Why we don't show a single “fair value” for BIO
Even the optimistic scenario of a conservative trailing-FCF model ($145.36) sits far below today's price — the market is paying for growth and durability beyond what this model structure captures. The honest lens is the question below: what growth does today's price actually require? The model scenarios are listed further down for reference.
What would today's price require?
$377.43 is justified only if free cash flow grows about +30.5% a year (fading to 2.5% long-run) at a 9.3% required return — faster than the company has actually grown.
| Scenario | FCF growth (fading to 2.5%) | Discount | Value / share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 0.5%/yr | 10.3% | $77.62 |
| Base case | 2.0%/yr | 9.3% | $101.48 |
| Optimistic | 5.0%/yr | 8.3% | $145.36 |
Current Price
$377.43
Market-Implied Growth
+30.5%/yr
vs -9.7% 5Y actual
Base-Case Model Value
$101.48
model output — not a price target
Edit the assumptions to see how they change the estimated fair value. Opens seeded with TGM's data-driven base case for BIO (growth from its own 5-year record, discount from its beta), so the sandbox starts where the scenarios above leave off. Illustrative model — not investment advice.
Base inputs: FCF $242.2M · 0.03B shares · net debt $844.8M
Estimated Fair Value
$101.48
-73.1% vs $377.43
How the estimated fair value shifts with the discount rate (WACC) and terminal growth, holding your 2.0%/yr FCF growth and 10-year horizon fixed. Green = above today's $377.43; red = below. Your current case is outlined.
| WACC ↓ / Terminal → | 1.50% | 2.00% | 2.50% | 3.00% | 3.50% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.3% | $130 | $142 | $157 | $175 | $198 |
| 8.3% | $106 | $114 | $124 | $136 | $150 |
| 9.3% | $88.14 | $94.36 | $101 | $110 | $119 |
| 10.3% | $74.51 | $79.21 | $84.49 | $90.49 | $97.37 |
| 11.3% | $63.67 | $67.32 | $71.37 | $75.90 | $81.01 |
