Further on this.Firstly again remembering, New Customers Per...

Further on this.

Firstly again remembering, New Customers Per Month is the only floating variable. If BOT revised the total patients, then I think there must be a revision in other metrics (my prior post explains why).

If we assume June reporting was the problematic month - and if we assume the delta between 6,700 patients and the revised 7,989 patients solely comes from June - then we end up with the below growth rates. Note this is a big assumption, but it was the error made in the patient calcs per the BOT correction commentary (it was only to June 4).


As you can see, Script Growth (%) and AUD Gross Revenue Growth (%) track almost perfectly in line for Feb to May, but the trend breaks in June. Same with Net Per Script Delta (USD) - from Feb to May they are adding on average ~US$20 net per script per month - stacks up versus the increasing GTN Yield published. Again, June bucks the trend here. This means AUD Gross Revenue in June is likely misreported also (and subsequently net revenue).

If we goal seek AUD Gross Revenue in June, such that June Script Growth (%) = June Gross Revenue Growth (%), then we get June AUD Gross Revenue of A$10,330,431, or a 24% increase from the A$8,348,000 reported, and the below makes more sense. Script Growth and Gross Rev Growth align, June Net Per Script Delta at ~US$20.


Revised table for those interested (revision cells shaded orange):


The biggest red flag the above raises is why does New Customer Growth increase by 90% in June vs. May. This is seemingly large. However, when we consider the below, it seems possible:
- May was negative, possibly pent-up demand realised in June. Memorial Day (May 26) could have temporarily impacted behaviour
- More reps were hired and in the field from around mid-May, as supported by LinkedIn data and the April cap raise use of funds
- Perhaps DTC/web activity picked up. Per my prior postings on Similarweb data, visits decreased in June, however the bounce rate decreased and time on the page increased, suggesting potentially more conversions of visits to scripts

If this is true, then it suggests the business model could finally be firming up and Q3 is possibly positioned for better performance. Especially with more reps in the field and GTN Yield in peak season. Derms are notoriously cautious prescribers, especially for new topicals, preferring to wait for peer feedback, patient experience/real world data - however, the 2,300 base of them is large and there. One, two, three extra scripts per month per derm results in much higher total scripts. Further formulary access takes time and navigating PA hurdles smooths over time to become more streamlined. 79% retention rate is strong and shows the product works for many (note this broadly aligns to the 85% finding a clinically meaningful improvement in their excessive sweating per Cardigan I and Cardigan II clinical studies).

I believe the S curve is still in-tact, it's simply delayed. Time will tell.

That, or the 7,989 revised patients number is misleading, possibly to try stem the bleeding and buy a quarter of time. But I think this is unlikely considering it's disingenuous, the market walloping received, and more porkies would be revealed in Q3, which isn't far away.

Hopefully get some more clarity on all this in the Q2 quarterly due by end of this month.

Let me know your thoughts. Tin foil hat? A holder clinging for hope? Or previously untapped insight?