HScreen

rendered 2026-08-27 20:15 UTC STALE inputs (203h)

PFE · Pfizer Inc. 10d old

conviction2
coverage tierT3-PRIMARY-COMPLETE
horizon12 months

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

-18%22%
+8%56%
+25%22%
EV +6.02%
why these probabilities: Legs built forward from growth assumptions, defined relative to what the market expects. BASE assumes consensus delivered: FY2026 revenue growth +0.3% and EPS growth -4.8% (fmp:/stable/analyst-estimates?symbol=PFE&period=annual, as_of 2026-08-17), the multiple unchanged at ~19.7x trailing reported EPS, so the price does roughly nothing in capital terms (+1-2%) and the return is the 6.4% dividend yield on USD 1.72 (fmp:/stable/dividends). +8% total. This is explicitly anchored TO consensus — no competing revenue forecast is offered, because with no model, no management access and no channel checks an independent base case would be a noisier copy of the street's. BULL assumes growth materially higher than consensus: FY2026 revenue +4-5% instead of +0.3% and EPS roughly flat instead of -4.8%, driven by non-COVID revenue outperforming as it did in 2026Q2 alongside a 35% adjusted operating margin (PFE/PFE_2026Q2.json:12) plus delivery beyond the USD 4bn achieved and USD 1.2bn incremental cost savings (PFE/PFE_2024Q4.json:13, PFE/PFE_2025Q1.json:42), COMBINED with the re-rating that a credible post-2029 growth bridge earns — atirmociclib data at a conference later this year with a stated hazard ratio of 0.6 (PFE/PFE_2026Q2.json:40), sigvotatug vedotin into a ~USD 44bn 2030 myeloma market (PFE/PFE_2025Q2.json:4), Metsera obesity access (PFE/PFE_2026Q1.json:43), and the buyback the str
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

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 now5.78x
interest cover at FORWARD rates4.93x

Falsifiers what would prove this wrong

The dividend is maintained at USD 0.43 per quarter through the LOE window, per management's stated stretched-scenario testing
LOE erosion does not run ahead of the offsetting cost programme — FY2026 revenue growth lands at or above the consensus +0.3%
Adjusted operating margin holds at or above the 35% delivered in 2026Q2 despite 12% operational R&D growth
The cost realignment programme continues to deliver against the stated at-least-USD-4bn plus incremental-USD-1.2bn-by-2027 targets
Business development stays inside the stated ~USD 6bn capacity without materially increasing leverage
The FY2027 consensus revenue line does not deteriorate below the current -4.2%
Tariff impact on the transfer price stays at the manageable end management's peers indicated, not the full 25% scenario

Conflicts surfaced, never netted out (T4)


Consensus is Hold (23 of 39 at hold, 15 buy, 1 sell) with a target of 27.38 implying +2.2% price return. My probability-weighted expectation is +8.6% total return, but the difference is almost entirely the dividend the p		low

The revision tape is UNAVAILABLE, not flat: eps_drift and rev_drift both return n_up 0 / n_down 0 / breadth 0.0 / median_move null over 365 days, and outliers is empty. I cannot corroborate or contradict my scenarios aga		high

Management states it is "well positioned to return to growth from 2029 onward" (PFE/PFE_2026Q2.json:9) while consensus models FY2029 revenue growth at -3.1% and FY2029 EPS growth at -4.4%, and FY2030 at only +0.7% / +3.7		high

Management is unconditional that the dividend is maintained under "even the most stretched scenarios" (PFE/PFE_2026Q2.json:43), yet the ~USD 9.8bn payout is not covered by FY2025 reported net income of USD 7.77bn, and BD		high

No desk exists to agree or disagree with. options_view is null (no reachable chain for PFE beyond ATM at one near-dated expiry), and crowding, technical and factor_profile are all pending desk-not-built. Consequently the		high

analyst-aisemi's coverage is the AI/semiconductor/data-centre value chain across all markets. PFE is a large-cap pharmaceutical and is outside that mandate, so this dossier carries no sector-specific analytical prior — n		moderate

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

Version history from the research record

archived versions2
archivedhashbytes
2026-08-17T10:34:17cbd1f0fd623726,871
2026-08-19T05:54:531a1d5b4c645842,167

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-aisemi
+ generated: 2026-08-17
+ inputs:
+ - evidence_pack PFE 2026-08-17T16:31:49Z (build_evidence_pack.py)
+ - state-files/PFE.json (state_file_build.py 2026-08-17T13:22:59Z)
+ - estimates_query.py drift/outliers 2026-08-17T16:32:21Z
+ - fmp:/stable/analyst-estimates?symbol=PFE&period=annual 2026-08-17T16:32:06Z
+ note: 'Coverage-mandate conflict flagged: analyst-aisemi covers the AI/semiconductor/data-centre value
+ chain. PFE is a large-cap pharmaceutical and sits outside that coverage definition. Produced as instructed;
…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.