Have you looked on reddit or elsewhere to see what the users think, and to get an idea of the real costs. There is a post there from a medical staff member having a whinge about having to use the equipment themselves when assistants have gone home. But the explanation of the process of using it is interesting, and the work done by junior staff. (I think the author is yet to get feedback from a patient that has picked something up.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/anesthesio...rophon_hate_massive_encumbrance_with_no_real/I have two concerns about the FY23 result:
1. I wonder if there was built up demand, and fortunately timing, from the transition away from GE, that was fulfilled in FY23. Explains some things. The CFO did leave with immaculate timing - right on the date of FY 23 results ;-).
2. The other question/issue question I have is whether there was more effective marketing via GE, and the FY23 sales were generated years earlier. And now the sales force is comparatively ineffective? The sales cycle can be 3 or 4 years in some instances. A GE sales rep can go and visit a hospital and discuss (say) 10 different products - makes it worthwhile to visit or phone the key people. Senior clinical staff and radiographers often want to speak to GE as GE have helpful conferences where they can network with others in similar roles across the States. A NAN rep might be trying to visit or speak to somebody about a boring hygiene device, and maybe a mention of Coris, and might have no carrots to offer. Do you want to go to a Trophon 2 conference?
The other side of this is that an acquirer might be able to have a more effective sales strategy, and knock off $20m in expenses and synergies. (They just might not have the focus to manage the R and D to develop Coris as effectively.) So to them in FY23 Nan could bring them $47m npat perhaps, and in FY 22 $26m NPAT. Back then, with apparent growth you might think they might have paid a 20x multiple or so to get $940m AUD for Trophon, and then another x for Coris - maybe $150m AUD. The final number is not the point.
This year the acquirer is seeing hints of an npat under the same rules above of (say) $12m op income before tax, add the 20 cost outs, and 22.4 Coris R and D, totals 54.4 with 26% tax leaving npat of 41.3. But what multiple do they look at now that it is not growing, and more interestingly to them might be a patch up job? Maybe 12x their number to get a val of about $500m, and Coris being in the "wrong" company and having delays so now $125m. The final number is not the point - but the value in the eyes of an aquirer may have been reduced significantly. Not just to shareholders.
Somebody might be able to add flesh to these ideas, or refute them, better than I can.
cheers
(20min delay)
