<< His point is not that 15,000,000 x $22 is not equal to $330 million, but that it's false and misleading to imply
that is the potential market for CCSI's bilirubin testing. >>
That was not his point. His point was to confuse the market for monitoring with the market for serum-bilirubinometers, which is insane. JP: You could have done a better short-sale report in 5 minutes. In fact, so could I, and I am long (a little).
CCSI never implied the 330 million was its own market. However, some longs on this board did so, initially. And it was certainly wrong of CCSI to release the 330 million figure without some disclaimer to the effect that "of course insurance billings are far over the market that CCSI can address", or something. To be fair, CCSI did say
<< The company also stated that it could not at this time disclose the pricing structure and business models
currently being discussed with different potential distribution partners, including any increased market potential
for noninvasive testing. In this regard, the company has recently retained the services of two business
advisors to assist in current discussions, analysis and execution of its long range marketing and
distribution plan. >>
JP: Most longs understand this point. Many people on this thread asked, over and over, for a more realistic assessment of CCSI's potential, based on the % of the 22 to 34 bucks/bili that might accrue to CCSI. They never got it, despite a lot of people here with hospital/medical backgrounds. When this sticky point was repeatedly raised, the answer was "No one can say until the deal is signed", which is partly true but mostly copout.
So I agree the co. is at fault by publishing the 330 million figure without a more thorough discussion. But Asensio is so far gone on his rampage that he doens't even mention this very good point. That was your point, not his.
Wade |
