PEB - Pacific Edge Ltd

[Balance]

Well put BB
Re using tax losses.
An entity that is making a lot of money could buy up < 50%,fold their operating assets in to PEB and use PEB tax losses.How about that for an option?
$120m in tax losses that are useable?
510,871,464 shares
Then PEB worth net $30m? Losses worth around 6 c /share?
Then what would PEB be worth?
May have to change their name?
May have to do something about the cash drain.
https://simplywall.st/stocks/nz/phar...e-now-down-74/

Dentie's point is that PEB's tax losses are worth around $30m as you point out - if that can be realised via some tax efficient structure sale to a profitable company, that will get rid of the need to do a CR.

Makes a whole heap of sense except that all the tax loopholes to utilse tax losses have been closed. I can recall the good old days of preference shares, and the 50/50 split of the tax avoided by the profitable company.

[Dentie]

Dentie's point is that PEB's tax losses are worth around $30m as you point out - if that can be realised via some tax efficient structure sale to a profitable company, that will get rid of the need to do a CR.

Makes a whole heap of sense except that all the tax loopholes to utilse tax losses have been closed. I can recall the good old days of preference shares, and the 50/50 split of the tax avoided by the profitable company.

All I'm saying is (everything being equal) tax losses are just another form of "asset" for a company which have had them attributed to it....

[Balance]

All I'm saying is (everything being equal) tax losses are just another form of "asset" for a company which have had them attributed to it....

If I was DD, I would even explore exchanging a bit of cash for some of those juicy tax losses. He only needs to buy a bit more time...the wait appears to be going to be worth it.

No - that's not what you were saying.

[Dentie]

No - that's not what you were saying.

I agree with you Balance (for once ) but I think you (& others) may have missed my sentiment.

My two quotes you have tagged are completely relevant with each other ... you just need to read between the lines a bit. Hint: I wasn't referring to any "tax loopholes".

BTW - the total current $$$ tax loss benefit seems to be approx $38m.

[whatsup]

Little bit more interest today up 7% and holding reasonable well .knocking on the .23 door highest for 6 weeks, is this a take away from the agm ?

[whatsup]

Little bit more interest today up 7% and holding reasonable well .knocking on the .23 door highest for 6 weeks, is this a take away from the agm ?

.23 gone (for now !!)

[Minerbarejet]

Probably a few buying back in after a positive AGM that did not indicate a CR being imperative at this time.

[whatsup]

Next cab @ .25 atm.

[Minerbarejet]

Next cab @ .25 atm.

Probably Balance buying up large

[psychic]

Yes the AGM presentation read well and has obviously got a few going. Much was made of the recent announcement that CxBladder had been included in the NCCN guidelines, and such an inclusion absolutely should.

But read the guidelines and you will find that it wasn’t. No mention of CxBladder at all.

This is what the CEO’s notes said in his AGM presentation:

“Just this month, we were advised that Cxbladder has been included in the latest version of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for Bladder Cancer in the USA…. as an approved clinical intervention for high-risk patients being monitored for the recurrence of urothelial cancer. This is a pivotal commercial outcome for the company with the NCCN Guidelines widely recognised and used as the standard for clinical policy and practice in oncology by clinicians and payors in the USA. To be considered for review and inclusion in the NCCN guidelines requires an extensive portfolio of clinical evidence, a track record of clinical use, and broad adoption by physicians.”

The market announcement said

CXBLADDER INCLUDED IN THE LATEST NCCN BLADDER CANCER GUIDELINES IN THE USA Cancer diagnostics company, Pacific Edge (NZX: PEB), advises that Cxbladder has been included in the latest version of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for Bladder Cancer in the USA. This is a significant achievement with the NCCN Guidelines widely recognised and used as the standard for clinical policy and practice in oncology by clinicians and payors in the USA. The new guidelines update, which was issued on 10 July 2019, state that the evaluation of urinary urothelial tumor markers (Cxbladder by direct reference) may be considered during surveillance of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The NCCN Bladder Cancer Panel considers this a category 2B recommendation, which means there is NCCN consensus that the use of Cxbladder as a clinical intervention is appropriate. This follows on from Cxbladder’s inclusion in clinical guidelines by several New Zealand public healthcare providers in the last year. To be considered for review and inclusion in the NCCN guidelines requires an extensive portfolio of clinical evidence, a track record of clinical use, and broad adoption by physicians. This is an important milestone for Pacific Edge’s commercial journey in the USA, says CEO, David Darling, and comes on the back of 10 years of successful clinical evidence and commercial development. “Over the preceding years many of our customers in the USA have been hampered in their commercial use of Cxbladder while the Cxbladder technology has not been specifically included in the guideline recommendations. Inclusion in the NCCN Bladder Cancer guidelines is a major commercial milestone for the Company in the USA and will be of significant value as we progress our commercial discussions with our many urologist customers including the large healthcare organisations we are targeting.”


To me this reads as if the NCCN are recommending the use of CxBladder and have included in the Clinical pathway, no?

But cystoscopies and cytology are still the go if I understand it correctly. The only change is the small print, Urinary Tumour Markers may now be considered in the surveillance of High Risk, non – muscle invasive bladder cancer (only). And this a low evidence level category 2b recommendation. In support of this the NCCN then references a literary study completed in 2015 by Chow et al in support of this and here is the abstract:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26501851


THE PURPOSE:
To systematically review the evidence on the accuracy of urinary biomarkers for diagnosis of bladder cancer in adults who have signs or symptoms of the disease or are undergoing surveillance for recurrent disease.

THE CONCLUSION:
Urinary biomarkers miss a substantial proportion of patients with bladder cancer and are subject to false-positive results in others. Accuracy is poor for low-stage and low-grade tumors.
Cxbladder was considered but with only one study found they found the precision “imprecise” and the strength of evidence “low”.

So this is what PEB mean when they say the NCCN state that the evaluation of urinary urothelial tumor markers (Cxbladder by direct reference) may be considered during surveillance of high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.
I think it is very misleading and excitement needs to be kept in check.