EMvision Research Notes, page-951

Hi vmos - thanks for your interesting contributions to the great discussions on this forum.

I can generally see the logic in your numbers and the variables that you have used.

One thing I do not understand is why you have just used a single-scenario approach - and, in your assessment of EMV, a relatively 'low case' scenario.

I have been a strategic planner most of my career and the normal approach to feasibility or scenario testing is to have 3 scenarios - 'best case', 'low case' and 'base case'. The base case is generally used in feasibility analysis.

Your estimate - being a 'low case' - would appear to be very much on the conservative side of feasibility analysis?

A couple of other things I would point out:

1. EMV has made it quite clear that the non-capital revenue items (software updates, consumables and maintenance) are substantial and these should therefore be included in any revenue projections.
2. The 120,000 or so ambulances and aircraft used in your modelling for the Gen 2 device are only the first stage of the story. As indicated by Professor Davis in his recent interview on ABC radio by Christine Anu, the Professor confirmed that the ASA's ultimate vision is to have mobile imaging devices in 'every GP and medical Centre'. As this is a longer term goal - beyond 5 years - it has not yet been included in EMV's business modelling. But it is in the vision and if it occurs I am sure EMV would like a piece of that pie as well.
3. The Gen 1 hospital/clinic devices will sell at a higher price point that the Gen 2 devices.

Cheers - and keep up the good work.