Game plan confirmed, page-7

Enjoy Shareholders, I suggest if everyone can like this so word gets around on this website



Wayne, I always start these interviews talking about cash. The latest quarterly for December showed net cash burn of $3.4 million and at that time, you had $2 million in the bank, so obviously you were about to run out of money or close to it and you did a funding package with Mercer, an investment business in the US, I guess. It seemed to be a pretty complicated thing, but how much money have you got now in the bank from Mercer, adding to what you had already?

Thanks, Alan. We have restrictions, as you know, being an ASX company, with regards to how much we can raise, so it’s always a kind of quarter by quarter thing on the market cap that we have with that 25 per cent cap that we’re allowed to use. The deal that we did with Mercer, was really to give us some capital surety moving forward. We knew that 2021 was going to be a huge year for us in terms of deliverables and milestones, but it was made up of a hybrid of things for a bunch of reasons, the least of which was the 25 per cent cap which really constrained the amount of cash and equity we could issue. It was divided up as a com note, Mercer did take about a million dollars in equity as part of that. The rest of it was a com note at a good rate, 10 per cent to the five-day VWAP, which was significantly better than what a lot of funds were offering me, which was more like 25 per cent.

But then a fall back position of $16 million that if we are mutually agreeable, we can tap into. That figure was not random, the total package pretty much was what we needed to get through 2021 and pass those first patients in that study this year. We also brought in some investors from Australia, a couple of smaller private investment groups who came in at that time, who I’d been communicating with for a number of years and they were just waiting for their entry point, so of course, they did pretty well given the stock is up about 300 per cent since that deal was done.

I was going to say, you said that the deal with Mercer was pretty good, but they got the stock at $3.43 and it’s now over $11 dollars. Goodness me, they’ve done incredibly well.

Yeah, I think this was always going to be one of those catalysts. The company has had a fairly interesting history. I think before we arrived, it’s undergone many iterations in the kind of healthcare space, none of them which created a particularly good investment thesis from my perspective. But nonetheless, we knew this year with the assets that we had and what we’ve been able to do with the core technologies, was certainly going to be one that was a pivot. But that price they came in at, that was significantly better for shareholders as it was a 10 per cent discount to the VWAP than what some other funds were offering me which was 25 per cent to the VWAP. So, yes, it came in but it really pivoted off that deal. I think the capital surety certainly helped move it along, as well as the milestones that are coming up this year.

Why didn’t you do an equity raising from your shareholders? Is it because your main shareholder, Star Bright that’s got 20 per cent, didn’t want to put any more in? I would have thought your existing shareholders would have put some money in at $3.43?

They could and it’s a great question. I’ve more recently contemplated the strategy of the register for a company like this, a small-cap obviously. I come from 25 years of global big pharma around the world, so it’s a very different scale – sit on the Nasdaq board. Looking at the register here, I’ve been trying to work out, what is going to build the best profile and keep the stock fairly sticky for the retail investors, particularly some of which have been on this stock for about 10 years. Going to the retailers, we haven’t raised any capital for about two years, we’ve been funding the company with non-dilutive capital for the last couple of years.

Sorry, what do you mean by non-dilutive capital?

I did a couple of transactions within the company. There were, I think, some other assets that the company had been sitting on for many years that didn’t create a great investment thesis moving forward. One of those was a distribution business in Australia that we sold on to BTC. Another one was a portfolio of surgical repair products that were basically not profitable. But that nonetheless created enough capital to get us through the past two years, so we haven’t had to raise capital for a while. Our biggest shareholder is actually SIO Capital in New York, they hold about 20 per cent and they’re long, they’re been there for a couple of years…

I was just looking at your top 20, it’s got Star Bright at 20 and SIO Capital at 13.4, so that’s a bit out of date, is it?

Yeah, it must be. We did publish one recently on the website, maybe three or four weeks ago, Alan, but no worries – the Star Bright group is down to probably 5 per cent at this point, Mercer’s about 5 and SIO Capital is about 20. The rest of the stock is pretty much held by the rest of the top 20 below that. Dr Chew is at number three and then a bunch of Aussie retailers. But the key for me is to make sure that we’ve got folks coming onto the register that are sticking and that are long, and have the ability to potentially fund anything moving forward should we get to that point. If I was going to offer a dramatic discount, of course, I would throw that to retail investors. But at this point, I didn’t want to go below the 10 per cent – I think that was the right decision – and we did reject funds at the 25 per cent discount rate. The pivot on the stock came about as a result, I think, of that last transaction.

There’ll be a point again where I think if we need to raise capital, it will offer shareholders something, but it’ll be significant for the retailers and a standalone for the retailers, once there’s a lot of momentum in the stock.

Just finally on the Mercer deal, there’s another $16.5 million dollars that you’ve got as a put option at 90 per cent of the average five-day volume weighted average price. Is that at the time you exercise the put option or is it at the time you did the deal?

No, it’s at the time we exercise, Alan. The whole point of structuring that way – one, we had limitations that I mentioned earlier with the 25 per cent cap based on the market cap; but two, it was reasonable to assume the share price was going to increase this year past where that deal was done and that deal was done, as you mentioned earlier, we were getting tight on capital so I waited as long as I could to see what the share price would do to be able to raise off the biggest base I could. But moving forward, it was always the intention to kind of raise bit by bit as that share price appreciation occurred.

Obviously, I didn’t anticipate that it would move to the point that it has. It’s moved a bit more than I thought it would, but certainly, I knew it would appreciate and that we’d be raising off an ever-increasing base. That $16 million there is at our discretion or by mutual agreement as to if and how we pull that down or whether we bring in different investors or so on.

Okay, but you’re not tempted to capitalising your $11 dollars now and go for it?

I am, for sure, and partly I will do some of that. I think the key for where I sit right now again is, looking at the valuations of the company which have been done two or three times independently between New York and Australia, what this company would look like if it was private in terms of its value and looking at the market cap which is a function a little bit of the history and legacy. Somewhere in between, there’s a share price even this year that looks significantly bigger than what it is today as we get towards that FDA study. The real, I guess, gamble as it were for me, is to work out how far down the track do we go, at what price should we continue to raise, at what point will we find support and resistance on the current price? There will have to be some kind of minor retrace, which we’re seeing a bit of now – and trying to work out the variables around the catalysts and when we should raise.

You’ve narrowed the business down to basically one heart valve, I think – I’ll get you to describe that in a moment, but I thought it’d be a good idea to just go back through the history because as you kind of indicated earlier, you’ve narrowed the business down quite a lot. You had a lot of stuff going on a few years ago and you were still CEO at the time and you’ve kind of got rid of a lot of things and just come down to the heart valve. Just take us through the history of the business, because it’s quite a complicated thing, you came out of a merger originally, didn’t you?

I wasn’t certainly there from the genesis of the company, I was working overseas. But I was asked to join the board in 2015 and prior to that I was President of Europe for Merck and had been in a whole bunch of C-suite jobs in one of the biggest pharma companies out there. I was brought in predominantly I think to deal with one of their businesses which was the immunotherapy drug development business. I didn’t have any prior association with the company at all when I sat on the Nasdaq board in California when they invited me across, but I did have a lot of drug development experience because I’ve launched a lot of drugs around the world in my career.

What was the business called then?

The division was called the Immunotherapies, the company was called Admedus and it basically had three divisions, so this was one of them. And the original company was set up with a board predominantly coming from the mining sector. In fact, all of them were coming from the mining sector, as was the CEO, and so there was a disparate group of businesses that had kind of been stitched together, none of them were particularly global for sure, none of them in my opinion had a great investment thesis in terms of great IP or something that was really going to be able to offer a lot of value. They were scratch around the bottom a little bit kind of businesses, looking for the profit where you could get them. The immunotherapies business was a drug development business, that was, in my opinion, destined to fail because it does cost about $1 billion US dollars to bring a drug to market, it does take about 10 years and your chance of success, where they were phase one/phase two is about 5 to 10 per cent. I’ve been through that my whole career and so it was very clear…

I think, finally, the particular program they were working on was not commercially interesting to big pharma. At least through my eyes, nobody would really want to buy this platform and that’s why it was sitting there, but it was sucking up a lot of money, capital was being raised to fund – it was never going to be enough capital to fund that, by any stretch, so I stopped funding that. Essentially, over time it just kind of died on the vine and whittled away. We nearly had a deal done with it, but that fell over in the end.

Then we had a distribution business which essentially where the company – it was another division – were taking capital equipment that goes into the hospitals predominantly from two companies, one in the US, one in Switzerland, and then selling it on into the system in Australia. They had one major contract before I joined the company with The Royal Adelaide, with the new hospital there to supply it. Unfortunately, that was a contract that two of the biggest global players walked away from because they couldn’t afford to do it and we just ended up getting it on price and of course, it was a very unprofitable contract so we kind of had to untangle that in the end.

But we were able to, after a period of time – it took probably a couple of years to restructure the company and really find buyers for the assets. We finally found a buyer, we got a good price, they got a good deal I think as well, it fitted their business. Then we had this one little asset in the middle, it was built around this technology called Adapt. Now, it was certainly not in the heart valve space at all, that wasn’t even a plan…

What was the technology called, Adapt?

Adapt is a treatment, basically a chemical treatment, for a material that comes from animals that’s used in surgical repair for humans. Now, there are many products like this, it’s collagen from bovine and it has to be treated with a certain process in order to make it suitable to put into humans. That process, for us, is called Adapt. Adapt, invented in Australia of course, took about 20 years to develop, so it’s not a short process, but what caught my eye – I was Chairman of the Board at this point – was the company had about seven years of data showing a particular function of this material that it did not calcify in humans, which was a significant set of data because the materials in the space have a real habit of calcification, based on DNA and a whole bunch of things that go on with that material. We’re now out at 10 years and we’re the only company to show that at 10 years.

That wasn’t the main event though. These products were used in surgical repair, so a kind of a patch for aortic valve repair, vessel repair, cardiac repair and the like… So the Adapt material was FDA approved which is good…

At this point, was it actually selling the bovine collagen as surgical patches?

Yeah, exactly, some of it has been registered around about 2016-2017, but it was a space worth about $50 million dollars globally and there are probably 10 to 15 companies in the space globally, with lots and lots of reps and lots of costs. Although we managed to grow the portfolio about 60 per cent, we had to get a profile for it. It was clinically superior, there was no question, but that’s very much a commodity space. We were struggling and it was never the intent to kind of commercialise that, you need hundreds of reps around the world, so that wasn’t going to work.

You’d never make much money if it was only $50 million.

It’s very fragmented, you’re spot on, Alan. I’m used to launching drugs that are worth $5-6-7 billion in revenue globally and so, this was not particularly appealing, first point. Second point, the amount of capital that it required, you could never get it above water but we did have to try and get some profile because I certainly attempted to sell the portfolio earlier and just that there were no takers. It was clinically superior, we managed to grow it at about 60-70 per cent and then we finally sold it on in 2019 just pre-COVID to a Nasdaq company in Boston who were called LeMaitre who were in that space. We got a great deal for that and it also fits their portfolio very well.

We kept all of the IP around that material, just sold them the physical products and the brands around the surgical repair side. Then we were able to then take obviously that money – two things happened, we got a bunch of cash that we banked…

How much?

The whole deal was $32 million, so there’s some earnouts on there. The first round that we banked was $16m, and we had banked a little bit more since then. Plus, we have a manufacturing deal with them. We manufacture that material at cost, plus 20 per cent. That brought in about $5 million last year, it might be a little bit more this year now that we’re post-COVID, they’re starting to sell again. But it’s not really a revenue story, it does certainly pay for the facility that we have in Perth which is a nice asset as part of the company where we make our valves as well. But, very happy to get out from under that. It was, like I said, a very good price for us and certainly a good fit for their portfolio, we like working with them. But the real prize is that Adapt technology.

Now, we have one dataset in humans over 10 years, but that’s not the only dataset, we have a lot of published data showing this stuff doesn’t calcify. One of the reasons I pivoted into the valve space was, one, because it was a really significant size, it’s going to be about $10 billion US dollars by 2025; two, there’s only a couple of players; and three, one of the key needs in the market for these TAVR valves, as they are, is to have a valve that doesn’t calcify. These valves calcify quite heavily and the disease we treat is aortic stenosis and that’s a disease where your native valve, the valve you’re born with, starts to build up a lot of calcium over time into your 60s and 70s and 80s, and that calcium starts to slow down the valve movement, until that valve becomes dysfunctional and has to be replaced. Aortic stenosis or severe aortic stenosis is quite a serious disease of course with a high mortality rate, so the valve does have to be replaced.

The problem has been that these valves which are made of bovine collagen are prone to calcification once they go in the body. Typically, they have a life span of somewhere between two and five years, give or take. They wear out from calcium, they wear out from mechanical wear and tear and a few other reasons. But we’re able to certainly deal with one of those issues with the anti-calcification treatment we have, but that’s not the only technological benefit that we have at the moment. I’ll pause there, there’s a lot of words there, Alan.

Perhaps, it might be a good opportunity to explain what TAVR is, it’s a transcatheter aortic valve replacement, how does it differ from surgical aortic valve replacement, or does it? Just give us a brief summary of the…

I’ll give you the 30-second… Yeah, it’s the right question. There are two ways to replace that valve in your heart, one is surgery as you mentioned, Alan. Typically, they will crack your chest, a thoracotomy, it’s a bypass procedure, they stop the heart. They go in there and replace that valve by the hands of a surgeon. That procedure takes many hours, it’s a very, very intense procedure, it takes many weeks to recover. That works, they take the old valve out, put a new one in and that valve will start to work. The problem with that procedure is it’s so intense that it’s really reserved for people under about 85. It’s not really age-dependent, it’s score-dependent, but they’re typically around that age, so they’re called the high-risk patients. The high-risk patients have a high risk of mortality on the table. They have no solution. If they get aortic stenosis, severe stenosis, there’s no way you cut their chest open because they die on the table.

What is aortic stenosis?

Aortic stenosis is where your aortic valve starts to build up calcium.

I see.

That calcifies, the leaflet starts to slow down, they can’t close and all sorts of things go on there until eventually that valve just stops working, so you do have to replace it. Now, seven or eight years ago, two of the big med-techs up here had acquired companies that had worked out how to do that procedure with a catheter rather than cracking your chest. They got the valve on the catheter, they insert it into your femoral artery down near your groin, drive it up over your aorta, put the valve in place that way and then remove the catheter, so the whole procedure can take 25 to 40 minutes versus hours and you can be out of hospital the next day, these days.

So it is a big difference in the risks and therefore, the patients above 85 who couldn’t have the other procedure, were able to have a solution and that worked beautifully. The downside to this, of course, was that the valves that they were putting in place do not last a long time. In the patients that were above 85, that was okay because generally the patient and the valve probably have the same lifespan, maybe five years. In 2020, the valves were – the FDA gave the green light for these TAVR procedures to be used in younger patients instead of surgery, so the mean age of patients went from 85 to 73 in one year. That brought about a challenge for the industry because suddenly these younger patients need a different kind of valve.

How long do these valves last?

No one’s got 10-15 years of data in the TAVR space, but the current valves, definitely there’s plenty of literature and the doctors all know this, they start to drop off in as little as two years, but typically around about five. You want a valve that’s going to go 10 or 15 years as you’re putting them into these 70-year-olds and even 60-year-olds, that’s the first point. The second point, is these valves don’t restore the complete haemodynamics of your normal valve. They don’t take you all the way out of stenosis, they leave you in mild stenosis from severe because they’re very constrained in how they work. They’re very complex and the DurAVR valve is very different. The current valves are three-piece valves, three pieces of tissue, and ours is a single piece 3D valve. That 3D valve is more aligned to the valve you’re born with, it’s more anatomically correct, but as a result it also gives more normal blood flows and we’ve shown that in a human study already in Europe.

Just back up a bit – who supplies the valves at the moment for transcatheter aortic valve replacements?

The two main players in this space are Edwards, which is a New York Exchange-listed company with a market cap of about $55 billion; and Medtronic, which is a diverse med-tech play which has a structural heart division as well as many other divisions. They roughly split 65 per cent of the market share is Edwards and about 35 per cent of the market share is Medtronic.

What do they make these things from?

The Edwards valve is made from bovine pericardium, the same material, and the reason that material is used is because it has the physical characteristics that are desirable in a valve. It has downsides of particularly the DNA aspect, it has residual DNA because it’s a foreign material and that’s what causes calcification in these replacement valves. The Medtronic portfolio has both bovine and porcine material in their valves, but similar – it’s all animal collagen, one way or another.

Right, and how much do they cost?

Both valves are about $35,000 each US.

Right, $35,000 bucks, wow, okay.

It doesn’t come cheap, that’s for sure.

Your valve is – what are you saying, it’s one piece of 3D material, is it?

Yeah, you’ve got two things going on here. One, you’ve got the Adapt anti-calcification treatment which you use to treat that material. We’re the only company that’s been able to remove all of the DNA off the scaffold, so that’s really important because that DNA causes calcification. Your body reacts to the foreign DNA in these valves and causes inflammation and therefore, calcification. We’re the only ones that have been able to do that, we’ve shown that in studies, we’ve gone head to head with both Edwards and Medtronic in calcium studies and beaten them. You’ve got that part, but then you’ve got – our valve is the only 3D single-piece valve which is more anatomically correct.

The others are all very, very complex three-piece valves sewn into a frame with up to 600 sutures holding those things together, they then put that on a catheter. Our valve, by design, is very different and we’re getting different because of that, but we’re getting more normal results because of it as well because it is more anatomically correct. Our valve is actually opening wider, we’ve got about 80 per cent bigger coaptation area than the current valves and we’ve seen the normal results coming through in the surgical studies that we’re currently doing in Europe.

Can you explain to us how you get rid of the DNA from it? I suppose the more important issue, is how protected is your IP? I presume you’ve got patents covering it…?

It was a very conscious decision to…

Well, I’d be surprised if somebody else couldn’t remove the DNA eventually as well?

Well, possibly, Alan. I mean, I scratch my head as well, coming from an industry where in pharma you tightly hold your secrets around a molecule, but this is also a kind of molecular play, it’s almost a biotech play with regards to Adapt, it’s a chemical, it’s a secret sauce. Now, it did take 20 years to develop Adapt and it was developed by Professor Leon Neethling who is a cardiothoracic surgeon in Australia and he set out to solve the problem of calcification in that surgical repair material that he was using, competitor products, he didn’t like that, he set out to solve it. Firstly, we’ve gone head to head with the other people in the market, they have DNA, we beat them in calcium studies. The doctors will tell you every day of the week they see calcium on these valves, of course, you have to replace them, that’s the first point. The second point is we’ve got 10 years of data in humans showing no calcification and we’ve got many other datasets besides that one. So, even if you started tomorrow, you’d have to get FDA approval which we’ve got, you have to prove biocompatibility, which we’ve done. So you can’t just come to market tomorrow if you suddenly manage to work out the code. Then, beyond that, you’ve got to prove over 10 years that you’ve got what we’ve got, which is to say no calcium in humans. So, by the time you get to 10 years, we might be at 20. So I think it does create a fairly decent mote, but it’s not the only technology we’ve got.

This 3D valve has a bunch of IP around it as well. The Adapt technology has IP as well as trade secrets. And then finally, we have the delivery system of course, which is the catheter and there’s a whole bunch of IP around that as well. We inserted, deliberately, an IP lawyer here in Minneapolis the day we started these projects a couple of years back. She’s an engineer by her first degree and an IP lawyer second and so, when the team was developing and working on our TAVR product with our doctors, the key point was to make sure that we make sure we developed IP that was unique, firstly; and secondly, to make sure we didn’t trip over other people’s IP so we would waste time and money, get to the point where we realise we couldn’t use something.

That’s been quite successful for us, so we filed something like 60 applications last year. I think we’re on course to do maybe 70 or 80 this year and the IP continues to come out.

When are you going to start selling your valve?

Well, first we’ve got to go through the TAVR study. Right now, we are in discussion with the FDA as to the protocol study size and design, those meetings are going extremely well, probably the smoothest of my career and I’ve been in front of the FDA many, many times. Last meeting we went in with one of our doctors who will be the study chair. He’s extremely well known globally in the TAVR space and it went really well. That study should commence Q4 and that’ll be a human TAVR study. Right now, we’re in the midst of doing the animal studies that are required by the FDA to prove points around the delivery system, the catheter deployment and many other items. We’ve got a human study going on in Europe for the same valve done surgically, that’s going extremely well.

But the EFS study will start Q4. If those patients come off the table with near-normal haemodynamics, that’ll be a first, which is what we’re seeing in the surgical study and it’s because that valve was different. If we get patients coming out with normal haemodynamics, normal gradients, the other two valves in the market can’t actually achieve that, they’re not able to achieve that. That will be a big deal. The question for us will be then, are we going to commercialise ourselves, which is a couple of years beyond that time, the study’s got to go down to the wire, it’s got to be finished, it’s got to be written up and so on? Or, are we in a deal and a partnership?

We are in dialogue with the companies up here, they’re all based in Minneapolis, by the way, it’s kind of where the global headquarters for these companies are in the med-tech space. The guys in that space, Edwards and Medtronic, they know who we are, we know who they are, we know them at the C-suite and we have been in a lot of dialogue, particularly with one of those companies moving forward. The real question down the track will be, do we remain solo, do we go into a partnership, do we even exit the business, all of those questions will be in front of the shareholders if those results continue to do what we’ve seen in the surgical study, which is to say they’ll be giving patients a near-normal function of that valve.

Remembering, it’s a $10 billion dollar space. Edwards’ market cap of $55b, is predominantly built around that one product, so it is a bit of a winner takes all. If Adapt and if DurAVR does what it continues to do at the moment, it will take market share and it’ll be in the hands of one of those two companies for sure.

Of course, what you’re going to do is set up an auction between Edwards and Medtronic, aren’t you?

Well, we’re certainly well down the path of having those discussions and keeping them where we need to keep them. I think we’ll definitely – if someone comes to me with a deal, it doesn’t matter what it looks like at the first round because it’ll mean the data will be so good that that’s why the deal is there. I think if they don’t come with the deal then that’ll be a different discussion. But once they’ve come, then we know they want the product, then of course the auction begins if that’s the path that shareholders choose to take.

Yeah, I reckon they will. You actually got a speeding ticket on the 8^th of March from the ASX, which is otherwise known as a price query, what’s going on, they wanted to know and you said you don’t know. Is that still the case? I mean, obviously the share price quadrupled from $3 bucks to $12 bucks pretty quick smart and you said you didn’t know what that was about. Is that right? I mean, is that still the case?

Alan, the key is, it would be remiss of me to speculate as to what’s going on in the market when I know that there is no news in the background, there’s nothing tradable happening. Everything that’s going on in the background is certainly out in the public, I certainly talk about it and it’s been in our presentations and so on. So, from that perspective, the specific question they ask, is there something going on that we don’t know about? Well, the answer is simply, no. As to why it moved so quickly, I could speculate that we had a legacy over a decade of miscalculations, mismanagement, whatever you want to call it, misdirection, and finally, the credibility of the company is starting to emerge, the data is starting to appear, 2021 is the year we hit an FDA study.

There is a lot of reasons. As soon as the funding package was announced, the stock started to move. That capital surety certainly played a part in it, but I think there’s so many factors that it would be very difficult to speculate on what’s actually driving it.

And the stock seemed to peak at $170 bucks at one stage, goodness me! That was before you started, but goodness gracious me, it was $150-140 dollars.

Yeah, I won’t get into it, but I personally had been invested in a few small-cap healthcare companies from overseas, my only exposure to the ASX, really. There was a bit of speculation going on on this company with particularly the immunotherapies business and I just think that it was not well presented to shareholders to make informed decisions because I think if I went to you, Alan, and said, “Look, I need a billion dollars, you need to wait 10 years and your chance of failure is about 95 per cent.” That’s not a very good investment thesis but I think predominantly that was what drove that share price spike.

That’s incredible really, I mean the stock went up from $20 bucks, as you say, to $100-something, and you’ve come in and said the basis of that increase in the share price is rubbish, it’s never going to work. Goodness me, that’s terrible.

And I tell you, I didn’t pick a couple of winners on some good science, but I think bad management on a couple of companies, not this one. But I do have a fairly strong view on, particularly coming from the pharma industry globally, on how you present that in a what you can and can’t say, how to set realistic expectations. I’ve got a lot of mum and dads write to me, I reply to everybody and have done since I’ve been here and I hear the stories of folks who invested in this company way back when and the reasons they did that and some of it, frankly, is gut-wrenching to hear how much people put into those discussions and the way it was being presented. When I first joined the company and I asked the normal questions as a board member, it was clear to me that folks just didn’t understand what the drug development process actually was and yet, all of the – if I could call it the hype, around the company, was built around that one thing in particular, so it was, unfortunately. But, fortunately, we had the technology that helped kind of hopefully get redemption to some of those long-standing shareholders in particular. Otherwise, this company would have gone belly-up because the assets just weren’t strong enough to provide a good investment thesis. But for that Adapt technology, but for the TAVR space, it’s a big space, and the fact that we can actually compete because the technology is that good, we have a shot at it at least, it’s not a pipedream, will allow redemption for those folks that have been there for a long time.

Okay, Wayne, better let you go. It’s been great talking to you, thanks.

Appreciate it, Alan, good to talk to you.

That was Wayne Paterson, the CEO of Anteris.