Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : ACMI - Accumed Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cisco who wrote (757)	12/22/1997 8:54:00 AM
From: Sigmund	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1894

There has been professional caution about automation and change which is direct rather than assistive. When I was in the mining industry the union didn't like the idea of sensors in the smelter that determined when the stuff was ready to go to the next stage. The current technology was for a spoonful of molten material to be retrieved and the oldtimers would look at the color of the hot stuff and the light it emitted to make a decision. They were right to be cautious because it would be a mess if the stuff went forward prematurely. But I think time has borne out the value of and accuracy of the sensors. I am not sure what has happened to employment but I assume that these fears also have turned out not to have been warranted also. Progress is scary!!!!!

To: Cisco who wrote (757)	12/22/1997 11:09:00 AM
From: Frank Buck	Respond to of 1894

Cisco, Just wanted to say thanks for responding to the inquiry by John as to why he should buy ACMI. It seems that John may be concentrating his attention on the stock price and the deterioration that has occurred as of late. You and I on the other hand are looking at the Company and the products, and may have a totally different time-table than John does. That is not to say that he is wrong or right. We are "logically-assuming" that given the multi-dimensional features of AccuMed's various product line and their past growth on the revenue side, that the stock price will not remain at these levels in the next quarter or two. John may be looking at the stock price which is resting on a 52 week-low and wondering "why with its broad product line offering isn't the stock price higher then it currently is?" A valid consideration. We are looking at the future and John is looking at the present and wondering what each has to do with one another. Here are some considerations for all of us to evaluate. Presently in the U.S. there are over one billion microscopic diagnostic procedures performed annually. That is just in the States! There are over 10,800 clinical laboratories in the U.S. and 31,000 laboratories worldwide. Given the pressures to reduce costs, (all) healthcare providers are required to recognize more efficiencies/accuracies in the managing of these costs/evaluations. The many inherent drawbacks of the manual screening method for PAP smears in particular; (fatigue, accuracy limitations, time/cost economic-relationships) has sparked a few various companies to engage in the quest to market a better "perceived" system for the myriad of laboratories. Some are attempting to redesign the initial (slide) sample-tissue collection so as to more accurately allow the cellular matter to be viewed. Some have opted to automate (remove the human element from some aspect of the initial screening-thereby eliminating about 25-30% of the further workload from Cytotechnologists. Yet others such as AccuMed are successfully integrating aspects of automation to assist and reduce the time/cost of the initial data collection by Doctors, maintain accurate data stamping (reducing paperwork), ensure accurate transferring of data to the lab, and assist in the automation of the weak-links in the manual method of evaluation (with an associated time/cost reduction). Which is wrong and which is right? Some lab review boards will "perceive" their bottle-necks to be at different areas. Each will review the merits of each system after looking at all the facts. However each lab will derive their own independent determination as to which system is best for them. Not everyone is able to draw the same conclusion from the same data/facts. Think about it! Does every school system agree that one text-book over another is the best for their students. Do all infra-structure building companies decide on the same heavy equipment manufacturer to provide a homogenous brand through-out the industry. Do all consumers drive the same style car with the only difference being color? Why are we to believe that this area is any different? While there is a present consolidation in the lab industry, I believe that the number of labs as a whole is large enough to warrant the few players currently in this field. As we all learned in our first Economics course, if there are excessive profits eminating from a sector, other new entrants/suppliers will provide their "perception" of a product or service to obtain a percent of that market. This will reduce the overall profits of any one player. Some new players will enter and some old players will leave. If John wants a qualitative evaluation of numbers that will prove my beliefs, I can not provide it beyond the numbers that have been given. On the same token could you John quantitatively support your assumption that CYTC would go beyond its current levels and appreciably provide a higher level of return to the shareholders then where it is currently at? Frank