[Edaily Reporter Park Jeong-soo] As stock market volatility has recently increased, target prices set by securities firms are diverging sharply. There have been a series of cases where target prices for the same stock differ by nearly double due to differing views on future industry conditions and earnings outlooks, even among analysts covering the same stock.

According to financial information provider FnGuide on the 9th, an analysis of reports on the top 20 KOSPI stocks by market capitalization published since the KOSPI surpassed the 8,000 mark on the 26th of last month revealed that #SamsungSDI had the largest target price variance at 88.32%. This was followed by #Samsung Electro-Mechanics (67.41%), #Hyundai Mobis (57.89%), #Hyundai Motor (55.84%), #NAVER (50.0%), #LG Energy Solution (48.61%), and #SK Hynix (46.15%).
The stock with the widest divergence in opinions was Samsung SDI. LS Securities set a target price of 531,000 won, while Mirae Asset Securities set it at 1 million won. This represents a difference of 469,000 won for the same stock.
The two sides’ perspectives are diametrically opposed. LS Securities expressed concerns over a decline in market share for electric vehicle (EV) batteries and intensifying competition with Chinese firms. It assessed that while the global EV battery market is growing, Samsung SDI’s EV sales are contracting, and the company is unlikely to benefit as much as expected from the U.S. energy storage system (ESS) market.
In contrast, Mirae Asset Securities judged that the company has entered a phase of medium- to long-term market share recovery, citing the securing of financial resources through the sale of its stake in Samsung Display, the expansion of ESS for artificial intelligence (AI) data centers, and the recovery of EV demand in Europe. In particular, it highly rated the potential for securing global ESS projects with Volkswagen and maintained a target price of 1 million won.
Opinions on Samsung Electro-Mechanics also varied significantly among brokerages. Eugene Investment & Securities set a target price of 1.792 million won, while DB Securities set it at 3 million won. Both brokerages agreed that the company would benefit from the proliferation of AI servers through demand for semiconductor substrates (FC-BGA) and silicon capacitors (Si-Cap).
However, Eugene Investment & Securities applied more conservative earnings assumptions. In contrast, DB Securities characterized the current environment as an “unprecedented boom” and assessed that demand is secured through 2028 and beyond. Accordingly, it applied the highest valuation level among global component stocks and significantly raised its target price.
◇ Divided Views on Valuation Methods
Outlooks for Hyundai Mobis also diverged significantly. IBK Investment & Securities set a target price of 760,000 won, while KB Securities set it at 1.2 million won.
IBK Investment & Securities focused on the value of supplying actuators for Boston Dynamics’ humanoid robot “Atlas,” while valuing the robotics business at approximately 16 trillion won. In contrast, KB Securities assessed Hyundai Mobis not merely as an automotive parts manufacturer but as a key supplier of core components for humanoid robots. It estimated the value of the actuator business alone at over 50 trillion won and proposed a fair market capitalization of 111 trillion won.
Target price discrepancies for NAVER also reached 50%. While Samsung Securities set a target price of 300,000 won, DS Investment & Securities proposed 450,000 won.
DS Investment & Securities estimated that the value of the AI Factory business being pursued with NVIDIA currently stands at 19 trillion won. It projected that this would become a new growth driver if the planned construction of a 1GW-scale AI data center materializes. Conversely, while acknowledging the growth potential of the AI Factory business, Samsung Securities adopted a more conservative approach, taking into account the investment burden of 75 trillion to 90 trillion won and the risks associated with initial profitability.
The market views this widening gap in target prices as stemming from differences in industry outlook and earnings estimates.
A head of a research center at a securities firm explained, “If the fundamental outlook for the industry differs, earnings estimates are bound to differ as well, and when the criteria for calculating target prices also differ, discrepancies arise.” He added, “In the process of adjusting target prices to reflect reality, there are cases where firms feel reluctant to lower their targets, which can widen the gap.”
He continued, “From an investor’s perspective, it is more important to look at earnings estimates first rather than the target price figure itself,” advising, “It is necessary to distinguish whether the earnings outlook is similar but the target prices differ significantly, or whether the earnings estimates themselves are significantly different.”