>>In other words, not permanent! << >> "permanent hair reduction."<< Both quotes are from your post. Permanent is permanent whether some percentage of hair grows back or not.
>>..based on what little data Palomar has released,<< >>So, I believe that the actual treatment results are as poor as ever, given the high price of treatment<< Palomar released 5 years worth of research to get this exclusive right to claim "permanent hair reduction" which, by the way, only comes after hair removal. The "price of treatment" has nothing to do with permanent or not permanent, but helps cloud the issue. Marketing strategies usually start a product (or service) at the highest price that can be obtained, with prices falling as demand picks up.
This "multi-billion dollar" industry just might start paying off. Maybe not. Time will tell. And if some of their other collaborative research pays off before they run out of money to fund it, hair removal could be just one of their big revenue generators after a while. You do remember that they already have other lasers, I guess!
You've been right about the price drop but, in my opinion, for the wrong reasons. You know it took too long to get FDA approval. Spending millions on research and fledgling start-up companies required them to keep selling more stock while they couldn't even market their hair removal lasers because FDA had no incentive to review and promptly approve them. New management put an end to unlimited spending on research.
Turn around won't be easy, but their next positive earnings report could get the stock price heading in the right direction. Notice Coherent's press release: except for Palomar laser sales which have been strong, their other sales are down. |
