|
Post by Clement on Dec 31, 2022 8:48:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Dec 31, 2022 8:55:03 GMT -5
Price is going to get there fast. All systems go. Turn the hour glass.
|
|
|
Post by hellodolly on Dec 31, 2022 9:31:59 GMT -5
Just read this article. The authors conclusions on fair value is OK for a static number. But, I think we can all agree there is a likelihood more revenue sources are closer than farther away if we consider the ongoing PHIII trials in India and pediatrics. Levels of market penetration used for each indication can be easily manipulated so, I use conservative numbers myself when calculating DCF.
As always, for companies with multiple indications or assets, you will want to model at least a revenue build for each important indication of each important asset.
Sometimes you will also model the full income statement for each indication or asset; in other cases, you can just model revenue for each major asset, then model the income statement for all the assets together.
Don't rely too much on any DCF.
A DCF is more precise than many other valuation techniques, but even the best models are not accurate.
DCFs are also highly sensitive to key inputs. You can test different values for key inputs to see how sensitive the model is to each inputs.
For inputs that are both uncertain and important, explicitly model and present a range of DCF values based on a range of assumptions around these key inputs.
|
|
|
Post by Clement on Dec 31, 2022 10:07:32 GMT -5
I agree, HD. MNKD revenues are increasing sooner than the article expects. "Sooner" alters the discounting and would result in a higher fair value.
|
|