Fess
Great find. In the report there is a direct material cost for 100 square cm piece of both products.
Extract below and 2 comparisons on the right showing BTM is 43% of cost of considering product and reconstruction costs and product only BTM in this instance is only 27% of cost of CCS.
BTM takes longer to skin graft was longer with BTM as expected due to the
1. Absorption
2. The added thickness of the dermis established
3. Better scar quality due to less colloidal tangling and thicker dermis.
BTM utilises a different healing mechanism from all the other products and this coupled with cost advantage and less cost when considering all indirect costs and better scar quality, dermis thickness control and ability to service poorer nations due to it's cost and simplicity create the moat in my opinion.
Hope I'm right because I'm heavily overweight.
FessGreat find. In the report there is a direct material cost...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 8 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Add PNV (ASX) to my watchlist
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
$2.45 |
Change
0.010(0.41%) |
Mkt cap ! $1.691B | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| $2.45 | $2.51 | $2.43 | $5.243M | 2.122M |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 35541 | $2.45 |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| $2.46 | 2681 | 1 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 16.10pm 28/06/2024 (20 minute delay) ? |
| PNV (ASX) Chart |