Yea nothing new in there, just fluff, might get some data in the full year end of the month

"Nightmare on Hyperhidrosis Street 2.- The Revenge of the Applicator" Hope not @Schwerms.

Yes, the suspense is killing me too. As is my main failing, I've made the model too complicated, and so am having fun QA/QC'ing it.

Totally agree with you. Watching the presentation when the SP isn't plummeting is a completely different experience. I wonder what it must have felt like being Howie presenting while Armageddon was unfolding.

On sales and marketing, I don't think they threw much at Digital. Given their experience, I'd expect them to have run some "experiments" to gauge ROI. I think they quickly realised the ROI on sales reps was stronger, and so they allocated the capital on hiring more to expand geographical spread. Thinking about it, once you have 1000 derms on board, you have more than enough to cover telehealth consultations across the country if you then decide to push on digital.

For me, the big uncertainty on expenses is the cost of sales and marketing. I am modelling that using the benchmark that in the US for dermatology you can estimate total Sales and Marketing expense as # Reps x US$ (300k to 500k) per annum. At the low end 50 reps is $15m and at the high end $30m p.a.. This hits FY26 and I think I will run these as a sensistivity. Remember eariler in the year they were saying what an experienced sales force they've got, including many award winners. That will come with a hefty price tag, so I think there's no way they are going to be at the low end of the benchmark. So sales and marketing is a key number I want to see in the 4C.

My belief and my hope (expectation) is that they know they are burning cash, and therefore proceeded carefully on digital, and that they found ROI for sales reps to be stronger. You kind of get that from Howie's delivery. He makes the point that it took very little to "activate" the dermatologists. Like, the week after the first visit, they were writing scripts. Things don't always work out that way, and it underscores the research that indicates that this market is underserviced and patients and physicans are prepared to try something new. What happens next is the billion dollar question ... or not.

OK back to work!

With regard to the rep costs, I think Mix talent were advertising like 150-170k US plus some sort of sales based incentive I'm guessing and the share component.

One hope here is that the base cost while launching won't be that high but will obviously increase if we start to succeed. Ill have to look what I put in my model as far as rep costs went for the expansion up to 50.

I had total expenses of 80m pa AUD ex cogs and royalties so really hoping that covers it so hopefully that's up around your higher end, can't remember the figure they gave in the webinar but after some of the figures they quoted differed from results I preferred to try and figure it out myself conservatively.

At least you won't have to get up at 1am for this one, hopefully that's not the only positive..

@Schwerms - the benchmark I am using is from the consulting method I used in days gone by. You estimate the total Sales and Marketing expense by a multiple of the headcount of the Field Force x the Benchmark.

This method picks up everything including salaries, commissions/incentives, travel costs, promotional materials, overheads, IT, management, digital etc,... everyhting that end up in the sales and marketing line accoding to US GAAP.

Even as I write this, I realise this is NOT the number to reconcile in the 4C or 4D. I much prefer US GAAP over AASB/IFRS, because the expense are much easier to align to the major activities. In Australia, the activity get smeared over many more reporting categories.

Bottom line, given that my Expense lines are driven off 2 x the last 4D Expenses, with adjustments for Sales and Marketing, I'll dial back on the full US$0.3-$0.5m salesman mulitplier, and use the low end of this.

We'll get a better view when the FY Financials are out, as most of the field force was recruited at the start of the year, so we can compare the 1H to 2H ramp.

That makes sense, it will be hard to fully understand it until the full year report comes