That’s the irony. The long, long time is not an issue at all. I...

That’s the irony. The long, long time is not an issue at all. I have held RMD, COH and CSL for nearly 20 years and I didn’t have to wait 20 years for the good returns to come. They are incremental.

At our current market cap it is not going to take too much news or time for us to be multiples of our current size. So personally I hope I get to hold this for 20 plus years and reap all of the incremental gains along the way.

I have also held NAN for 10 years and the same applies. However, in relation to competition for EMV we are essentially not challenging any large companies but placing a product where there is currently nothing. So unlike AVR whose product will displace the incumbent’s EMV’s will merely compliment them and solve an unmet need.

Also we have never said we are going it alone. We have said from day one we will use large distributors in major markets like the US and EU. These partnerships massively speed up the go to market strategy and make it possible without the massive capital and time required to build the networks and sales teams.

Also I beg to differ in relation to NAN being less competitive. EMV also being a disruptive tech will also have very little competition in the early days and have the enviable position of first mover advantage. The other key difference is that NAN had to create its market and still has to do that in places like Japan for example where it has to prove why it should be used and get guidelines changed. The Australian Stroke alliance and the global mobile stroke ambulances and past trials have all done a lot of the pre market validation for our device to have a much easier and rapid adoption than NAN did. Further to that we already have our second device in trials this year and a third in the wings. Unlike NAN who are trying to finally get their second major device launched.

Just IMO DYOR and Not advice.