Ann: Interim Financial Report 31 December 2015, page-77

Well, what a very disappointing report. I have been invested for many years and that was the
most disappointing report I have read hands down.

Firstly, POC1 is very disappointing. Whilst I can't say I am overly surprised it is always disappointing to see it confirmed. I see positive and negatives from POC1 overall.
Start with the negatives;
1. In the March 2015 quarterly report GC stated that 'clearly POC1 are committed to the Anteo alternative.' Well, clearly they are NOT!
2. It never sat right with me that we did a technology transfer (January 2015 quarterly) without signing a deal. Now they have our technology and despite not being licenced to use it can do what they like to try and reverse engineer a way around the patents. I hold grave concerns on this front and hope I am wrong. Sure we have patent s but you need money to defend them!
3. It annoys me that POC1 would have learnt know how from us despite not taking on our tech. It also annoys me that a 5 year project gets 2 lines in the half yearly saying basically we got the results but got denied....

Positives
1. We know from the Philips video posted on hotcopper a few months back that they are also working on a highly sensitive troponin test which wasn't the one they were reviewing. I wonder whether we are involved in the test which has the higher sensitivity and whether this is version 2 that has been referred to for over 6 months now.

2. Josh was the one that said they won't be able to get the reproducibility without mix and go and that involved the mix and go sensor surface. Currently we don't know what type of device POC1 are going to release and how sensitive the test will be. I also doubt they will be multiplexing on the device that will be released. So let's wait and see what the device does before it confirms that they have a gold standard device without mix and go.

A few other comments

1. I am sick of these graphs with comments about where parts of an industry are at or how many formulations of mix and go we have. Sure it is nice to know how many variations there are once a year but I want something to say;
How many medical device companies are we currently in negotiations with;
And then break them up into stages of development ie initial / feasibility / approaching commercial decision.
So something like;
We are dealing with 10 medical device companies and 20 projects.
10 initial stage / 5 feasibility / 5 approaching commercial decision with a quick definition of what each stage means.
I know each feasibility timeline would be different with regulatory approvals etc but at the moment we have not much and it almost reads to me that they are looking for projects now rather than choosing which ones they wanted to work on. Then they could break that up into a table for each market. That also provides transparency and also accountability because apart from the public interactions named in announcements we really don't know what is going on. That is fine if you are signing deals consistently but when you are not I think it is required.

On a positive they have changed the strategy (which i clearly got this wrong with a post recently) so hopefully they can get it right.

Also did anyone notice Geoff didn't write anything in the report?