Financial Model Notes

Insmed [INSM]

Insmed [INSM] — Financial Model Notes

Every figure below was taken from the primary filing or independently rebuilt. Where an API disagreed with the filing, both values are recorded and the resolution stated. Nothing was silently adopted.

Sources of record

Item	Source used	Why not the API
Product revenue by product and geography	Q1'26 10-Q Note 4; Q3'25 10-Q Note 4; FY2025 10-K MD&A table	AV carries no product-level detail. Product split is the entire analysis on this name
Shares outstanding	Q1'26 10-Q cover page: 216,752,451 as of 2026-05-01	AV `commonStockSharesOutstanding` returns the weighted-average count
Cash and investments	Q1'26 10-Q balance sheet: $582.188m + $641.326m	AV `cashAndShortTermInvestments` returns cash only
Debt	Q1'26 10-Q Note 10	Carrying vs principal vs PIK needed disentangling
Royalty financing	Q1'26 10-Q Note 11	No `us-gaap` debt tag exists for this line
Operating income	Q1'26 10-Q income statement	AV excludes the contingent-consideration mark
D&A	Cash-flow statement ($5.015m)	Standing rule; income-statement figure is $5.693m, a 13.5% disagreement
Consensus	AV `EARNINGS_ESTIMATES`, fetched 2026-07-29	`data/pit/consensus_pit.jsonl` holds 0 records for INSM
Prices	Alpaca `/v2/stocks/INSM/bars`, adjustment=all, SIP feed	—
Transcripts	AV `EARNINGS_CALL_TRANSCRIPT`, 7 quarters	—

Reconciliations performed

Q4'25 derived, then checked. ARIKAYCE Q4'25 = FY2025 $433.765m − 9M'25 $314.529m = $119.236m. BRINSUPRI Q4'25 = FY2025 $172.658m − Q3'25 $28.051m = $144.607m. Sum $263.843m against AV's total-revenue figure of $263.8m for the quarter. Reconciles. (Note the EDGAR-does-not-tag-Q4 problem from DATA_DEFECTS.md: Q4 lives inside the annual duration. The synthesis FY − 9M was applied to flows only; it was not applied to any stock item such as a share count, where it produces nonsense.)

Income statement arithmetic. Q1'26: gross profit $256.463m + cost of revenue $49.501m = revenue $305.964m. ✓ Operating expenses $456.744m = R&D $209.485m + SG&A $247.259m. ✓ AV COGS $49.501m = filed cost of product revenues $47.420m + amortisation of intangibles $2.081m. ✓ AV rolls amortisation into COGS; the filed statement lists it separately. Documented, not corrected.

Share count against filed EPS. Net loss −$163,563k / 215,468k shares = −$0.7591, filed −$0.76. ✓ This check has no power against split-basis errors (CRWD passed it at $0.108 vs $0.11 while being 4.0x wrong), which is why SPLITS was queried separately — nil since 2011.

av_vs_edgar.py was not run: Insmed is a calendar-December filer, not a 52/53-week filer, and every material figure was already checked line-by-line against the primary 10-Q and 10-K by hand, which is the stronger test. The AV-vs-filing disagreements found by hand are enumerated in INSM_analysis.json → defects_found.

Modelling conventions adopted

EV is LEASE-INCLUSIVE. Both finance ($23.266m) and operating ($14.844m) leases are deducted. Stated explicitly because a lease-exclusive anchor previously invalidated a seven-name ladder in this project (CRWV at 6.6x, really 7.95x).
Contingent consideration ($270.310m) is NOT in EV. It is probability-weighted (0–80% on development/regulatory milestones, 23.0% on the PRV milestone) and has historically been settled in shares. Excluding it is a judgement; including it would raise EV by 1.2% and does not change any conclusion.
TTM revenue, never last fiscal year: $819.5m = Q2'25 $107.4m + Q3'25 $142.342m + Q4'25 $263.8m + Q1'26 $305.964m. FY2025 alone ($606.4m) understates the run rate by 26.0%, and Q1'26 annualised ($1,223.9m) overstates it by 49.3%. The reverse DCF was run from the TTM base and the FY2026 consensus base; both are reported.
AV ebitda, ebit, OVERVIEW.OperatingMarginTTM and OVERVIEW.MarketCapitalization were not used anywhere.
Same-quarter DSO, never TTM-basis. TTM-basis DSO produces a false positive on any accelerating name, and Insmed is accelerating violently.
Terminal margin is BUILT, never inherited. No stored scan_v2/scan_v3 terminal margin was consulted; all of them are documented as meaningless.

What is NOT modelled, and why

BRINSUPRI patients on therapy, persistence, adherence, or net price per patient. None is disclosed in any filing. The $83k/patient/year implied net price used as a sanity check in the valuation section is inferred from revenue divided by a rough patient estimate and is flagged as such — it is not a company figure.
The split between US frequent-exacerbator and broader-label BRINSUPRI prescriptions. Not disclosed. This is the single most important unknown on the name and it is the reason the downside case is framed around the EC/MHRA label restriction, which is disclosed, rather than around a fabricated patient mix.
Ex-US BRINSUPRI revenue trajectory. Only $0.672m recorded to date (French AAC plus named-patient programmes). The company says it "continues to evaluate the potential effect of evolving US policies which will then impact the timing for future potential international commercial launches" — i.e. international launch timing is explicitly unguided.
The OrbiMed 2028-03-31 top-up. Estimated at $25–75m from the disclosed run rate and cap. Not a disclosed figure.

Generated from each name's analysis.json. Figures are research output, not investment advice. Gaps are shown as “—” rather than filled: a missing input is recorded as indeterminate, never estimated.