I’ve been a bit tardy posting on the whole board spill/no-confidence/vote, partly because i haven’t encounter something like this before and for a long time really didn’t know how to see it. Evaluating the board and what it actually does is something of a weak point in my understanding which I am trying to rectify. But not being around finance during my career it doesn’t come naturally.

Despite all this.

1. There is no other product like this. Has a wide moat due to NCCN guidelines approval and peer reviewed studies.
2. Scalable (has renal and cardiac to go). Is right on the inflection point for cancer care with 2billion TAM approx. I could even see it being used in anaesthesia which is my specialty in the not to distant future. For studies pre and post operatively to assess our fluid management during cases.
3. High gross margin on SaaS >80%.
4. NCCN guidelines have only come out in April, sometimes I feel as investors we can be extremely impatient. It will take time for this to convert to sales.
5. Despite the lack of communication I was willing to judge on results and i was happy to give them a year. I’m much happier with growth of revenue and cashflow rather than over the top communication and promises.

So my thesis for the company has not changed therefor i still hold a sizeable amount in real life (over a million shares) and haven’t been too worried about this process. Feeling like even if this is done not to well there will still be sizeable growth due to community and clinician push for product.

The dissatisfaction with BOD from my understanding stems from: (The Arcadia park pdf attached spells it out pretty damn well).

1. Lack of plan or communication once the NCCN guidelines came out with Impedimed in it. They almost seemed surprised it was approved and didn’t really have a plan of action. This compared with the recent pdf from Arcadia park which really in simple terms gives their main goals.
2. Are we getting the the return on capital for the capital raise? My thought process is No. They don’t seem to be using it to get first mover advantage. So why did they capital raise in the first place.
3. Lack of personal money buy in from a few of the BOD’s.
4. The recent investor relations call was a nightmare… I had no confidence in them after that. Rather than focussing on the positives of what they could bring it was all doom and gloom if you vote for the BOD to be removed. I really really really dislike this type of negative play (reminds me too much of some recent elections… but I’ll leave it there). Positives should be focussed on and plans of how to implement.
5. All directors are American with an American CEO. Pro’s and cons for this, honestly not sure which is better. I want a board that supports organic growth with limited share dilution from this point onwards. I have a feeling that this BOD doesn’t really care about that.
6. We don’t want a buy out, I want this company to not be looking to be acquired. THe CEO needs to be held accountable here, his linked in suggests he is a specialist at this.

The goals of Acadia park are in the PDF below. I like the simplicity of their goals. I also like how they will bring renal back into the thought process, they need to keep this rolling in the background.

I am voting yes to all changes because the new guys actually seem to have a plan whereas the articulation from the current group is not that great. THe last straw for me was the BOD hiring proxy advisors to recommend who to vote for. If you have to hire someone to tell others why you should keep your job they can get stuffed.

I do have a sizeable moat as my buy in real life is averaged at 8 cents. So happy to see this out. At the end of the day I can see how this would have a revenue in the next 3-5 years of 60-100million (their recent puff piece suggests in 2.5 years) and with the margin and what other bio companies are rated at i still feel this is a buy. If it wasn’t such a large part of my portfolio I’d see this uncertainty as an opportunity.

Cheers,

ipd-acadia-park-response-pdf.5587792.pdf