Agree, it seemed to early for a T/O.
With all the new board members and latest new of facey, it signed to me that the company is now aggressively pushing in the US for growth. Just seemed right to be good news.
Printable View
Agree, it seemed to early for a T/O.
With all the new board members and latest new of facey, it signed to me that the company is now aggressively pushing in the US for growth. Just seemed right to be good news.
It appears that UHC added it to their policy on 10th March: [ link ]
Just need the approval to turn into usage.
Sold mine a month ago of course. Oh well, back in again ;-)
"Medically necessary" might make the AUA sit up and take notice.
Reading closely, they may not have been aware! Nothing mentioned about an agreement or similar, simply noting that UHC has updated their policy coverage to support it, probably under the CMS framework.
Yowzer what a great start to Friday.
Wow! Just came back to see this news. Well done to all those patient holders. I think analysts might increase their target soon too. Like I said earlier, hope there won’t be a takeover too soon. I really hope PEB will be the 2nd or 3rd NZ entity to list in the US market. Still hoping to hear a positive news on this side of the world (Singapore) which will be a door wide open to China. Cheers to all holders!
https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverag...eywordType=sta
Look to the comments section for additional insight.
The initial euphoria has subsided - as it inevitably does.
Never mind - still plenty more good news to come from PEB over the next few years. I'm still expecting the SP to reach $5.00 ...one day.:)
Bonne chance to holders.
Have heard through associates in the medical field in Singapore that the viability and introduction of CX is definitely abuzz topic of conversation. Lets hope it all comes together for PEB and they are able to crack the Asian market too. Then the $5/share price might go much higher. Great returns for long term holders. But most importantly great news for the potential of another internationally recognised New Zealand company to climb up the stock market and finally get the rewards they deserve.
As this has come out of left field so to speak this might be an opportune time to refresh a few memories on some expected events in the near future.
This may only be a partial list.
An expected payment of CMS tests completed prior to inclusion by CMS, or part thereof.
Confirmation of the Johns Hopkins Commercial assessment and what their findings are.
A Clinical study from Kaiser published.
A Clinical study from Singapore published.
A Definitive end of year result published in May that will show the rate of acceptance and payment across the board for the last 6 months.
I guess sometimes taking financial advice from internet forums pays off, just bought some on Tuesday because I liked what you guys are saying and see the potential of the product. Thanks ;)
Beats me why on earth the SP hasn't held at 1.3 today and has subsequently dropped back down to 1.2 now. I think there are some PEB traders that don't quite understand (or care less) that the growth potential for PEB as it stands at 1.20 is still at least 15-20% less than what analysts feel the share price should be sitting at. Now with todays news and more good news on the horizon, it is very likely in the coming days there will be analysts increasing their indicative targets.
Those that have been selling down today from 1.3 to 1.2 should probably consider buying back in again now before this happens and we see the second spike up which will surpass todays high. Previous Analysts SP 1.4-1.5 realistically will be hit shortly (once these profit takers get out the way selling down from todays high). Shareholders who see the fundamental value will likely take the opportunity to secure more shares at todays low SP of 1.20, knowing the direction the company is heading forward now.
I'm inclined to agree with your comment and a lot of hard work has gone into getting PEB to where it is today. This has gone sideways since I first purchased nearly 10 years ago. Just wanted to query 2 things:
1. $5/share is based on what exactly?
2. "The rewards they deserve" - the company is currently priced well above what its actual financial results suggest is reasonable. The valuation gap is based on hot air, yes there are very positive signs in that hot air, but delivery on targets and results is what will see PEB's share price climb. Until delivery happens, PEB deserves to be priced based on their past which is underdelivering on overly ambitious targets.
One would have to say that PEB's dark and scarry days are behind it, there should be many more of announcements such as were released today coming in the future months and years.
Haha. Your question #1 is very wise and proves that nobody should necessarily believe everything they read on ST.
A $5.00 SP is my just reward for backing the company through thick and thin for the past nine years, including supporting numerous cash raises and coping with all the angst and BS on this site! There's no science at all attached to the number - it's simply plucked out of the air and I have no idea at all if or when it might be achieved - but we are all allowed to dream. :D
As for Q2 - it's all about the potential and everyone will have their own view on where this company is headed. I don't know where the SP will land - but I'm certain the overall trajectory is "up". However, I'm equally sure that the roller coaster experience will occur every time there's a good (or bad) news announcement. I'm simply staying buckled in for the ride.
This should create some additional momentum, I've held on for many years and starting to see some great returns now - my only regret is that I sold a small parcel of shares for a very small profit a couple of years ago. The succession of good news bodes well in the event of an eventual takeover.
There is also a medium to long term list some of which hinges on the success of cxBladder.
I feel that a certain amount of some of the following is already accounted for in the SP as it appears to be out of whack with results
An announcement regarding the 4th Resolve test launching in the USA
Achieving a continuous profit.
Accumulating sufficient profits in order to speed up the advance of the substantial pipeline of other tests under development.
Payment of a dividend.
Building of further laboratories.
Any takeover may require divestment of the cxbladder division alone as a separate entity leaving the pipeline in Pacific Edge's hands.
More to this than immediately meets the eye.
Opinion only and not financial advice.
After digesting the significance of this announcement I feel this is much bigger than I initially thought. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
United healthcare is 4+ times larger than kaiser permanente with 5.7million medicare advantage patients. So if we say they take the cxBladder test once a year(since its “medically necessary”) thats around nz$6 Billion in revenue(taking US$760 per test).
United healthcare has partnership with 1.3 million physicians whereas KP only had 23k so even if not all 5.7million patients take the test, the chance of utilising this test is significantly greater. Even if only a 3rd took the test that would be nz$2 Billion in revenue.
Is this a reasonable assumption?
Success breeds more success and I think David Darling’s aspirations of global domination might have has taken a giant leap forward! now that more insurers and physicians around the world are going to take notice.
I expect that 'medically necessary' is in context of those at risk or those who are currently symptomatic, so your revenue forecasts are rather optimistic - your relative assessment of Kaiser vs United patients is valid. Ultimately, we are looking for the revenue that we should be seeing from the reimbursements, so that needs to be the next material update IMHO - I've been waiting for this for a while!
Whew! Some parts are right, mate.
You are about right with the total that United is 4 times bigger than Kaiser (and thus nearly equivalent to CMS)
Doubtful there is any intention to test patients for bladder cancer as a screening process generally overall.
cxBladder Triage will be useful for persons presenting with haematuria to rule out bladder cancer.
So therefore there would have to be some possible symptoms appearing first.
Apparently there are some 2,000,000 presentations for that in the entire US medical scene annually.
There are also some 800,000 patients requiring ongoing monitoring for recurrence following a bladder cancer operation.
These are in some cases carried out 2 or 3 times a year over 5 years
If PEB was lucky enough to get 5% of the total cases (100,000 + (40,000 x 2)) 180,000 tests @ 750.00US makes for USD135,000,000
By the way things are going there would be a requirement for additional lab space if this played out.
Interesting times but I wouldnt hang my hat on getting 5.7 million patients in a hurry.
This also raises the question as to what the other 95% are using for tests
Cheers
Miner
Thanks guys for the clarifications. The “medically necessary” term threw me off my expectations I had prior to this news lol. But very significant news nonetheless!
Miner, just wanted to say that over many years you have shared a lot of useful info' on PEB (not without some acrimony from some quarters at times.) Many of us are 'well positioned' thanks to your efforts. My sincere thanks.
ps can't help thinking 10% market share is possible/achievable for PEB, but it won't happen overnight. Exciting times.
Possibly interpret it as " was it medically necessary" (paying out on a test already done) rather than "is it medically necessary" for a test about to be utilized.
Also remember men and women are affected differently with bladder cancer
In 2019 men had 61,700 cases of bladder cancer, compared to only 18,770 in women (Cxbladder info)
United Healthcare - 5.7m people able to have the test.
2.8 men v 2.8 women approx.
Thank you but I was fortunate to establish an ongoing email relationship with the founder of this thread (no not Gryffn) who has been the guiding light on the published information coming forth from PEB over the years.
Consequently most of the kudos should be directed there. I know he does keep up to date with ST.
The upside in PEL from here is unrivalled on the NZX and the downside risk is reducing with each announcement. PEL has significantly more upside than PPH yet it’s market cap is c 1/3 of PPH.
Largest holding and continuing to accumulate with each announcement.
More smoke and mirrors from Pacific Edge I say.
United has its own healthcare plans AND a Medicare plan - it jockeys the CMS Medicare coverage and CMS are the primary Payer.
The inclusion of the Cxbladder CPT codes seem to me to be under the Medicare plan, not United's own plans. Inclusion of the CPT code does not imply coverage, but obviously their medicare policy needs to be updated to reflect the inclusion by CMS.
Cxbladder is covered by Medicare when "medically necessary". But until such time as the American Urological Assn review it's determination on the use of Urinary Biomarkers, the use of Cxbladder is not recommended (last review effective Jan 2021), and unlikely "medically necessary".
Undoubtedly the rate of payments from CMS in the coming few weeks will be of great interest to the AUA as well and give guidance to them that they are not the only ones who can assess whether something is medically necessary or not.
Not recommended by them does not mean that various medical centres cant use CXBladder and cannot assess for themselves if it is of value.
This might help
https://www.cxbladder.com/nz/news/20...ia-guidelines/
Contained within this is the following statement regarding AUA guidelines.
The AUA guidelines generated 5.3-times more radiation induced cancers than the KP guidelines. (575 vs 108).
I would deem this not medically necessary wouldnt you?
This review seems to be based on 2012/2013 clinical guidelines, Cxbladder unlikely to have been a contributor to the KP score?
But regardless, clearly the goal is to work toward a better, cheaper, faster and less invasive method of diagnosis - no arguments there. You will note that the AUA guidelines missed detection of the fewest number of cancers, a fairly important consideration also no?
The rate of payments from CMS might be of interest to the AUA but I think will be of greater interest to Shareholders here if they are not as forthcoming as you assume. We have zero actual evidence of significant clinical use or payment by either KP or CMS yet, we will both see in May I guess.
But my post was more about United, and whether US Insurers were starting to cover Cxbladder. I say they are not. This latest announcement only modifies United's Medicare Policy in tune with the Medicare cover.
I assumed nothing.
I said it will be interesting to see what the rate of uptake was in the last six months.
Perhaps there is something more to this sudden revelation by United that cxBladder usage in their Medicare Advantage plan will be honoured with payment.
I would consider the possibility that this was not the case until Mid March.
Now all United patients over 65 using cxBladder will have their claim honoured whereas they weren't before.
Some further input just became available
"I will let these PhDs and MD’s: and their publication from July 2019 speak for itself, their affiliations are identified too.
Mihaela V. Georgieva, PhD1; Stephanie B. Wheeler, PhD, MPH1,2; Daniel Erim, MD, PhD, MSc3; Rebecca Smith-Bindman, MD, MPH4; Ronald Loo, MD5; Casey Ng, MD5; Tullika Garg, MD, MPH6; Mathew Raynor, MD7; Matthew E. Nielsen, MD, MS1,2,7,8,9
Author Affiliations
· 1Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill
· 2University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill
· 3Division of eHealth, Quality and Analytics, Social Policy, Health and Economics Research Unit, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
· 4Departments of Radiology, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California at San Francisco, San, Francisco
· 5Department of Urology, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Los Angeles, California
· 6Department of Urology, Geisinger Health, Danville, Pennsylvania
· 7Department of Urology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill
· 8Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill
· 9Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon
And their article referred to on the CxBladder site : US Clinical Review Reinforces Need for Cxbladder in Hematuria Guidelines.
HyperLink: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...stract/2739056"
Yes, Medicare tests covered if those tests are "medically necessary" .
I see the NCCN clinical practice guidelines have been reviewed also, effective April 1st. Nothing in there to direct Urologists toward the use of Cxbladder or tumour markers at all. So in using a Cxbladder test, Urologists are not following the recommendations of the AUA or NCCN.
I wonder, how do Urologists demonstrate that the use of a Cxbladder test is "medically necessary" if not recommended by clinical guidelines and National bodies. If they cannot, then is the test then merely investigational and not covered? A bit like all those thousands of CMS tests completed over the years that Pacific Edge pretend they will now be reimbursed for?
Again, I do not think this is a change that United have instigated. They are simply updating their medicare policy so that it reflects what is covered by CMS.
Does this study recommend Cxbladder somehow Miner?
A lot less shares on issue back in those days though eh Winner. Still, heady days..
Crazy how the market says Fridays announcement worth $175m change in mcap . Had to be brought to PE attention 9 days after the event and then it seems it really was not as material as Dave made out..
https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverag...eywordType=sta
Read the response to the cx bladder topic
It comes under necessary in the Social Security Act which would probably have more clout than the AUA
Oh, I did! But I'm not sure I really understood it! The response says:
Thank you for your comments, the CxBladder test is now covered utilizing the reasonable and necessary guidelines as outlined in Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, Section 1862(a)(1)(A) which states that no Medicare payment shall be made for items or services which are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury. Therefore, CxBladder is not addressed in the LCD or billing and coding article.
It makes sense that the 1862 Act would prevent Medicare from paying for any services that are not reasonable and necessary.
If it is reasonable and necessary then it is covered, but the Act does not decide this. And "therefor cxbladder is not addressed in the LCD?
What is your interpretation of that?
The following I copied from the CMS site, it is the proposed LCD I think being discussed
Proposed Local Coverage Determination (LCD):
Biomarkers for Oncology (DL35396)
Consistent with the NCCN rating and literature review, the following Biomarker Panel will continue to be considered not medically reasonable and necessary:
CXBLADDER
NCCN Guidelines 4.201988 Bladder Cancer, for cTa high grade, cT1, and Tis, follow-up is recommended with a urinary cytology and cystoscopy at 3 to 6 month intervals for the first 2 years, and at longer intervals as appropriate thereafter. Imaging of the upper tract should be considered every 1 to 2 years for high-grade tumors (see Follow-up algorithm). Urine molecular tests for urothelial tumor markers are now available.88(p68)
Follow-up urine cytology every 3 months and consider urinary urothelial tumor markers (category 2B) for high risk, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer at year one and annually up to 10 years and then as clinically indicated. Molecular/genomic testing should include analysis by RT-PCR for FGFR3 or FGFR2, and for FGFR, RGQ.88(p79)
As one can see when molecular/genomic testing mentioned in the NCCN Guidelines Version 4.2019 Bladder cancer, there is no shared commonality in the CXBLADDER test and the genetic alterations that should be included by NCCN guidelines, and even those mentioned in NCCN guidelines, are a 2B level of recommendation.
Davidson PJ, et al. (2019),89 is an observational cohort study conducted in New Zealand. The addition of CxBT to the routine investigation of hematuria was carried out following consensus between local clinicians. No other change to clinical practice was made and there was no randomization or control group. The review did not require ethical approval, as it constituted monitoring and improvement of usual patient care carried out by the Canterbury DHB.163 No blinding with diagnosis based on histology and cystoscopy. The results were the development of theoretical pathway. The patients were coached in the test and what it meant. This was carried out within one health board district in New Zealand with little follow-up. The limitation is a mandatory protocol pathway and no documented clinical utility, but healthcare insurer utility. The generalizability to the Medicare population was not specified. Seven year mean difference in patients not referred and referred patients with the older group referred to urologist. Nine year medial age difference. Proposed pathway for less than one year of data is not enough data to support a change of decision.
Konety B, et al. (2019),90 is a retrospective study of pooled data from three prospective clinical trials and one real world clinical study in which 1784 patients with hematuria or previously diagnosed UC provided 852 samples. According to the authors, CXBLADDER ruled out 35% of patients and NPV of 97% compared to 93% for cytology. CXBLADDER correctly adjudicated all patients diagnosed with UC among those with atypical cytology and equivocal cystoscopy and outperformed cytology for accurately identifying patients who do not have UC.162 The limitation is this was open access and not peer reviewed with a significant conflict of interest by the authors. Clinical utility is not part of this study and was only theorized. The generalizability to the Medicare population was not specified in the original article. However, in the supplemental table 3, the age in each study was given but not in relationship to the findings. The clinical utility was not documented.
Consistent with the NCCN rating and literature review, the following Biomarker Panel will continue to be considered not medically reasonable and necessary:
CXBLADDER
and this:
CXBLADDER
The literature submitted for the requested addition of the CXBLADDER panel was carefully reviewed. After consideration of the literature, NCCN rating, and relevance to the Medicare population, the CXBLADDER panel will continue to be non-covered at this time. The molecular/genomic testing mentioned in the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder cancer shared no commonality in the CXBLADDER test and the genetic alterations that should be included by NCCN guidelines. Additionally, those genomic/molecular tests mentioned in the NCCN guidelines only achieved a 2B level of recommendation. Further, the clinical utility and clinical validity was not supported in the literature and was not generalizable to the Medicare population.
Therefore in order for CMS to be making payments (which we are led to believe they are) the test must have been confirmed as reasonable and necessary otherwise they wouldn't be paying out, being bound by the Social Security Act
It is not addressed in the article because it was already in place and had been accepted is how I would interpret that.
When a test is done in the US the urologist is required to declare that the test is “medically necessary” this form is then provided with the reimbursement application.
I think I am confused:
So was the 2020 CMS LCD for a MAC (Novitas in Jurisdiction L, for Parts A & B only [ obviously :) ]) or nationally (which is what it appears to say)?
If the latter why does the UHC thing make a difference such that the ANN (announcement) was marked price sensitive?
& if the former was that ANN TBS?
and if it was TBS is this new ANN TBS also?
Do I not understand it?
Does PEB not understand it?
Where is the wine bottle?
Is this post both reasonable and necessary?
Disc: happy holder + healthy (HH+H)
Actually after going through the approval announcements, looks like the CMS announcement last year was a national approval while individual insurers will need to approve within their organisation for reimbursement to go through. If that is the case then both announcements are valid and positively significant.
IF I was a shareholder what would be significant would be the money.
PEB have not updated any financial results recently.
I am very positive about the prospects for PEB. They are making good progress
“more than 110 million Americans now have coverage of Cxbladder non-invasive, highly accurate tests for the detection and management of urothelial and bladder cancer.”
And from the last annual report
“Our tests can be used for the more than 3.4 million people in the USA who present to the physician with blood in their urine and are required to be evaluated for bladder cancer each year. There are also more than 800,000 who are living with the disease and who require regular monitoring for recurrence, up to 4x per year for up to five years, giving rise to an approximate 3.2 million further clinic visits. Approximately 4 million cystoscopies were performed in 2018, many of which have now been shown to be able to be safely replaced with Cxbladder.”
The technical hurdles seem to be over and now it’s reliant on a sales effort and if the insurers can save money then that has got to be a significant tail wind.
I think PEDUSA is a cool sounding name for a company.
Can be used is not the same as will be used. It would be terrific to believe that Cxbladder could replace many of these 4000 cystoscopies each year but how many is the thing. This report considering adoption I think suggests not so many...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656863/
The technical hurdles I think may be far from over and adoption still cautious and slow. Are the tests high rate of false positives and unecessary follow up the issue? Is it a question over validity and the tests usefulness being confined to a narrow band of cases?
Jeez snowy, if you seem a bit confused than things must be confusing
Experience over 17 years of following PEB I still think that the likes of Darling are still confused as well.
Seems a lot clutching at comforting falsehoods and as a consequence doing some motivated reasoning on this thread lately..... or more simply put 'wishful thinking'
I can say these things because I have given PEB a lot of cash over the years (capital raises) so feel more of an owner than many who have just bought shares of somebody else.
But as long as punters feel optimistic and pump the price up every now again who cares.
The report suggested 4m cytoscopies, NOT 4k, so quite different numbers. Just 5% of those 4m results in 200k tests and at USD750 each that produces revenue of USD150m. Doesn't seem like an impossible target to reach.
However, I understand your concerns, so I guess PEB should not be on your investment radar.
"It adds further validation of Cxbladder and a point of inflexion for other healthcare insurers."
Does the above comment from DD mean that in the insurance business, smaller insurers will have to follow the big boys?
Which option would you take if you suddenly started peeing blood.
A. Take a cxBladder test?
B. Go for a camera up your whizzer plus imaging?
You are the patient and you have the choice available
PEB only need about 30,000 tests to break even( very rough calc ) so PEB can make a good living on the crumbs that fall off the table. If they do better which I expect they will because of the points that miner has made then this will be a seriously profitable business.
Pertinent and informative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...eee_story.html
Does "First, do no harm" apply here?
Cheers
Miner
In the context of Triage application there is a condition/symptom that requires investigation.
A cx bladder test can provide information on whether there is an indication of cancer or not.
If the result is positive or requiring investigation the imaging provides the information as to location and where to start looking.
However, in the Monitor situation the patient has had a bladder cancer operation already and is on the way to recovery.
After a couple of rounds of investigative cystoscopies and imaging with all clear results would it not seem appropriate to turn to a non invasive test such as cxBladder?
Why continue to bombard the poor sod with no symptoms with regular 3monthly painful and invasive cystoscopies plus a dose of radiation which could possibly lead to either new (gasp) bladder cancer or cancer in other locations.
Dissonance or reluctance to participate may start wandering in as well resulting in less than satisfactory outcomes.
Looks to me like this overkill may be in future times be considered as reckless endangerment when a viable alternative is available in the Monitor situation.
Would be very interested to know if the rate of recurrence of bladder cancer ( around 70%) is made worse by the use of imaging which is what the article was about.
Disclaimer: I am not in any way connected to the medical profession but have since climbing aboard Pacific Edge all those years ago made it my business to research most of the available detail in the public domain and to form my own opinions, right or wrong.
Out of curiosity. What is the highest Market Capitalization PEB ever achieved? Hard to figure out with all the dilution over the years.
Thank you. I was briefly a shareholder in 2013 but sold quickly after a 15% drop. However, now this looks like a complete different beast. I have no experience in this sector at all but someone told me (and I hope this still rings trues) about US healthcare providers "Once you're in you're in".
DD to retire next year - https://www.nzx.com/announcements/370510
LOL Your a cynic..12 Months notice.
For Bars updated this morning. No change to target price
OUTPERFORM
Pacific Edge (PEB) announced coverage from United Healthcare, the largest US private health insurer — another important
external validation in the key US market for its bladder cancer tests. The market opportunity is extensive and we see PEB as
well positioned to capitalise on this. There is no short-cut to changing clinical practice and the hard work is far from over,
however, recent key milestones have helped to prove up the commercial model and lower the risk. With the range of
justifiable long-term outcomes wide, we expect the share price to continue to be driven by newsflow — which is likely to be
positively skewed as further commercial progress follows recent success. OUTPERFORM.
Recent commercial milestones in the key US market
We have no visibility on price, however, expect both will be above that of public health insurer, CMS (price of US$760/test).
No change to forecasts, but helps to provide further confidence in medium-term outlook
We have not made any changes to our forecasts; our base case already incorporates progress with private insurers. However, as PEB
continues to make further commercial progress this helps to increase our confidence in the revenue path, and lower the risk. Being ‘in
network’ (or under coverage) with US payors will materially speed up the time to cash collection and reduce leakage (where cash is
never collected). This should also see test numbers better match revenue in time.
Share price responsive to newsflow
PEB's share price is highly responsive to newsflow, with the strong spike post the United Healthcare announcement returning the
stock to its recent high (late December 2020) after a period of steady decline. The path from here will unlikely be straight, however,
we expect newsflow to be positively skewed. This includes: new commercial agreement(s), stronger mention/inclusion in clinical
guidelines, back payment from US public health insurer CMS (for tests done ahead of securing reimbursement), additional.
Forbar finally caught on to the game -- PEB's share price is highly responsive to newsflow,
yep, instos ring Dave up and say 'hey Dave, share price declining so put out another announcement, even if its just what you said before but said in another way ... as long as its positive.@
How old is DD?
Smoke and mirrors won't fool the faithful by May 2022 when results are published. There will be unhappiness and disbelief next month with the publication of the 2021 results but Dave will have worked out excuses for those. But not next year. A year to sell down. All good.
CxB will then be taken out by big Pharma and become Gold standard. How's that?
He's done an incredible job keeping the wheels on till now.
If people are expecting a profit this financial year they are deluded and should get out.
Profit?!! What's that? No, it'll be test throughput and revenue growth that'll disappoint.