From my own personal experience (my Mum) it is hard for someone with Dementia or Alzheimers to do the following

1. Learn new things
2. Remember a conversation and who they were talking to 24 hours ago
3. Adjust to environment
4. Problem solve when confronted with a new situation instead of getting anxious
5. Drive (a complete no-no)
6. Use electrical appliances.
7. Have the capacity to understand legal documents (unless they pass a capacity assessment)

So from personal experience it's still difficult. Perhaps some people are past the point of no return but there are others who still show some but very weak cognitive ability..

But I am all ears if someone can point to an example where a Dementia or Alzhemiers patient is competently using a touchscreen or computer system unassisted and doing a cognition test.

Maybe my above situation is an "edge" case although I know a few who have had the same experience.

It's from my current experience now which is finding it difficult to form a thesis here unless they focus on other neural conditions.

@edgescape I have also had similar personal experiences with a parent - now deceased some years passed - so I can reflect on it with the benefit of hindsight and greater detachment.

I was thinking that testing is most helpful at the earlier stages. Cognitive decline signs often appear well before the stages indicated by your 1-7. In some cases months, in others years, in others many years. The path and pace is highly variable. My hypothesis was that there would be increased demand for application when the early signs were raising questions with individuals, families and caregivers that might help decisions on care and living arrangements.

For example, as a personal "use case" from about ten years ago: a test might have objectively helped my mother convince my father to give up his driving licence earlier than he did, even though he passed the official test. She could see the early signs that indicated he was unsafe to drive (as could other family members). I only share this highly personal case to illustrate a practical uses where I think this tool could help people make better decisions while they still have the capacity.

A personal example, applied to myself would be as follows. I hope to manage my investment fund - a family asset - indefinitely, However, there is a time when cognitive limitations may mean that this is not a good thing to do. After all, I might not keep going as long as Buffet and the late Munger! So, using the test might help guide me to when it is time to move out of active management of my assets and make alternative arrangements. (These are serious thoughts about something that is still hopefully some decades distant, but cognitive decline comes early for some).

I don't think yours in an edge case at all, but part of the continuum of cases many if not most will face in some way at some time. Hence, my original thesis and ongoing watch.

@mikebrisy Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Understand it is always difficult

I think it is clear that everyone has a different experience. I know one guy who descended quite rapidly within about 6 months since the initial diagnosis so the family had not much time to process and adjust accordingly. He is now in a nursing home. Now no drug in the world could prevent this.

But back to the trials, the point I'm making above is it will be a bit of a challenge finding ideal candidates who are diagnosed but have only very mild or minor symptoms The essence here I think is time and greater awareness.

I hope I did not come across as being negative to Cogstate. I believe they do good work and that they are making profit is encouraging. But I would also like them to cancel the share buyback and start using the money to look at other areas outside of Dementia and Alzheimers. Maybe start building a platform around what they already have for other neural disorders. Then things will look more interesting.

@edgescape no worries. Totally agree, Share buybacks are something you do when your market cap is $100bn+ not $100m+.

Doing it early is a signal that you don't have any ideas for how you are going to build and leverage competitive advantages! (That's my bug-bear with $RUL too)

For me, $CGS is currently uninvestible.

I seldom have cause to disagree with you @mikebrisy and that's despite the vast amount of content you put out. But I think calling CGS "uninvestible" is over-reach. I've used that term before but never in the context of a profitable, and - more importantly - free cashflow positive (with $30m net in the bank) company. Not choosing to invest in a company doesn't make it uninvestable - in my very humble opinion.

You can disagree with their decision to buyback shares at their MC but they're hardly Robinson Crusoe in that respect. Plus, I'm not sure what a better use of those funds looks like. Through management or fortune they've kind of ended up with a kind of monopoly, in a VERY niche market, which puts them at the whims of that market. But it also means that any acquisition is likely to put them into another vertical, or a different part of their current vertical. I haven't heard them signal they want to do that and I'm personally thankful for it.

For sure they've got hairs on them relating to the trial pipeline, and no matter how much they try to spin it otherwise, the Alzheimer's trial pipeline. But uninvestable? I'm not even sure you've spelled it right (or is it spelt??).

@Noddy74 fair cop on the typo (I make many!) and the over-reach. All ideas here are put up to be challenged (Strawmen).

My judgement on invest-ability was personal to me only, and my investment framework.

I want all my management teams to be innovating and investing capital behind that, be it - for example - $PNV (R&D and sales & marketing globally), $TNE (rebuilding their overall architecture 3 times in 15 years) or $WTC ($1bn in new features in 5 years + M&A).

I agree that the trials pipeline is largely outside their control, and I don’t mark them down for that, although as long as their revenue remains largely dependent on it, there is a chance they could command a lower earnings multiple, as a result.

We all make judgements to help narrow down the many ideas to the few. I admit to oversimplifying my top line thoughts to get to my short list. So, I can see why you would call that out. Totally fair.