PEB - Pacific Edge Ltd

[Iolite]

To me -It seems like the tests to initially diagnose or rule out cancer would be the tests with the most potential to sell bigger numbers rather than monitor afterwards.

Seems like there would be more who have warning signs and need to rule cancer out,which includes far more people than those who actually have the cancer--guess that would be triage so sooner the better (if my assumption is correct)

That's how I see it also, based on the information I have gleaned from the various companies.

For example slide 24 from the Oncocyte presentation (Sept 2014) identifies these markets (text in italics added by me):

Pathologist: Resolution of indeterminate cytology during recurrence surveillance
• 500K tests/year in US
(Sienna antibody and proposed initial Oncocyte offering)

Oncologist: All recurrence surveillance
• 1.5M test/year in US
(CxBladder Monitor Vs proposed second Oncocyte offering)

Urologist: Management of hematuria
• >5M tests/year in US
(CxBladder Detect and CxBladder Triage Vs proposed final Oncocyte offering)

So Oncocyte appears to be targeting the smallest market first, whereas PEB are targeting the biggest market first.

It may be that the hurdles to be able to offer products to Pathologists for "inderterminate cytology" are less and perhaps Oncocyte, being aware of PEB's products, figure they are more likely to succeed in that market without having to compete with PEB right from the start.

Disclaimer: Do your own research. I am not a financial advisor and the above information represents my personal opinions on the research that I have undertaken. I am a holder of a small parcel of PEB shares and currently bullish on PEB's future prospects.

[robbo24]

Thanks to the new posters for adding some proper value to this thread for a change.

Has anyone received their offer of money from PEB yet? For their FMA naughty settlement?

[Xerof]

There has to be a certain ''reward to shareholders aspect'' and in my experience it works far better when the share is on the rise.

When I held NAN it was enough cheaper that most wanted in and the SP was on the rise as well--That one was definitely oversubscribed---I guess we will have to wait and see on this one.

Not sure if you know the details of the last CR done by PEB skid, but they raised at 55 cents, when the price had spiked to ~1.70 just a few days before, then settled around 1.20 or so. Obviously, the rights issue got taken up, and then we saw price continue on (I think) to 1.50/1.60 level on entry into NZX50. At that time 2 of the directors sold (too pricey for them?), and Hujlich funds also sold, totally.

So, in a way, the "rewards for shareholders aspect" you talk about, were quite obscene really, and it's no wonder there was heavy selling pressure. Too tempting for most of us, especially those who had only just got in (which I would think would be most ST readers), with the exception of hancocks and MAC et al, who spotted this one well before the sheeples.

Whilst I respect some of the arguments repeatedly droned on about by balance and a few others, I personally take the view that short term profits were just too tempting for most and made it particularly easy for people to sell. Having said that, over $1.50 at that time in their life-cycle was a little over the top, and of course, the delays in actually gaining traction have gnawed at a few more nerves.

I have already said what I am going to do with the rights issue. I sold a 5/8ths of my holding a while ago (a bit later than those lucky b'stards mentioned above) so am sitting pretty and ready to pick my rights up. And maybe a few more if the underwriters want to bottle later.

[skid]

Not sure if you know the details of the last CR done by PEB skid, but they raised at 55 cents, when the price had spiked to ~1.70 just a few days before, then settled around 1.20 or so. Obviously, the rights issue got taken up, and then we saw price continue on (I think) to 1.50/1.60 level on entry into NZX50. At that time 2 of the directors sold (too pricey for them?), and Hujlich funds also sold, totally.

So, in a way, the "rewards for shareholders aspect" you talk about, were quite obscene really, and it's no wonder there was heavy selling pressure. Too tempting for most of us, especially those who had only just got in (which I would think would be most ST readers), with the exception of hancocks and MAC et al, who spotted this one well before the sheeples.

Whilst I respect some of the arguments repeatedly droned on about by balance and a few others, I personally take the view that short term profits were just too tempting for most and made it particularly easy for people to sell. Having said that, over $1.50 at that time in their life-cycle was a little over the top, and of course, the delays in actually gaining traction have gnawed at a few more nerves.

I have already said what I am going to do with the rights issue. I sold a 5/8ths of my holding a while ago (a bit later than those lucky b'stards mentioned above) so am sitting pretty and ready to pick my rights up. And maybe a few more if the underwriters want to bottle later.

You have missed my point which is that there needs to be a certain amount of incentive for SH to take up the rights--(obviously there was heaps the first time(what did you think of how management handled that one?)Sounds like we both agree there was a bit to much incentive that time around eh?--But my point is THIS rights issue is dangerously close to the actual SP--If the SP falls 3-5c who is going to take up the rights?--That would surely be a test of faith--to lose money by taking up the rights.
If the SP stays at this level then it will be fine but all Im saying is that its a bit dangerous this time around for that reason(this might have been the time to reward SH like yourself with a bit better price(for your and possibly the companies benefit)
I think it might have been safer to give a bit more ,even if there was a little selling for profit.
Have you considered what will happen if the rights issue gets no interest?

Hancocks and Mac certainly did spot this one early--but it would have gone nowhere without the Sheeples

[skid]

Thanks to the new posters for adding some proper value to this thread for a change.

Looks like you've got some new friends NG

[Xerof]

In order of your questions:

Rights Issue take several months to set up, so it was too late to change the pricing last time. I have already covered what I saw as unfortunate consequences.

the underwriter

I have just witnessed a CR filled at a premium - most holders are thankful for a small discount.

No interest? The underwriter will take them, and if they dump, there will be some cheaper shares on offer.

[trader_jackson]

So far, share price is holding up, although very early days that is for sure. I think the uptake of this issue will be strong, but will be interesting to see how it goes.

[skid]

In order of your questions:

Rights Issue take several months to set up, so it was too late to change the pricing last time. I have already covered what I saw as unfortunate consequences.

the underwriter

I have just witnessed a CR filled at a premium - most holders are thankful for a small discount.

No interest? The underwriter will take them, and if they dump, there will be some cheaper shares on offer.

Interesting so peb will get their dosh one way or the other -certainly a situation that will be an education

[Baa_Baa]

Do any of the products have endorsements from practicing NZ oncologists or urologists that also use the products?

Sorry, it's me quoting myself again but I think it's a valid question and prefer not to be lost in the noise. Thanks to Xerof for trying to answer this question albeit an unsatisfying answer. Surprising no-one seems to really know? Or maybe those that know are banned or exiled themselves and can't answer?

The reason for me asking the question is to better understand that if it is continually touted that PEB is the best test available, the problem as I understand it is that unless the test is proven to be 100% accurate a urologist can’t rely on it without further intervention.

The reality then, is the test has both false positives and false negatives.

A false positive should result in a follow up by a urologist i.e. you get to the gold standard, which is an in-person diagnosis by a urologist.

Critical then is the false negatives. A false negative means you don’t get picked up by the test. It then doesn’t matter really whether the test is 80% or even 99% accurate. You cannot be sure of it, therefore you are going to end up with the gold standard urologist diagnosis anyway for certainty.

Either way you require the gold standard in-person diagnosis. So what savings or efficiencies have eventuated from the PEB tests? Why would the NZ practitioners choose to use the PEB tests? Why would these tests be funded by the government who control the NZ health sector? Or why would these tests be funded by the insurers who co-fund the health sector?

As I then see it the tests may have limited and highly qualified screening use. Either way the test results in an in-person diagnosis.

I don't understand why these tests haven't been taken up in NZ if it's as good as some say it is.

Can someone answer the basic question first, whether any of the PEB products have endorsements from practicing NZ oncologists or urologists that also use the products?

[Xerof]

Try talking with someone who knows

brent.pownall@pacificedgedx.com

Commercial Director

I find him very helpful, and satisfying

thats all from me on this thread, I'm joining the can't be bothered brigade