I admit directly that I haven’t read the analyses carefully or committed them deeply to memory, so I’m commenting on the analysis of companies like Bittium on a general level.
Let’s assume as a starting point a company that has a bunch of perpetual contracts, based on which they produce and sell goods such that the fair price of the share is €10. Now, some uncertain deal is added to the company, let’s say its realization is 50-50. If realized, the deal would raise the company’s per-share value to €30. With heavily simplified mathematics, an analyst would then find a price of €20 for the shares.
Now, when the deal either materializes or fails to materialize, the share either sinks back to €10 prices or rockets to the €30 level. In both cases, people might come to the forum shouting that the analyst messed up (and missed a -50% collapse or a +50% rocket), even though they did their job perfectly based on the existing information.
However, the person most wrong is the one who assumes that the fundamental requirement of an analyst’s job is perfect foreknowledge of all future events in the world. EDIT: an analyst’s job is to state that in a coin toss, the result is most likely either heads or tails, and to endure the battering when, after the coin lands, the crowd rages, “How could you not have known it was tails?”