Ann: ProstACT SELECT Study of TLX591 rADC Therapy - Positive rPFS, page-162

My point is that

(a) future potential is underweighted because analysts overemphasise the risks and timelines to get there.
(b) with every biotech- including TLX- things take do in fact take longer than you'd expect so they overemphasise the risks even more, on the basis that they have some sort of precedent to back them up.

I would also add (not mentioned in my original post) (c) analysts are probably more paranoid about competition, particularly for products with longer timelines.

Think about it: if you were an analyst looking at Lantheus, wouldn't you be surprised if an Australian company comes out of nowhere and takes a third of their business? How did that happen?

Surely one of the takeaways from that Nature article that we've been discussing is just how many companies- including big companies- are in this space.

As a general rule, surely it's to analysts benefit- especially in their public pronouncements (who knows what they think in private) to underpromise and overdeliver. Better predict TLX to get to $18 in twelve months time, if people buy and it hits $18 tomorrow they won't complain.

I don't think analysts are being lazy, I just think that, unlike us, they have a professional reputation to protect ("yeah right" I hear you cry) and tend to work accordingly. If that leads to groupthink and mispricing then all the better for us, eh?