PNV - Banter and General Comments, page-11357

It was the Bell Potter analyst John Hester who referred to the Ukraine order as potentially skewing te H1 results to show a higher revenue "run rate" than the actual underlying sales growth. They did correct him on that but it does show how little attention he pays to the company announcements or how little homework he does.

The BoA analysts was even more obtuse. She claimed that because the company said they were closing in on market share of the number one competitor, it "implied" that surgeons still preferred the alternative's product. Now that fact that the competitor was there for many years before Polynovo yet Polynovo is taking rapidly growing market share away from the incumbent shows just the opposite. That surgeons who try BTM prefer it to the existing competitor product. Using her logic Polynovo would have had to have grabbed the majority of customers as soon as they entered the market. The other reason that was mentioned is that the existing products enjoy more reimbursement opportunities than Novosorb, and that will change once trials and approvals are successfully completed. But the fact that even with that hurdle still to be passed they are grabbing market share shows just how enthusiastic the response has been.

Another take away. They produced 49,000 devices in H1 and made AUD49m in revenues. That's AUD1000 per device. Obviously many factors come into play, but overall, that's how it worked out.

The progress on the DFU trial is very disappointing. A year after they paused the trial they are still dithering about what to do, even whether to write a new protocol or do a new trial. maybe they should just abandon it and start a new trial. It would seem that the product is so good they can still fumble their way to success by simply focussing on increasing production to keep up with the growing customer demand.