PEB - Pacific Edge Ltd

[zs_cecil]

PEB has a testing business model that requires tests to be shipped to home base, tested, then the results returned. Does PEB have the capacity to increase testing volume and is the return to home base model sustainable it testing demand increases substantially?

The money flows when the testing ramps up, shareholders need to focus on capacity and capability to meet testing demand, especially now when it looks like demand could increase significantly assuming final hurdles are overcome.

Lots of water left to go under the bridge imo, I’m not breaking out the champagne until I see the company doing something to meet ‘real’ sustained demand, not just a promise of demand, especially with a scaled testing model that is both unstated and on face value unable to scale to meet any significant growth in demand. This is the crux of moving from science to business. Whether PEB have the wherewithal to manage the transition from great science to successful business is far from proven.

Anyway, still great news and long overdue for patient shareholders, nice to see something really encouraging happen for a welcome change from years of disappointment.

Gltah

The US lab has a capacity of 260,000 tests a year according to an announcement of US laboratory completion in 2012. I am not sure what it really means but at least the facilities are ready. I guess it is more of a question whether PEB are capable to meet the testing demand by hiring more staff in a short time or handling more testing delivery from home in time.

[Leftfield]

I haven't lost a cent with PEB because I've never sold a share. It's been a bit of a white-knuckle ride though and plenty of naysayers
......

Mmmm while I admire your perseverance with PEB Pierre, an economist would argue that you have indeed lost money because you are ignoring the 'opportunity cost' or devaluation effect of having your money tied up in a non-performing asset over (say) the last 5 years.

This chart compares the difference if you had simply taken your PEB money 5 years ago and placed it in an average NZX50 fund. The Blue line at the bottom of the chart is PEB and reflects considerable opportunity cost that you are yet to recoup.

Attachment 11703

So yes, you may not have lost 'physical money', but you are well short of getting an adequate return on it and could have done much better having your money elsewhere.

That said, I sincerely hope things improve for PEB holders. Certainly those who purchased at recent 'lows' of 6 to 10c have done v well.

[Balance]

Mmmm while I admire your perseverance with PEB Pierre, an economist would argue that you have indeed lost money because you are ignoring the 'opportunity cost' or devaluation effect of having your money tied up in a non-performing asset over (say) the last 5 years.

So yes, you may not have lost 'physical money', but you are well short of getting an adequate return on it and could have done much better having your money elsewhere.

That said, I sincerely hope things improve for PEB holders. Certainly those who purchased at recent 'lows' of 6 to 10c have done v well.

Good perspective, LF, on what an appallingly bad investment PEB has been. At one point, it ‘underperformed’ the NZ market by 200%.

I take my hat off to those who have the kind of fortitude ( and a heavy dose of foolishness as well imo) to stick with such a bad investment for such an extended period.

So ok - let’s evaluate where PEB so may go now that it has finally delivered (after 5 years) on one very significant customer being KP.

Question then - how really significant is KP?

[nevchev]

Good perspective, LF, on what an appallingly bad investment PEB has been. At one point, it ‘underperformed’ the NZ market by 200%.

I take my hat off to those who have the kind of fortitude ( and a heavy dose of foolishness as well imo) to stick with such a bad investment for such an extended period.

So ok - let’s evaluate where PEB so may go now that it has finally delivered (after 5 years) on one very significant customer being KP.

Question then - how really significant is KP?

Its an old article but i think it shows intention to eliminate invasive testing


May 4, 2011

Invasive urinary tract cancer tests may have minimal value

PASADENA Calif. — Hematuria, or blood in the urine, may trigger a battery of tests for urinary tract cancer that are invasive and can unnecessarily expose patients to radiation, yet the procedures contribute little to the diagnosis, according to a study by Kaiser Permanente Southern California’s Department of Research & Evaluation published in the May issue of the Journal of Urology.
Kaiser Permanente Southern California’s current practice guidelines are the same as the recommendations of the American Urological Association. Both advise that patients should be evaluated for urinary tract cancer if they have two urinalysis tests showing microscopic evidence of blood in the urine. The standard of care includes a workup with kidney imaging, usually a multi-phase CT scan, which is similar to having three X-rays, and an office-based procedure where a fiber-optic camera is used to visualize the inside of the bladder. The Canadian Urological Association also makes the same recommendations for patients over the age of 40. Neither the American nor Canadian recommendations have been tested in a large population-based study. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2010, there were 131,260 newly diagnosed cases of urinary tract cancer and 28,550 deaths from the disease.
“Using information in our electronic medical records, we found an extremely low incidence of urinary tract cancer in patients with microscopic evidence of blood in their urine, suggesting that this radiation exposure and expensive workups may not be necessary for many of these individuals,” said study lead author Howard Jung, MD, a urology fellow, and Department of Urology physician/researcher at the Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center in California.
The purpose of this population-based study was to determine the proportion of patients with hematuria who were ultimately diagnosed with urinary tract cancer and to establish the risk of cancer by age, sex and degree of hematuria. For the study, the electronic health records of 309,402 health plan members with microscopic hematuria, or blood in the urine on microscopic urinalysis, during 2004 and 2005 were reviewed through 2008 to determine who was diagnosed with urinary tract cancer by 2008.
The incidence of urinary tract cancer over three years was 4.3 per 1,000 patients with hematuria. “We found that patients who were older, male and with more red blood cells in a high-powered microscopic field were much more likely to develop urinary tract cancer,” said Dr. Jung. “Compared to the American Urological Association approach, an alternative approach of only evaluating patients over the age of 40 years with at least one urinalysis with 25 red blood cells in a high-powered microscopic field would have spared 25,917 evaluations with the use of radiation, as well as have detected six more cases of urinary tract cancer. Compared to the Canadian Urological Association approach, it could have spared 11,584 evaluations, while detecting 16 more cases of urinary tract cancer.”
“This study provides important real-world information about the association of hematuria in microscopic urinalysis and urinary tract cancer,” said Dr. Jung. “Rigorous protocols are needed to re-evaluate the best policy recommendations, and target specific populations that are at risk of being diagnosed with urinary tract cancer.” Kaiser Permanente is planning to continue this research with a prospective study.
Co-authors of the paper include Howard Jung, MD, and Joseph M. Gleason, MD, of the Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, Department of Urology; Ronald K. Loo, MD, and Hetal S. Patel, MD, of the Kaiser Permanente Downey Medical Center, Department of Urology; and Jeff M. Slezak, MS, and Steven J. Jacobsen, MD, PhD, with the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Department of Research & Evaluation.

[nevchev]

Kaiser Permanente is an innovation leader. As one of the nation’s largest and most productive research institutions with one of the world’s largest medical data sets and our advanced digital technology, we are in the forefront of delivering proactive health care for healthier lives.

[pierre]

I totally get and understand the opportunity cost argument - perfectly valid if you're a trader. However, it does presume an individual can correctly time the market, knowing when to get in and when to get out. It's easy to implement with 20/20 hindsight but I don't profess to have that capability.

I'm a long-term investor and generally buy to hold in businesses I believe in. Unless there's a totally compelling reason, I seldom sell. I don't sell shares in my own company in a bad year - or buy more in a good year either. Patience has paid off handsomely over the years - but not with every individual investment.

PEB has certainly been a test of faith - and the test is not yet over - but I believe the investment will pay off over the coming 2-3 years, especially now the KP deal is done.

I always have 5-6% of my substantial portfolio in the higher risk category just for fun and to keep my nerves on edge. PEB (now at 3% after yesterday's move), SKO and a couple of dud Aussie oilers currently are sufficient for the purpose.

Everyone has their own investment strategy. That's mine and it has mostly worked well for me since I made my first share market investment about 50 years ago.

[Drew95]

Good perspective, LF, on what an appallingly bad investment PEB has been. At one point, it ‘underperformed’ the NZ market by 200%.

I take my hat off to those who have the kind of fortitude ( and a heavy dose of foolishness as well imo) to stick with such a bad investment for such an extended period.

So ok - let’s evaluate where PEB so may go now that it has finally delivered (after 5 years) on one very significant customer being KP.

Question then - how really significant is KP?

I have watched PEB quite closely for probably a decade or so. From time to time I have invested. And lost money. I see KP as the 'Keystone' event. As I understand it KP is an extremely well respected organisation. I suspect that now that KP is on board, LCD will definitely follow. If PEB get LCD, they may get back $20 million or more in unpaid tests (no more cap raises?). And having KP and LCD will make a lot of other doors much easier to open. With PEB it has always been as much 'how fast will it happen?' as it has been "will it happen?". I think someone quoted DD as saying "Its like wading through treacle". KP will 'thin down the treacle' and easier to wade through. Things will start to happen a bit faster now. I am back on the train. Is that gravy I smell?

[whatsup]

Continueing yesterdays slight rise, imo this will happen as word gets out, once there are others who follow Kaiser there will be a big price jump as confirmation of its bladder process, we are not out of the woods yet, just in a clearing !!

[Schrodinger]

So what part of the announcement mentions will they actually sell the tests once approved. I think someone has to recommend it and if thats the case what makes you think PEB will be that one? I would think they have a group of options. People are being naive if they think PEB is the only option.

Let me see, spend $25M to make $4.3M revenue, nice business model.

[whatsup]

So what part of the announcement mentions will they actually sell the tests once approved. I think someone has to recommend it and if thats the case what makes you think PEB will be that one? I would think they have a group of options. People are being naive if they think PEB is the only option.

Let me see, spend $25M to make $4.3M revenue, nice business model.

Sch----, heard of the " valley of death ? "