PEB - Pacific Edge Ltd

[Balance]

I'm in PEB for the long term Snapiti, what traders do in the short term really concerns me not, I perform FA based on company released objectives and associated revenue targets, it serves me well, and you're welcome to disagree.

Growths stocks often have leaps and jumps as risk falls away allowing them to approach ever closer to fundamental value, and PEB has de-risked an enormous amount over the last year.

I can understand how some would see a big SP jump in isolation as exceptional, but equally this stock has enormous potential for an NZX listed company and I would not be at all surprised to see PEB as a $5 stock in a just a few years time.

Jump in and out as you may please, I see more risk in doing that than just holding and keeping PEB in the bottom draw, each to their own.

Traders add noise to the discussions, and liquidity.

But as I have written before, they buy at 52c and flick out at 57c, $1.25 and flick out at $1.35, believe they are doing very well and I say, good on them.

What they miss out of course is the real movement from 52c to $1.35.

And so on and so forth.

Next major announcement will take the stock to $2.00 so let the traders talk the stock down in the meantime.

[Balance]

The likelihood is that the next major announcement will be before Christmas - based upon logic and historical observations.

[Casino]

I really like the stock but I think sales traction is going to be slower than most poeple think.

My estimates are based on these here:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-walls/4/71a/500

[barney]

Barney, the capital raising presentation told us that several of the US user programmes with healthcare providers have completed and that these organisations have made their first commercial orders, do you know which healthcare providers these are ?

I don't think the company has disclosed that detail yet Mac. I presume that the clinicians to whom PEB sold their first test in the US come from one of these.

[barney]

4-6x multiples are really really generous. My alarm bells go off when people throw around 10x multiples let alone 100X multiples. Here's a link that I a had already posted on the XRO thread but I see no harm in posting/reading it twice: http://abovethecrowd.com/2011/05/24/...-revenue-club/

Are there additional blue skies that we can secretly hope for? I believe so. That's why I hold despite feeling that it has gone up too quick for the wrong reasons (I have reduced recently). Here is how I roughly estimate sales to build up:

Nov 2014: 1M or less
Nov 2015: 5M or less
Nov 2016: 15M or less
Nov 2017: 50M and cashflow positive
Nov 2018: 100M

All of this assumes CMS coverage, which is likely but not certain. I find it impossible to estimate how roll-out of the other Cx products will impact on cashflows. Any thoughts are appreciated.

You could be right Casino. But then again Harbour could also be right. It will certainly be interesting.

http://www.harbourasset.co.nz/wp-con...ry-website.pdf

[Casino]

You could be right Casino. But then again Harbour could also be right. It will certainly be interesting.

http://www.harbourasset.co.nz/wp-con...ry-website.pdf

I saw that and wondered what they based it on. I honestly don't give much weight to what these analysts release. It's usually crap.

[barney]

I saw that and wondered what they based it on. I honestly don't give much weight to what these analysts release. It's usually crap.

Your probably right. Buying in at 19 cents indeed. The cheek of it.

[Casino]

thanks for that link casino.

No worries. Has anyone read/access to the articles listed here, particularly 'coding for utility'?

http://www.biocentury.com/products/certndx

[Casino]

found it and it's very informative! Looks like you could have made a lot of money with dodgy science in the past. Now, medicare contractors (MAC) are given some discretion and only the robust stuff gets through.

http://media.drugwonks.com/media/att...pdf?1374059870

Interesting excerpts:

According to Cassigneul, the CGS medical director informed Predictive that to receive coverage the company “would
have to do a randomized prospective clinical
utility study which would have to be
published in the NEJM or JAMA, and the
test should be written into the clinical
guidelines” for the MAC to consider coverage.
Cassigneul said it would take 18-24
months to complete such a story, several
months to get it published, and the wait
could be further extended for an unpredictable
period because clinical guidelines
are updated every three to five years.
Even if Predictive invested the resources
to produce the requested data,
there is no assurance that the goalposts
will remain fixed, according to Cassigneul.
Moreover, he added, if Predictive managed
to secure coverage, Medicare reimbursement
would not increase to compensate
for the cost of the trials, and
would not reflect either its medical value
or the expense required to demonstrate
its utility.

...

CGS declined to discuss its coverage
decision for CertNDx, but spokesperson
Adam Myrick suggested the Medicare contractor
doesn’t agree with Cassigneul’s
characterization of the requirements for
coverage.
“We don’t recommend or require studies
or clinical trials as a means of providing
evidence of clinical utility,” said Myrick.
He added: “The process for determining
coverage is fluid. If more evidence is
made available or developed, then we’ll
review and reassess.”
Myrick noted the non-coverage decision
was made possible by the new coding
system. “No specific codes for molecular
pathology existed prior to Jan. 1, 2013.
Now each test has been assigned a code.
Each code is priced and coverage decisions
are made test by test,” he said.

...

To obtain coverage under MolDx, the
applicant “has to show that [the test] in
fact makes a difference, that it improves
patient outcomes and/or changes physician
behavior for the management of the
patient,” Jeter told BioCentury.
Palmetto only accepts data from peerreviewed,
published studies.
Palmetto’s preference is for “at least
two well-controlled and designed studies,”
Jeter said. “They don’t have to be
randomized controlled trials. They could
be cohort, observational or case controlled
studies.”
Retrospective studies are acceptable,
she added.
Jeter obtains technology assessments
from subject matter experts at universities
and in industry.

Same story in Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgot...l-the-effects/

[Dentie]

casino this is all very much in line with what STC has said in the past.
For PEB to be successful it needs to be entered into the giudelines (doctors published clinical guidelines).
What poeple are forgetting is the US is a lawyers paradise and it is difficult to get doctors to use products that are not in the written clinical guidelines.

Hopefully PEB will get that far (I am sure it will) but this will take some time years even.
However getting the 2 big insurers on board is the next step.

Maybe it's about time the US (& others!) started making lawyers accountable for the way they intervene in & control important areas of life - for no other reason than filling their own pockets?