RE:RE:The webinarIt seems the $15M in hardware orders weren't in the 100k guidance. I say this because the company confirmed guidance on the Q4 webinar and, in the Q4 NR, they said this: "The company currently has over $15-million in device orders from clients that it had originally expected to fulfill by the end of calendar year 2022..." Of course, I've no idea whether or not guidance was actually met.
On the subject of whether or not there are contracts covering the $15M, the quote above would indicate that there are. For example, if I order something from Amazon and they accept my order, that's a contract. There might be a delay, but that really just indicates either a contract amendment is necessary, or the original contract allows for reasonable delays.
Finally, regarding the status of patients for which hardware hasn't been received, I can't imagine anyone would put said clients on the platform, since they are not ready for monitoring without devices. It's more likely that those particular Reliq clients weren't ready to start into the monitoring process after having signed an iUGO contract. I don't see this as a big deal; clients must have various situations and issues of their own.
qwerty22 wrote: Generally agree although all my whining yesterday around the adherence issue might not suggest that. The question going forward is the rate of growth, just how fast it can happen and how much it can be sustained.
Let's assume they had seen this adherence issue a while back. If they were smart they may not have gone fully transparent on the issue, as they did yesterday, until they had started implementing a solution. You could with some generosity see 2022's misleading, over the top, guidance as just a "lag" in coming clean on the true state of the business. It certainly clears up the confusion caused by signing a whole bunch of client contracts and that not working it's way through the system to revenue last year. Let's see if widening the bottleneck speeds up the flow to revenue.
So just on the $15mil in hardware you understand that to be under contract? It's in the pipeline and inevitable? I forget the average cost of a device, I'm going to have a stab at $300/device (somebody please correct me). That would mean 50,000 patients in some sort of limbo, maybe at this adherence bottleneck, on-boarded but not yet collecting vitals with devices but also at the same time contracted to do that in the first half of 2023. Maybe I'm stup1d but I'm struggling to understand how such a situation arises for such a mass of people. I could understand people onboard, in the system, but not active, it's the commitment to become active that I'm struggling with. Lisa is certainly describing this situation as though it is inevitable. I can't see how that can be. I had started thinking this was some sort of hangover from the poor 2022 guidance. It's almost like she's saying "I wasn't lying to you about the 2022 numbers it just got delayed, see we have this $15mil sitting on the sidelines". If that's the case then she may have shot herself in the foot again with guidance. This doesn't impact the ability for the company to grow but it might just keep that chasm between expectations and reality. That's a problem only she can make go away.
theinvestor22 wrote: I listened live, but didn't have a chance to comment until now.
Overall, a very good update. Much more transparency. The good news here is that it seems the company is adapting by starting to implement realistic steps to reduce the adherence and collection bottlenecks. Good on them. The bad news is that it might take a while for this to percolate through the entire iUGO ecosystem of existing clients and make it into the financials. For those who thought there would be something magnificent in yesterday's webinar, that would be a disappointment. For those who are looking for steady improvement en route to a successful business model, that would be IMHO encouraging.
Personally, I would think taking over patient adherence (alerts, automated reminders and phone calls) should do much to alleviate the issue, but only time will tell. Also, since collection of A/R shouldn't really be an ongoing problem, the company's new emphasis on it (with teeth) should resolve the issue since it was a man made issue in the first place; i.e., it wasn't really a systemic problem IMHO. Of course, some might argue that they should have put more emphasis on collections sooner, but I'm sure they're doing the best they can. Perhaps the leniency they showed is a major reason why referrals led to those much bigger and better contracts they're now getting.
Oh ya, it's nice to see that $15M hardware contract moving forward. While there is, as we know, a delay between hardware sales and software revenue recognition, still the latter seems inevitable at this point.