I agree with both views. Traders don't present any risk to longer term investors, as the price will always eventually reflect the fundamentals. Once they record in their audited results several halves of sustained high growth and hopefully soon profitability the stock scanners used by institutional investors will automatically pick this one up. In this day and age there is only so long a quality stock can fly under the radar before it is automatically picked up by the algorithms used by large institutional investors to scan the market for hidden gems. However, I don't get why they don't show off these results now and speed up the process rather than save it for the annual reports. There is clearly lots happening behind the scenes, very easy to quickly put together announcements highlighting their achievements. Things like clinical trial updates, presentations at large conferences, prizes for best posters, record sales months, new peer reviewed articles etc are all things this company is regularly achieving, and are all things I see other companies announce when they achieve similar accomplishments.
There are good reasons to speed up the rerate process and get this on the radars of institutional investors quicker. A higher market cap provides them more capacity to take advantage of expansion opportunities. For a company valued at say $500 million, raising an extra $10m would incur minimal dilution (compared to a $50m company), but it could provide access to incredibly accretive opportunities. Most importantly for me though, it also prevents predatory take over offers. Whilst this may be flying under the radar of institutional investors, it certainly is on the radars of competitors, who would see how well iTrack Advance is performing in the market and may decide to make a take over offer at a price far too cheap, such as 60c. I say far too cheap as in 2022 there were several acquisitions of arguably inferior stent based MIGS procedures for valuations over 15x the current valuation of EYE. Since then as we know there has been a significant shift from stents and towards canaloplasty, due to safety and efficacy reasons as well as much more favourable reimbursement for canaloplasty.
In my view, based on competitors' valuations (often 5-10x revenue) and recent M&A examples, nothing less than $2.50 would be an appropriate takeover offer for EYE, considering the massive runway for further growth in revenue and earnings. However, whilst this is trading at only 25c per share you can bet a potential acquiror will not be offering anywhere near that, as they likely know they could get away with a bid as low as 60-70c. A higher price today would obviously prevent such a predatory bid from taking place. As a device with a strong brand and reputation, significant safety and efficacy data, more favourable reimbursement compared to alternatives, many patent-protected unique features; I can't see how we don't get a predatory bid if this remains valued so cheap for much longer.
(20min delay)
