I did some digging since my first post, and perhaps have some of...

I did some digging since my first post, and perhaps have some of the story....

Based on my Clime membership and the analysts low/average/high valuations they provide in their charts ... plus a HC members post on another string that Wilsons started coverage with an initial valuation of $2.65 ...

It appears that:
- Before Oct 16 - only one analyst covered IRI
- Another analyst started coverage Oct16
- Another (3rd) in Aug17
- Wilsons were 4th on 29Apr18.

Before/after Wilsons below (only 4 analysts)
Before After
High $4.15 $4.15
Low $3.75 $2.65
Average $3.95 $3.52

If you graph the low or the average over the past few years, the valuation drops massively (after moving up for so long) and just looking at the graph would seem like analysts have massively downgraded the stock. However, all that's really happened is that the newest analysts (presumably with the least knowledge of the business vs the other 3) has come in with a very low valuation (at $2.65 being 33% below average of 3 others of $3.95)

I think Bell Potter may be the high analysts. Not sure who the other 2 are. Can others help??

Anyway ... I wonder why Wilsons would start publishing research on a company that in their opinion is so overvalued? Is a game being played by Wilsons? or the others?

Others thoughts? Anyone with access to the valuations/commentaries of the other analysts?

If all driven by Wilsons low ball valuation - would seem to me like good buying. But maybe a while before it bottoms?