Share
15 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 1
clock Created with Sketch.
09/12/17
16:07
Share
Originally posted by hoofa
↑
It would seem that there are a few possibilities.
1. The spend over the last 2 years has not taken traction and any effect on the revenue has been dismal. Hence they have been forced into a situation where decisions had to made about the future.
2. Ferriscan has plateaued in revenue terms and at this point there is nothing else. Hence cut backs had to made and fast. Whether the CFO and GM resigned or whether it would suggested they move on is unknown.
If the cutbacks in management were made due to the financial position within the company then the outlook is ordinary.
3. They are negotiating with another party re takeover or collaboration involving the integration of RHT with another group and the duplication of management positions is not required - could then be a reason for the changes.
4. If the AI program is successful they are going to need funds, money. They will need to clearly demonstrate to any potential investment opportunist that the program will be a commercial success. The existing business model is going around in circles.
5. They seem to have a lot of consultants with fancy descriptions and are being paid handsomely for part time advice. Great work if you can get it. Liver Fibrosis is often mentioned with these advisors - what I find interesting is that this program has been going for in excess of 5 years and the last report indicated that it was much harder than first thought and would appear to be in the too hard basket or on the back burners. So one must ask why do the profiles of the consultants keep mentioning liver fibrosis.
6 There has been a massive spend on wages, marketing and travel in comparison to research and development. This spend has produced little in terms of revenue improvement. Why?
7. It would seem that the GM who has recently resigned was not the instigator of the AI program. So who was and who is responsible for this program. The board are not employed on a day to day basis working within the organisation, they only set the framework for the company and its success or failure. It then goes back to the full time employees in the Perth office. With no CEO or GM who is coordinating the "engine" room and acting as the go between with the board. We have now had 5 resignations coming from the board and senior management in the last 3 years. Hardly stability.
8. It would seem that they do have a framework for the business model in technical terms but the implementation of the technology to the market place is exceedingly slow and the commercial value has restrictions. The company seems to framed around a consultancy group with limited skin in the game and being used on this basis can walk at any time. Simon Panton a director has a truck load of shares, but you never hear a peep from him.
imo they have reached a turning point, the months ahead will hopefully clarify whether my investment goes down the tube or they are capable of rebuilding this company into a viable commercial organisation.
Maybe they are waking up to the fact that cruising along on one product with everyone buried in endless research is a sure fire way to go down the plughole.
I just hope there is someone in the wings negotiating to take the whole operation over.
Expand
It's a good post, but a couple of comments which are just IMO.
Point 1 - difficult to know from outside whether situation is forced or whether it was changed via new personnel , either way much needed
Point 4 - AI is always going to be easier to distribute and scale with growth, should be far more cost effective one would think....
Point 7 - How do you know that the previous GM was not in control of the AI? - Have I missed an announcement or overlooked something?
Point 8 - the whole medical space is slow, regulatory clearance is not a quick process whatsoever. AI technology is hopefully going to be utilised in a variety of areas!