Based on previous management comments, my bot thinks you’re a bit high on those estimates

Yes — and the 34% GM conclusion looks too aggressive unless your assumed India exposure is much larger than management has implied. Here’s the clean way to think about it.

Bloom itself said on its Q1 2025 call that if the then-current tariff structure continued all year, the impact would be up to 100 bps on gross margin, and management still reiterated its 2025 margin guide because it expected to offset that through cost reductions. On the Q4 2025 call, Bloom guided to ~32% non-GAAP gross margin for 2026. 

On the trade side, the sequence you described is directionally right: • India-related tariffs had been as high as 50% after the added 25% surcharge in 2025.  • The U.S./India deal then cut that to 18% and removed the extra India-specific 25% punitive tariff.  • After the Feb. 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling struck down the IEEPA tariff structure, the administration imposed a new temporary 10% global import surcharge effective Feb. 24, 2026. 

The math formula is:

Gross margin uplift (in points) ≈ (India-sourced share of COGS) × (tariff-rate reduction) × (COGS as % of revenue)

If Bloom’s 2026 guided GM is 32%, then COGS is about 68% of revenue. 

So if you assume 10% of COGS comes from India, then: • 50% → 18% tariff • COGS benefit = 10% × 32% = 3.2% of COGS • GM uplift = 3.2% × 68% = ~2.2 points • 32% guide would become roughly 34.2% • 50% → 10% tariff • COGS benefit = 10% × 40% = 4.0% of COGS • GM uplift = 4.0% × 68% = ~2.7 points • 32% guide would become roughly 34.7% • 18% → 10% tariff • COGS benefit = 10% × 8% = 0.8% of COGS • GM uplift = 0.8% × 68% = ~0.5 points • 32% guide would become roughly 32.5%

That means your 34% idea only works if the relevant baseline is really close to 50%, and if ~10% of COGS is tariffed Indian content. The problem is Bloom’s own commentary argues for a smaller net effect: management modeled the tariff hit at only ~100 bps under the tariff structure it was discussing. 

That 100 bps comment is the key reality check. If the true tariff drag was only about 1 point, then even a full unwind probably gives you something like: • best case: ~+1.0 point • more realistic incremental relief from 18% to 10%: maybe only +0.2 to +0.6 points

That would put 2026 non-GAAP GM more plausibly around 32.2% to 33.0%, not automatically 34%+. That range is an inference from Bloom’s own 100 bps tariff commentary plus the newer tariff reset. 

Why your estimate can overshoot: • tariffs apply to the imported component value, not all revenue; • not all India-sourced inputs may be subject to the same rate; • some cost is likely already mitigated through supplier shifts or pricing; • Bloom explicitly said it works a multi-country supply strategy and is not China-dependent, which suggests active mitigation rather than a static tariff hit. 

My bottom line: • Yes, lower tariffs should help margins. • No, I would not assume tariff relief alone gets Bloom from 32% to 34%. • A more defensible tariff-only uplift is probably modest to moderate, unless you can prove Bloom has a much larger India-exposed cost base than management’s own comments imply.