@PabloEskyBruh yeah I see what you mean about the bond villan vibe and the belief that 100% positive outcome is the only possible scenario for them. I am starting to come around to his viewpoint though. They definately have what looks like a clinically superior device, and this a pretty strong position to negotiate from.

I think having the 12 month data from the initial patients, who all have had no complications at each checkup point, and are still having a very good outcome. This reduces the risk of valve failure at least over the initial 1-2 yr period. It would be interesting to know what their internal belief is on lifespan of the material used in the anteris valve is and at what timepoint if at all a replacement valve would be needed.

The flow chamber demontrations of how the valve works and how backflow pressure is minimised and is much more comparable to a real heart than any of the existing valve products was an initial positive, but for this to then be backed up in the actual patients does provide a high degree of confidence that they have a market leading device that could easily supercede the use of the existing devices. As I doubt you could continue to use the outdated products from a medical ethics perspective give the lower quality of life outcome and need to be replaced in he future.

The successful valve in valve replacement trials is also a real positive and further demontrates the market need and use of their product. The description of how their valves are placed inside the degraded 2nd replaced valve through a leg catheter without being able to remove the debri left from the 1st two valves, and after the surgery they walk out with better health stats than when they had the previous valve installed.

My main crux with this is still the cash burn rate and how much of the value is linked to either a sale or a much longer term (>3yrs) commercial launch. I am expecting a cap raise announcement at some stage from them and a nice narratve helps this out. I have a feeling this might be one that I watch and almost buy and then regret not buying when they end up selling themselves to Edwards or Medtronic for 10x the current price.

Agreed @Slideup, and for the record I’m a 100% convert on his conviction these days. Thankfully, life really doesn’t imitate art and I don’t think Mr Bond is going to able to switch the laser off on us in time.

Speaking of time, Paterson has made the point before that it for Anteris the 30 day data (or even 24 hours post-op) is its selling point. The material itself (the ADAPT) platform has already demonstrated longevity and superior calcification-resistance over multiple years in other applications — so personally I think there is a genuine belief amongst Paterson and the advisory board that they won’t be finding themselves in any position such as Abbott recently experienced with Triumph.

Re cash-burn, I remain thoroughly unconcerned. My valuation accounts for a doubling of the 15 million share registry over a 5 year period. At today’s prices that’s over $300 million — or about 6 years cash at current cash burn. But also for the record, I don’t think the cash is going to be coming from today’s price. I think the $24 (of last cap raise and current unlisted options) will be the starting point, then much higher from there.

I think if you like the product and are impressed by the science at this point — and your main concern is cash — then it is a good time to get aboard the no-regrets express. I would welcome the company!