@Remorhaz these are good points and I have asked myself similar questions over time.

Marketscreener.com source their analyst numbers from S&P Global Market Intelligence. I'm unclear where Tradingview.com get their numbers.

It is clear from looking at the marketscreener.com dataset (which I really like because is visualises how broker views have evolved over time) that brokers are removed from the dataset from time to time. It is normal for institutions to communicate when they are "ceasing coverage", which clearly allows the information aggregator to delete their numbers from forward information. What I don't know is whether this is a universal practice.

In any event, it would make sense for the data aggregator to automatically delete an analyst view from a dataset if it hadn't been refreshed within 6 months or 12 months. This, for no other reason than that the forecast becomes "stale" through the passage of time. e.g., a 12-m TP issued 15 months ago is no longer a forecast. That would seem to me to be pretty basic, and I have assumed it to be the case.

Having said that, I have occasionally found what I can only describe as data integrity issues in the marketscreener.com dataset. For example, sometimes there is an outlier or range on a target share price where I think currencies have got mixed up. This occurs where a company might be dual-listed, and reports in $USD, and have covering analysts in both US and Australia.

That is in part why I look at the two datasources, although if the error lies in a common feed, then I reaslise that is of no help.

You've rightly highlighted the benefit of FN Arena, where you can track the brokers they cover over time. I did subscribe to FNArena for one year, but I didn't get a lot of value from it because the dataset is too incomplete for many stocks I follow. On the free view, looking at $PNV just now, I can see the current brokers covered are Macquaries, Morgans, Ord Minnett and Bell Potter. This is no more than 50% of the covering analyst community.

Looking at this, I am reminded that the culprits on the $1.00 price target are Ord Minnett, reportedly updated at 9 May 2024. So it is a current recommendation.

This brings me back to my starting point. The Ord Minnett $1.00 TP has no credibility for me, and because I don't know the extent to which it "pollutes" the marketscreener.com "consensus" forecsast projection for FY25 and FY26, I therefore prefer to look at the tradingview.com dataset, which I know excludes the Ord Minnett number, when comparing consensus views to my own, independently modelled scenarios.

Surely, it can't be long until there is a good AI tool that can do all this hard work for us, so that we can spend more time on higher value analysis and decision-making!

I work on Trading View for all my charting also see the Price targets from numerous Broker as @mikebrisy mentioned. Trading View must subscibe to these broker on our behalf and have the rights to post there information. Im on a Pro membership so not sure if the lower memberships on Trading View get this feature. I like it because it confirms my Fibonacci levels and what Im thinking. Sometimes you will see PT's above and below and I can see why also as the charts are in a position/ setup where it could go either way. If I'm in at that time it makes me nervous and watch like a hawke. If I'm out then its a wait and see. I have no subscriptions with brokers, only Trading View oh & and an American Broker for the Metals and Indexes. That where I learnt my Fibonacci techniques.

@Saiton I use the free TradingView.com membership. With your pro version, do you get any additional visibility into the analyst data, other than seeing the one year price target (with min, max, average) of the free version?

I been meaning to trial the Pro version, but never seem to have the time to put it through its paces. Plus the trading / technicals stuff isn’t so relevant for me.

@mikebrisy the price targets show up in the news feed for the stock down the right hand bottom area. You can see the last teo here from Canaccord and Citi

Then if you click on one it usually epands to show more like the Reuters one

I also find it excellent for Alert set up and notifications to my phone computer

@Saiton thanks! I never properly discovered the news feed on tradingview.com. Its a great platform, but I find it takes a bit of effort to get through the screens and views you want. However, I can see why technical analysts love it. It has lots of features.

It newsfeed has more feeds than marketscreener.com. For example, looking at $PNV I see feeds from Reuters, Market Index, Dow Jones, MT Newswires. These pick up more broker changes, so at a glance I can see Macquarie, Morgans, Wilsons, Morningstar, Bell Potter, which appear to be the 5 in its consensus calculation. So that's a step forward for me. The great news is that I can see all this on the free service.

I still prefer the Marketscreener.com view, which lets you see how coverage and recommendations (max, average, min) have evolved over time. Plus its consensus figures appear to capture more analysts. I need to subscribe to get what I want from this.

So, for me, its going to be a continuation of free tradingview.com and paid marketscreener.com.

But thanks for helping me discover more of what is right in front of my nose!

-------------

One further thing I picked up is that while tradingview.com gets the Reuters feed, from which is got the $1.00 recommendation from Morningstar (initiated on 27-September; maintained at 23-Jan), it clearly DOESN'T include Morningstar in its list of 5 analysts forming its consensus, as I incorrectly surmised above. I know this, because the lower PT visible in its compilation of analyst results is $2.00.

@mikebrisy Ca n you talke some screen shots of Marketscreener for me to have a look see. Thanks

@Saiton sure. :-)

Here are some examples from $PNV, focused on broker views, which we've been talking about.

Before doing so, I've noticed that in the last few days, marketscreener.com has enhanced the product. So, for example, whereas you used to only have historical financials going back 3-4 years, the $PNV screen now goes back 8 years.

Many of the charts are dynamic, so for example, when you hover over the Consensus SP graph, it tells you how many analysts are upgrading and downgrading estimates.

We've had lots of discussion here on Strawman about how the values in analysts reports often contain systematic biases. (e.g. promoting a stock due to being the broker in an IPO, capital raise, or hoping to get the next one; or anchoring, because of what has been written in previous reports etc.)

But what I find really helpful is, whatever their views at a point in time, how they react to new information in the market. The combination of this, my own models, and the SP reaction really helps me get a good feel for how the market is responding to new information.

1. Financial Forecasts Screen (Analysts Consensus) - hovering over the numbers tells you how many brokers make up the consenesus.

Futher screens show forecasts for Balance Sheet, Cash Flows and Key Financial Ratios..... not shown here

2, Consensus Screens

The second graph down is the one I fine most valuable. At a glance you see how the min-mean-max forecasts have evolved over time. This is what I mean in that on this product I don't have visibility into the individual analysts forecasts. The newsfeed only appears to pick up a minority of the "Number of Analysts" - unlike TradingView.com, where the newsfeed appears to be more comprehensive.

3. Changes In Estimates

For each of Revenue, EPS, EBIT< DPS, and Cash or Net Debt, you get the graphic below, which allows you to see how the market is digesting news through changes in forecasts over the next three reporting years.

Hope that helps. Not sure how much of this you can see in the "free" version.

Haha @Parko5, you’ve got your priorities right! Don’t rush back from the beach! It would be a bit nippy this morning. Where are the waves up?

@Parko5 you are made of sterner stuff than me, surfing in these temps.

India - no sales figures updates so far.

Recall in early March they announced being approved by the Government to be listed on e-Procurment site, which means BTM can be purchased by Government hospitals, including Defence and some others. They said they expected first orders to follow "within a month". They also reported being involved in several government tenders, which if successful would lead to supply public hospitals. In addition, they reported that sales to private hospitals wee growing "month by month".

Like you, at the FY results, I'd hope to hear something. While they have tended not to write much down on slides or releases beyond US and RoW, they do call out % growth levels in other markets (when its favoourable!). Either in spoken remarks or Q&A we can sometimes tease out the base numbers.

I agree with you - at this stage, it is hard to know whether India will be massive or not much, and over what timescale. But they have 20+ people working that marketing - second only to the US.

Regards, BARDA, ... as I understand it .... it is a long term study to test BTM against the Standard of Care (SoC) for Full Thickness Burns (FTB). Its outcome could be very significant, as BTM is not the SoC for FTB in the US, althrough it is used by some surgeons. It is the SoC in several other markets.

Should the BARDA trial deem BTM superior to the SoC, it would likely lead to several outcomes: 1) large US government procurement for disaster contingency stocks; 2) increase prescribing for FTB, 3) acceleration of international adoption, as many countries look to FDA rulings as a gold standard.

Equally, if the outcome of BARDA is less favourable to BTM, there might be a negative SP reaction, however, fundamentally BTM has been gaining market share even without this classification.

But remember, over time, burns are becoming less and less dominant in the application of BTM, particularly in developed markets. In fact, the recent % high growth in the UK has been commented on as due to BTM breaking out from a burns focus into broader applications, e.g. limb trauma.

So, I'm with you - India and BARDA are both valuable things to comtemplate while waiting to catch your next wave.

It has been a terrible winter down the Surf Coast in Victoria. But last few days have been very good! Alas...just as it gets good...i have to travel to Coffs Harbour for a few days (family stuff).

This is a terrible over-generalisation and is, of course, so easy to say when you look back into history. But my sense is that crap companies are often overvalued by analysts, until it becomes clear they will won't deliver. But quality companies are often undervalued - and the consensus swings between "upgrade cycles" and "downgrade cycles". Just look back at $ALU, $$PME, $WTC, etc. and see what was being forecast 2-3 years out.

Then there's time horizon arbitrage. If you put a modest terminal multiple at year 3 on a company that will grow for 5-10 years, then bingo! That's what we're all looking for,

Here's the history on $PNV (below, recent only). Volatility City.

I believe $PNV can over time become a leading dermal reapir company. Pre-July 2021, the analysts got too excited. But then the COVID underpeformance wasn't understood, and they got too negative.

It's early days. Hell, FY24 is breakeven year.

But IF $PNV becomes a long term compounder, and I agree this remains an IF, then the broker community is getting behind again. And the point of my Straw was that I think maybe they are going to start adjusting again in FY25. Just wait and see. If 1H FY25 is more than 40% revenue growth to PCP, then there's a big gap opening up.

(Anyway, time to top up my second glass of excellent Eden Valley Reisling)

** In looking at the chart below it is important to remember that the cost of capital has changed significantly from 2019-2021 and 2022-24. From a valuation perspective it is important to remember that for all high growth companies.

@Chagsy - just re-read your post, and needed to correct my response, as I don't think I really answered your question.

I don't model using analyst numbers. I develop my own view and (usually) either do a full DCF across a range of scenarios, or at least project finacials forward 2-5 years, and apply a terminal P/E mulltiple, then discount back (a method also favoured by @Strawman).

Therefore, no, I don't take analyst numbers and apply a correction. Because I don't use them directly at all.

Occasionally, I have used a broker valuation in my Strawman valuation, when I haven't gotten around to building my own model. In that case, I always state which specific broker valuation I am using. I'll only post it if I am comfortable with the broker assumptions.

There is quite a bit of research about broker bias. However, broker recommendations do directly influence capital flows. I pay less attention to the absolute value of the SP target, and more to how the broker valuation changes in response to new information in the market. Again, there is some research that shows that brokers tend to under-react to new information. My hypothesis is that this is due to anchoring behaviour - i.e., moderating the extent to which they change their view based on new information, based on their pre-existing view. In other words a "behavioural dampening function" (I have observed the same behaviour in myself over time.)

Politicians also demonstrate this behaviour in that, often when faced with new information, they stick to previous statements, so that they cannot be accused of u-turns/ changing their mind / lying,.... even when it is obvious to everyone that there are new facts that render the prior position untenable.

@Chagsy there was a forum here on Strawman,(last year I think) about the accuracy and value of analyst forecasts. Here is my view.

As investors I think we value businesses by multiplying a number from today by a story about tomorrow (Morgan Housel). We all have different methods of doing this.

Before investing in a business I like to read the reports and research the business, and then come up with a story about the future. However, I realise this is just one story which in reality can have many different endings. I think by listening to other points of view I can improve the value of my story and I have more confidence in using it for valuations.

Strawman is an excellent place to share stories about a business, and I value all contributions here, both bull and bear points of view.

I think analysts are also a good source of stories about the future of a business, and while earnings consensus is often wrong, I have found it useful. I often use earning consensus as a reference point for working out future ROE for business valuations. However, I always ground truth this with historical performance and trends, and my own points of view about future earnings.

I believe it’s true that some of the tallest stories we’ve ever heard have been told through spreadsheets!

When it comes to Polynovo, I have never really put a valuation on it, and I don’t take much notice of analyst forecasts. I think it has a huge global future and will be a long-term wealth winner…but that’s just my story!