Phase Space AI

Valuation

Repligen Corporation [RGEN]

Repligen Corporation [RGEN] — Valuation

As of 2026-07-29 · spot $145.00 · framework v1.5.1

Two outputs, two horizons, per references/valuation.md. Reporting only one is a defect.

---

0. Verified inputs

Every figure below is from a primary filing. The screen's inputs were not used except where independently re-derived; see RGEN_Research.md §1 for the discrepancy table.

---

1. The name's own multiple history — the 12-month target's anchor

Daily EV/Sales, TTM revenue as known at each date (quarterly XBRL lagged to the earnings-release date, Q4 derived from the 10-K), shares and net cash held at today's verified values so the series measures multiple movement. 1,111 trading days, 2022-02-23 → 2026-07-29.

By calendar year:

Post-destocking regime only: min 7.33x, p25 10.15x, median 11.99x, p75 13.10x, max 17.50x.

Reading. The multiple de-rated hard through 2026 (median 9.48x, low 7.33x) while organic growth accelerated from 11% to 13% and gross margin expanded 290bp. The Q2 print on 2026-07-28 took the stock up 11.0% in one session and the multiple back to 10.15x — still the 14.5th percentile of its own history.

No peer median is used anywhere in this target. For completeness, the named life-science-tools comparators in the scan universe are DHR −2.7% growth, TMO −0.3%, WAT +2.1%, TECH +3.3%, WST +2.1%, QGEN −0.8%, BRKR +10.7% — that set spans −4.8% to +10.7% and does not bracket RGEN's 12–13%. Using it would repeat the exact defect valuation.md exists to prevent.

---

2. The 12-month target

2.1 Base — NTM revenue

No Street consensus is available. Alpha Vantage returned its 25/day rate-limit response on 2026-07-29; the quota is shared and exhausted. Per the brief this makes Consensus Criteria INDETERMINATE and blocks nothing. No consensus figure is invented.

2.2 Named product-cycle events inside 12 months

Each appears dated in RGEN_Catalyst_Calendar.md:

1. BioLife Solutions close, guided Q4 2026 — adds ~$135m of FY2027 revenue at 21% growth, +6.6m shares, −$540m cash. Guided accretive +5c adjusted EPS in year one.
2. China OEM partnership (signed April 2026) — first revenue contribution expected in the APAC line, which is 17% of revenue and has fallen from 20% in 2023.
3. OPUS pre-packed-column capacity — Breda RTIC opened Q2 2026 — customer-qualification infrastructure for the Chromatography franchise, FY2025's +24.7% line.
4. Transformation Office margin programme (launched Q1 2026) — site rationalisation and product-line margin optimisation; the FY2026 adjusted operating-margin guide already stepped from 13.8% actual (FY2025) to 15.7–16.0%.
5. Converts callable at par from 2026-12-18 — a refinancing/deleveraging decision point inside the window.

2.3 Target

Multiple anchored on RGEN's own range, percentile stated. Net cash and share count held at verified values; free cash flow accretion over the window is upside not taken.

Standalone (BioLife excluded, matching the guidance basis):

Pro forma for BioLife (NTM revenue $960.4m, 63.0m shares, net debt ~$300m):

2.4 The 12-month target, stated

$176, +21.1% to spot $145.00 — standalone, at 11.0x EV/Sales on NTM revenue of $881.7m. Pro forma for BioLife: $163, +12.3%. The $163 pro-forma figure is the operative one, because the deal is signed, board-approved on both sides, and guided to close inside the window.

Why the base multiple is 11.0x and not the median. 11.0x is a +8.4% re-rating from today, argued on: the multiple compressed to a 2026 median of 9.48x while organic growth accelerated and gross margin expanded 290bp; guidance was raised twice in 2026 (organic 9–13% → 10.5–13.5%; adjusted EPS $1.97–2.05 → $2.03–2.09); and the Q2 print produced an 11% one-day move, which is the first evidence of the re-rate. It is held below both medians because the BioLife deal consumes the balance-sheet cushion, adds 11.7% dilution, and carries integration risk that the 2022–25 history does not reflect.

Why the bear case is only −0.4%. At the 5th percentile of its own multiple history the stock is flat, because NTM revenue is 12.3% above TTM. That asymmetry is the genuinely attractive feature of the setup and it survives the correction of every screen error. The pro-forma bear is −8.7%, driven by the dilution and the swing from net cash to net debt.

Sanity band. No external professional target for RGEN is on file in this project, so no divergence is reported. Cross-check on earnings: at $176 the stock would trade at ~72x an FY2027 adjusted EPS of ~$2.45 (FY2026 guide $2.06 grown at revenue +12% with ~100bp of adjusted-margin expansion) — versus 70.4x on FY2026 guidance today. The target is a roughly flat forward multiple carried by estimate growth, which is what a 12-month target on a name at the 14.5th percentile of its own range should look like.

---

3. The implied-path test — the Valuation Criteria

assets/reverse_dcf.py. Solved for the parameter, not asserted.

3.1 Parameters

3.2 Anchoring — growth-matched at the CORRECTED growth rate

The screen anchored 24.0x from 276 names matched to a 30.5% grower. Repligen is not a 30.5% grower. The set is rebuilt at 12.5% (FY2025 organic 14%, FY2026E organic guidance 10.5–13.5%), ±50% band, from the 4,018 status-OK names in the scan universe:

The chosen anchor — 26.2x, n=51 — is the most favourable to the long case among the growth-matched sets that are also sector- and size-matched, and is higher than the screen's 24.0x. The result below is therefore not an artefact of a punitive multiple.

Terminal margin 18.6% is the same set's median. It is a demanding assumption for Repligen, not a conservative one: it sits 10.4pp above the TTM GAAP margin of 8.2% and 2.6pp above the FY2026 guided adjusted margin of 16.0%. It is below the FY2022 GAAP peak of 28.0%, which the business has demonstrated once, at COVID volumes.

3.3 Result

Required revenue CAGR: 27.40% over five years, holding the exit multiple at 26.2x EV/EBIT and the terminal operating margin at 18.6%.

Margin = demonstrated − required:

Implied multiple compression, stated as a number. Today: 123.4x EV/EBIT on GAAP TTM EBIT, 60.9x on FY2026E guided adjusted EBIT. Exit: 26.2x. That is a compression of −97.2x (GAAP) or −34.7x (adjusted), i.e. the exit multiple is 21.2% of today's GAAP multiple and 43.0% of today's adjusted multiple. The required 27.4% CAGR is what it takes to grow into that compression, not on top of it.

Terminal value is 100% of EV by construction in this model, so the reverse DCF is mandatory as the primary long-horizon output and the forward DCF is not run.

3.4 Mandated sensitivity — over the exit multiple

Terminal margin fixed at 18.6%.

The test does not pass anywhere in the supported range. Even at the p75 of the growth-matched set — 33.7x, a multiple only the highest-quality tools compounders sustain — the price still requires 21.1% against 12–13% delivered.

3.5 Second sensitivity — over the terminal margin (the parameter the screen corrupted)

Exit multiple fixed at 26.2x.

This table is the whole story. At the fabricated 39.1% the required CAGR is 9.80%, which is why the screen reported a +17.6pp PASS against its fabricated 30.5% demonstrated. Both legs of that PASS came from the same line of code. Even at the company's best-ever GAAP margin of 28.0%, the price requires 17.4%.

3.6 The screen's own parameters, on corrected inputs

Running the screen's exit multiple (24.0x) and its capped terminal margin (22.9%) against the corrected EV and TTM revenue:

• required CAGR 24.37%
• vs 3.3% demonstrated: −21.07 pp
• scan_final reported: required 25.6%, demonstrated 30.5%, margin +4.9pp
• scan_all_v2 reported: required 12.9%, demonstrated 30.5%, margin +17.6pp

The correction swings the margin by 26.0pp on the scan_final parameters and 38.7pp on scan_all_v2 — from PASS to FAIL — with no change to the model, only to the inputs.

3.7 Verdict

Valuation Criteria: FAIL.

Required 27.4%; demonstrated 3.3% over three years and 12–13% on the current organic run-rate. Margin −24.1pp / −15.4pp.

PASS WITH ARGUMENT is not available. That standard requires a specific, evidenced reason — a named product cycle, mix shift or pricing action — for the price to demand more than has been demonstrated. The mechanism identified in RGEN_Research.md §4 (consumables attach, direct-sales mix, chromatography and process-analytics share gain) is real, named and evidenced, and it supports 10–15%. It does not support 27%. BioLife adds ~15% to revenue once, not 15% per year, and is being bought at 13.0x sales with 10.15x paper. Narrative does not qualify, and there is no non-narrative bridge from 13% to 27%.

---

4. Reconciling the two outputs

They do not conflict; they measure different things over different horizons, which is why both are required.

• 12 months: the stock sits at the 14.5th percentile of its own multiple history with NTM revenue 12.3% above TTM. Even at the 5th percentile of its own range the standalone case is flat. Target $176 standalone / $163 pro forma, +21.1% / +12.3%.
• 5 years: at 10.15x sales and 123x GAAP EBIT, the price requires 27.4% compounding from a business that has delivered 3.3% over three years and guides to 12%. FAIL, by 15–24pp.

A cheap multiple relative to a name's own history is not the same as a price that can be grown into. The first is a mean-reversion trade with a 12-month horizon; the second is an ownership test over five years. RGEN currently offers the first and fails the second, and criteria.md is explicit that the second is the BINDING one.