I’ve caught up on the latest $EIQ Strawman meeting and regret missing the recent share price move following the Validation Study and strong headline results for EchoSolv HF. The data appears compelling, and the use of the Mayo Clinic supports the credibility of the study. The market now seems to be pricing in a high probability of FDA approval, perhaps not unreasonably also given prior FDA experience with EchoSolv AS in 2024.

That said, there remains a credible risk of delay. The HF indication being sought appears very broad (as former COO Philip pointed out in an earlier SM meeting), and the FDA may question how performance holds across different heart failure subtypes. If the submission does not clearly segment the patient population, further analysis could be requested. This would not necessarily change the outcome, but it could delay approval by several months. In contrast, Ultromics took a narrower HFpEF-focused approach with peer-reviewed backing and has been in market since 2022.

At the current share price, much of the regulatory success appears already reflected. This reduces the asymmetry around the FDA catalyst - on fundamentals. Approval should still drive a positive move, particularly given strong sentiment toward high-growth medtech, but the magnitude may be limited unless accompanied by clear commercial signals. A broad approval would position EchoSolv HF as a category leader, but the market is already leaning in that direction.

The more material issue is commercialisation, particularly reimbursement. EchoSolv AS received FDA approval in October 2024 but had generated no US revenue as of the December 2025 half-year - one year later. From what I can tell, the product relies on the miscellaneous CMS code 93799, and the attempt to secure a dedicated CPT code was declined (in Oct 2025). The general code leads to friction in the billing process and likely limits real-world adoption, even if reimbursement is theoretically available.

It is unclear how quickly this can be resolved. The company may be waiting for the proposed AI-specific coding framework, CMAA, but this is unlikely to have a meaningful impact until 2026 or 2027, with revenue benefits potentially delayed further. This suggests that the revenue ramp for $EIQ could lag current market expectations.

That said, EchoSolv HF may follow a different path. The significantly stronger performance metrics could accelerate both adoption and reimbursement. There is precedent for a delayed commercial inflection followed by rapid uptake, as seen with 4DMedical. If EchoSolv HF achieves both broad approval and early commercial traction, the current valuation could be justified or even conservative. I feel that CEO Dustin didn't really get into any of these issues with any granularity, which leads me to conclude that it is a potentially material open issue.

Overall, the stock appears fairly valued based on the current balance of risks and opportunities. Upside exists if the bullish scenario plays out, particularly around HF commercialisation, but this is not yet clearly mispriced IMO. Further work is needed to assess how quickly the company can convert regulatory success into revenue, as I have only done enough research to have sighted some of the issues, and not to have a solid point of view on them.

** EDIT: I decided to go back and re-listen to the 2 previous Strawman meetings. Interestingly, in each, the speaker (former COO Philip) predicted that revenue generation was 6-12 months away. Date stamps were Feb-2023 and Nov-2024. I guess I'm reflecting on the extent to which new US-based CEO Dustin is clear about the revenue ramp? Reimbursement still seems to be very much a work in progress, and the meeting spoke only in concepts and generalities. Clearly, the market has a much clearer view of this than I do. Perhaps I am missing something.

Disc: Not held

@Summer12 and @Strawman it is very easy to become overly bullish after an interview like that. I must admit I though Dustin seemed well qualified and knowledgeable to take EIQ in to commercialisation. He seems to have good experience and a good track record. The connections he has made with very well regarded hospitals is a great reference point for the product.

I like the discussion about how companies like EIQ can actually have a moat. The exclusive access to a large library of echography for 20 years is gold.

Yes, there will be a capital raise, which will be at quite a high price in their history (always good). Hopefully current holders will not be diluted too heavily if they don't get an opportunity to participate (possible as I suspect there is institutional interest in a product like this).

Where is EIQ in its hype cycle? Big question and difficult to answer, but I suspect it could be close to peak with anticipation of further FDA approval(s) coming in soon. Very difficult to give a company like this a value at this stage. One of the reasons I am a holder IRL is because of some of David Gardner's points on his "Rule Breakers". Does this company do good for humanity - a big yes. To diagnose heart failure and heart stenosis earlier (and whatever else they bring on) will not only benefit patients enormously, it will save big bucks in health cost.

I was lucky enough to buy around 10c and have taken 20% off the table due to position sizing and having heard Dustin speak (and of course the in depth questioning of Strawman!) I am very tempted to keep the rest and take the potentially wild ride for the next 5 years and see if it does end up like another Promedicus.

Nessy

Work Commitments have stopped me joining the meeting, Sorry @Strawman you won't get the cold water from me, I choose it as my 2026 stock pick. However, I am excited to hear the bear case as I need to be grounded at this stage.

Thanks for arranging.