analyst research reports, page-7

I'm with you zzdartboard.

Thing is analysts have to look at things and 'analyse'.
They have to look at the 'fundamentals'.
Look at the value of 'inferred resources' and 'proven resources' and 'estimated resources', all defined sort of values. Funds at bank, profits or lack thereof, costs of this and that value of assets and so on.
Press 'enter' and up comes the value of the stock. Oh?

If that really gave a true valuation for a share in a company, and you can argue that it does, who would want to own some anyway?
If you took that as the end word then the value would be, say, $1:50. Full stop.
So you would be able to buy a share in the XYZ Co. for $1:50 and next week or month you could sell it for $1:50. Whoopee.
Everyone would just leave their money in the bank and forget about it.

But it's not like that is it. Things happen to change the perceived value of the stock in people's minds and drive the price up and down all the time.

Thing is an analyst can't factor this in. If he did and was bullish by nature he would soon make a few wrong calls and have a few thousand customers baying for his blood.
If he plays it bearish, well, at worst some readers say damm. I wish I hadn't listened to him and gone ahead and bought some at the time. That's all.
He will get lucky now and again and give an encouraging valuation. People buy and the thing goes to the moon.
He won't be shot for that and gets to hold his job.

So you ask, " have they really thought what will happen if GDY demonstrates in the next couple of months that it can generate zero emmissions baseload power in bulk".

I say, you bet! But they won't be putting that in their "Analysts Report"

geojac