and micro conditions, a dialectic which will force change because the winners will figure this out.

On today's call, you'll hear from Alex Karp, founder and chief executive officer, Shyam Sankar, chief operating officer, Dave Glazer, chief financial officer, and Kevin Kawasaki, global head of business development. With that, I'll turn it over to Shyam.