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 : IMAT - ultrafast tomography for coronary artery disease -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stock bull who wrote (2912)	2/4/1999 11:14:00 AM
From: Bruce Rozenblit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3725

Yes, the biggest problem is the capitol cost of the machine. It's just too damn expensive. If these things cost 700K, I'm sure they would move a lot faster. What happens is the accountants look at the capitol cost, all overhead, cost of money to service the debt and compare that to the projected revenue generated by the machine. Then they look at alternative places to put the same amount of money and the scanner is rejected because they think that a superior return can be achieved with some other investment, like buying a piece of a nursing home or something. As far as cardiologists are concerned, I am convinced that there are 2 camps, those for and those against. The only logical reason I can come with why they would fight the technology is that they fear it will reduce fee base by replacing more lucrative traditional procedures. The thrust of my argument is that the machine should be packaged, configured and marketed in such a way as to not threaten existing fee base but to enhance it. Reducing its capability by condensing it to a single-use calcium finder was by best idea to accomplish that goal. The current configuration could still be sold as the super deluxe do everything model. We need a low price entry model to build a customer base and get the technology out there.