We all know what makes Atomot's test platform unique is its integration, putting all the pieces into one simple to use test platform. However, the question is, how unique this is, would it be enough for individuals, doctors, hospitals to pay a premium price for it?
COVID
I think, for the most part, the COVID opportunity has waved goodbye to AT1. It is now only operating in Australia RESELLING one test that is 1, not the best in the class, average to say at best. 2, in a crowded space, lots of tests but only a limited market. 3 Pricing, there are cheaper tests that work as well as AT1's or even better, for a RESELLER to make a profit, I don't think they can compete in the pricing department.
HIV side
Again, it is a crowded space with lots of competitions.
1. It is a great product, but it might not be the best self-test.
When people think about finger pricking, and thinking about the blood tests, is not a very friendly thing. There is/are oral HIV tests that have been approved by the FDA that are very accurate [OraQuick demonstrated 99.5% (95% CI, 97.26-99.99) sensitivity and 100% (95% CI, 98.18-100) specificity] and more user friendly(no blood)
https://oraquick.com/why-oraquick2. Target market problem
Who would buy such a test? I think the answer is mostly the 3rd world countries. But that would beg the question that could they afford such tests? AT1 has an agreement to supply Viatris 1 million devices, however, the price is approximately less than $2 a test, how much could AT1 make? If any?
With major markets like China and the USA. AT1 does not have regulatory approvals yet and doesn't seem like they going to anytime soon. Would they be able to compete if they enter the market?
For Australia, the population is limited so does people with HIV. And with anyone that has access to a medicare card, I believe you can get an HIV test for free. On AT1's website, they are selling it for $39...
3. Vaccine
This could be a stretch. It might not be anytime soon, at least the next few years. However, Moderna has already set up a phase 1 trial for HIV, if it's successful, it's gonna create a whole new chapter.
Febridx
The only thing I think that's going to bring life to AT1 is Lumos's Febridx, but as I said before, why not buy Lumos stock instead. As the margin for AT1 might not be that good either.
Management
I have to say this part is purely subjective, my opinion only.
I think management is one of the most important aspects when you want to invest in a company, if not the most important. However, for AT1, the management team is not that great in my opinion. CEO John Kelly seems to me is a person that is quite arrogant and does not want to take responsibility for the company's weak performance.
He said he wanted quality partners, but to me, the partners AT1's been partnering with aren't that good.
He refused to acknowledge the share price problem was due to the company's execution, he blamed it on day traders.
He indicated there were discussions with global companies but nothing has eventuated
He failed to find new quality partners, the partner they worked with during COVID were all existing partners.
He suggested there was a lot of demand for AT1's tests while there weren't
He did not update the shareholders in a clear manner about India, NG biotech, Access Bio.
Plus more...
Also, the management team gets paid way toooooooo much compare to other listed companies that are the same size.
Revenue 6,715,659
Employee benefits expenses (3,813,094)
And when you compare it with the company's revenue... do they deserve that much?
I've held this stock since IPO and I have to say it has been disappointing 95% of the days. I cannot believe the management anymore and I cannot see a bright future for the company as of now. Have to admit I was wrong about this one.
Anyway, I would like to say good luck to the holders, thank you for all your inputs in the past year and a half.
Disclosure: I've sold 75% of my holdings after the quarterly, only have the rest waiting for Febridx approval, but now thinking it might not be worth the wait.
(20min delay)