HScreen · ABBV

ABBV · AbbVie Inc. 23d old

conviction2

coverage tierT3-PRIMARY-COMPLETE

horizon12 months

Return distribution probability-weighted scenarios, never collapsed to a point

-20%24%

+15%56%

+30%20%

EV +9.60%

why these probabilities: All legs built forward from price 249.45 (2026-08-17) as growth -> revenue -> guided margin -> adjusted EPS -> multiple -> price, plus the 2.8% dividend yield (1.73 quarterly x4 / 249.45). PER-SHARE ANCHOR: no dated consensus adjusted-EPS LEVEL exists in the pack (only growth rates), so the named proxy is the GUIDED TRAJECTORY — Q3-25 guided adjusted EPS of 3.32-3.36 annualises to a ~13.4 FY25 adjusted-EPS run-rate, and the FY26 guide of adjusted gross margin above 84% with adjusted operating margin approximately 48.5% (from ~47%) applied to consensus revenue gives ~15.4 FY26 adjusted EPS, i.e. the stock on ~16.2x. This proxy is recorded in evidence_gaps; the GAAP EPS of 2.37 is unusable as a multiple base because acquired IPR&D charges open a USD 16bn gap to operating income. BASE = the market's expectation, delivered: consensus revenue growth of 10.7% in FY26 and 8.4% in FY27 on FY25 revenue of 61.16bn takes revenue to ~67.7bn then ~73.4bn; at the guided ~48.5% adjusted operating margin FY26 adjusted EPS is ~15.4 and FY27 ~17.2; holding the multiple flat at 16.2x gives ~279, i.e. +11.8% price and +14.6% total. Called +15%. Descriptive, not predictive — anchored TO consensus, not competing with it. BULL = materially faster growth: FY26 revenue growth of ~14% rather than 10.7%, on the evidence that SKYRIZI/RINVOQ demand already forced a combined USD 900m in-year guidance raise

not built — options-implied distribution on the same axis, with the KL number and where the disagreement sits
needs: desk-options implied bands (v1.4 Part 4a) — activates at 60% coverage; currently 33%

Visibility how far ahead this name can be seen

not built — visibility score
needs: visibility_score.py

Trust how much weight this name's own record can carry (credibility Z)

not built — credibility
needs: credibility.py

Technology supply chain graph-backed context · read-only

not built — supply-chain attributes
needs: ticker not mapped in supply_chain.yaml

Sizing survival-first size (half-Kelly) vs the enforced ladder

kelly not computable — no data

Payout durability does the distribution survive a downturn?

PASS

DPS trajectoryprogressive

interest cover now6.94x

interest cover at FORWARD rates6.1x

Falsifiers what would prove this wrong

SKYRIZI/RINVOQ volume growth outruns US price erosion, so FY26 adjusted operating margin expands toward the guided approximately 48.5% from approximately 47%
The immunology franchise remains on the trajectory to greater than USD 9bn by 2029, i.e. roughly 11% compound growth
The HUMIRA US step-down continues to diminish in absolute dollars rather than re-accelerating
Free cash flow continues to cover the dividend with room for BD, i.e. no equity issuance to fund transactions
Competitive entry into SKYRIZI's core indications does not force price concessions beyond the guided low-single-digit annual decline

Conflicts surfaced, never netted out (T4)

Our probability-weighted expectation is +9.6% over 12 months; the street's dated consensus target of 285.54 implies +17.24% total return, and the median target of 296 implies +21.4%. The disagreement is not about the fra	high
The revision tape is dark. eps_drift and rev_drift both return n_up 0 / n_down 0 with null median move over 365 days despite 42 covering analysts and a consensus estimate table spanning 2023-2030. This is a DATA GAP pres	high
Consensus carries +41.4% FY26 EPS growth. That figure is computed off a GAAP FY25 base of 2.37 which is depressed by acquired IPR&D charges — the USD 16bn gap between operating income of 20.09bn and net income of 4.226bn	medium
Our p_bear of 24% is 18.2pp above the best available anchor (node_pooled 5.8%) and 24pp above the historical anchor of 0.000. Defended in deviation_defence. Recorded here as an open conflict rather than resolved: if the	high
Routing conflict, flagged rather than resolved silently. This dossier was commissioned under analyst-aisemi, whose declared coverage is the AI/semiconductor/data-centre value chain, and the task instruction names univers	medium

The case against independent adversary, different model family (P6) broken

Version history from the research record

archived versions2

archived	hash	bytes
2026-08-17T10:34:17	82753aab2339	33,748
2026-08-19T05:54:53	78568e69e03e	33,425

What changed in the latest version

-	coverage_tier: T3-DATA-ONLY
-	analyst: analyst-income
+	coverage_tier: T3-PRIMARY-COMPLETE
+	analyst: analyst-aisemi
-	provenance:
-	producer: analyst-income
-	generated: 2026-08-17
-	inputs:
-	- evidence_pack ABBV 2026-08-17T04:12:25Z (build_evidence_pack.py)
-	- state-files/ABBV.json (state_file_build.py 2026-08-16T06:59:52Z)
-	- payout_durability.json ABBV 2026-08-16
-	- dividend_metrics ABBV 2026-08-16T15:20:08Z
-	- estimates_query.py drift/outliers 2026-08-17T04:12:41Z
-	rubric: rubric_v1
…	diff truncated

Rendered from canonical artifacts only (T1) — no terminal database exists. Every figure is read from the system's own files at render time; where an artifact is missing the panel names the dependency rather than showing an empty box. No execution path exists anywhere in this interface (T5), not even a link.