Originally posted by havana19
Directors left the building a few months ago right before the much anticipated results. The crowning jewel for this diagnostic app was pneumonia, and that had poor results. There's some support at these prices but obviously if the next results are poor then people will hive up hope. I don't discount the possibility of some positive results being announced such as those from Curtin and further increases in SP but when the results come in from the tests that hold the most weight it will be history repeating itself. This app has had ample chances it's 8 years in the making and 2 us trial failures. Directors sold their shares. This stock hardly justifies a 10million market cap with such poor prospects. Fil will have no patience left if the next results come in less than hoped for and if they start selling en mass this thing goes down the cliff. Ignored right back, it's people's decision what they invest in. The attacks that these professional rampers put on anyone with a different view should serve the mum and dad investors here as a huge red flag.
"The crowning jewel for this diagnostic app was pneumonia" - kind of agreed. The other conditions have been added subsequently to the portfolio. Pneumonia remains the Holy Grail in terms of relieving human misery across vast areas of the world. But in terms of commercial advantage in the developed world it's probably a nice-to-have rather than make-or-break.
"and that had poor results" - again, kind of agreed. The US results were weaker for all conditions (except croup, which we haven't seen yet), and pneumonia was certainly shocking. But the reasons for this have been hashed into a paste so fine you could suck it through a straw, and it's almost certainly due to the adjudication method rather than the product. Australian adjudication used multiple tests, which results in more predictable diagnoses than US adjudication using primarily X-rays. The algorithm is better at predicting the more predictable outcomes... naturally.
I bailed as soon as I could after trading resumed following the results; not because it meant that that the product was a failure, but because it was pretty clear that demonstrating the product's effectiveness in the US would be terribly difficult.
"Directors left the building a few months ago right before the much anticipated results" - not accepted. I can't see any evidence that would support this conclusion. Resapp have not published any "Director's Interest" notices since 2017. Brian Leedman resigned as a director in December 2017 with over 40 million shares, which makes him a substantial holder. There has been no subsequent change in substantial holding for him, so he can't have sold more than 7 million shares since then. What evidence do you have for your claim?
