@Parko5 @Aaronfzr NB: this screen shot was taken after hours and might change significantly at the open, so take it with a grain of salt, but there are a lot of sellers as compared to buyers there. That will put pressure on the SP. Something I'll be watching in the morning.

It sure did... surprisingly not as much as $OPT today.

One to watch closely esp in advance of update

This post is in part a reply to this forum, as well as recording my preparation running into Monday's AGM. So, a bit all over the place. Soz.

The "Sells" to "Buys" looks ominous, to say the least! $PNV SP has fallen 20% on zero news since its EOFY result update. It is not unprecendented for this stock, but it does lead one to question what is going on. However, in recent years it has not been unusual for the SP to fall following FY results on into the AGM, and then to rally again after the AGM update. (2021 being the exception, and the year results were hit by access to hospitals retricted during the pandemic.) It's the $PNV Rollercoaster we all love! (Not)

DW has clearly also observed this (!!), and today emailed round the LinkedIn post below, to his mailing list, as his usual way of signalling "all's good", "keep the faith".

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/juliamaguire_it-was-fantastic-to-have-a-front-row-seat-activity-7252879890360741889-dzKW?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop (post copied below).

There is no question $PNV is at a critical time for the thesis. It's had powerful revenue growth to breakeven, and has built from scratch a global sales and marketing force including distributorships. That's a really hard thing to execute, with most single platform healthcare companies preferring licencing or distributorship models. But it was the right strategy because BTM is a high contact/high support product. And you need well-trained sales reps who are focused on getting the product deeper into accounts, because there are competitors, and pre-existing standards of care to be displaced indication by indication.

Getting to breakeven, even though its taken the best part of a decade, we are now only at the starting line. To become a successful business, $PNV has to continue to maintain high revenue growth with a well-managed cost base for years to come. That's my investment thesis and the basis of my valuation.

Historically, the hot money in $PNV has gotten cold feet during prolonged periods of no news. Like a junkie, some investors have needed the "hit" of frequent record monthly sales reports to keep the faith. The $2 billion question is, has the lack of recent newsflow been because the Board has changed its policy on announcing record months? DW hinted as much as FY Results, without saying so (He only said they were thinking about it!) Or, has momentum cooled?

The consensus SP of $2.60 is now almost 20% ahead of today's close. And consensus assumes revenue growth in FY25 of "only" 27% vs. 57% achieved in FY24 (albeit with a $11.15m hit of BARDA that probably won't be ongoing).

I'm expecting revenue growth north of 30%: my central case valuation demands 36%, and I'd be jumping for joy if >40% is maintained. I'd also like to see the US continue strong growth, ideally also north of 30%, because that would indicate the product is still running deeper into its most mature market. (You have to look through the headline without BARDA, but DW knows this, so he always breaks it out. I have a FY25 placeholder of $5m for BARDA - not knowing what to do, and having less than last year's astounding $11.15m, as they pushed to close out the pivotal trial for FTB. My interpretation for any headline revenue growth will be adjusted according to what is happening with BARDA, which eventually will end.)

I don't think I have ever waited so keenly for a quarterly update, as I am ahead of this AGM.

Personally, I don't care who owns $PNV or even who is shorting it. (BTW shorts are currently holding at a 3 year low.) But, I do care a lot about the next revenue growth number. It is fundamental to the thesis. And I do care that DW isn't yet selling and is still smiling!

C'mon David, gimme a trading update!

thanks for a very insightful analysis @mikebrisy. PNV is an interesting case- they have a good product, but its not a magic / mission-critical product... there are competitors which do a pretty similar job.

Is it a good product? Yep. Can a provider do without it? Also yep. So a lot depends on the clinical evidence supporting product, its future development program (honestly: questionable, IMO), and most importantly the marketing execution. Which goes to your central point: revenue growth is the key metric at this point

@Aaronfzr I agree about the big questionmark on the future platform development.

But there is a lot of clinical evidence, much in high quality peer-reviewed journals that points to growth into a wide range of indications for the current product set (and minor variants of it - sizes, shapes, thicknesses, with/without backing) in dermal repair / wound healing.

It is a highly competitive space, with many products out there. For now, BTM is an emerging category leader. But of course, the competition is not standing still.

So yes, it absolutely has to maintain strong revenue growth. Faltering there would be a thesis breaker for me, without question.

Was disappointed that the trials into diabetic ulcers were quietly shelved... partly because thats a large part of my experience with the product!

As an aside, my surgeon (and the main user of BTM in our city) refuses to invest because they don't want to have a conflict of interest... which is a clinical endorsement in itself I think.

With the various forms of competing products, it doesnt look like this will be a winner-takes-all market.