Yes, every analyst report I've gone through to date is full of logical and mathematical non-sequitors ie things that objectively don't make sense.
I've concluded that the process for analysts is actually to come up with a share price target first, then fiddle their valuation model to match the desired price target. The bigger the gap the more you have to bend your model to fit.
I'm thinking more and more that these analysts reports are really just junk marketing for share brokers. In business you often get what you pay for. A free business valuation is therefore probably worth its sticker price and it's real purpose is probably not what you think it is.
It's also clear that these analysts generally know far less about pharma, drug development and neurodevelopment disorders many people on this forum.
A perfect example is the price of Daybue. The analysts were all estimating $150k when even the most cursory analysis of the orphan drug market indicated a price of 3x that was to be expected based on the market price for other comparable drugs. The high price of Daybue was treated as a surprise, but to anyone with any basic industry knowledge I suspect it was not at all surprising.
Valuation is, of course, not an exact science. But when you ignore easily available facts (such as the average orphan Ph 3 success rate being ~60% not 6%) then I feel you don't deserve any credibility.
NEU Price at posting:
$23.05 Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)