RE:Extreme Dissapointement in Botched LaunchAddendum: Clarus Downgrade and FAQ
The purchase price giving around 25% dilution hasnt been unseen,
also the costs involved handling the new beast.
They pointed their fingers on exactly this self deployment,
where other insurance companies didn't want to jump in.
One of the reasons as I have laid out and Clarus also hinted at
is the lack of transparency of Aristotle:
- No volumes of papers (just one presentation)
- No detailed Method of Action (How it works, which genes, enable validation)
- No detailed patents given them protection
All of the above also prohibiting them from having FDA clearance,
Aristotle is sort of an unvalidated black box magic
no insurance company seemingly desires to deal with.
Now add the upcoming merger costs, added operational costs,
where six 2020's cash raises and Covid tests couldn't help
bringing company into profitability and also still having a negative equity value.
One more, if you perform a M&A transaction like this,
companies usually provide detailed financial data to their business.
SZLS still needs to give this info, assuming TSX doesn't allow us
to buy such a black box company.
Now I have looked around this company a little
and please check for yourselves who the consultants are.
Besides one old 2019's review (good), I was not able to see any presence
nor public review or posts in social media.
In this sense, yes, there are reasons to sell a company for
an undefined amount of fiat currency (here 15MM shares).
They might have used the medium offering price over the last year,
some 56 cents perhaps?
And here my bells are ringing again, as it also reminds me of the other latest
attempts to sell the Aristotle derived Cancer tests into Europe
via newly founded companies.
Did anything good came out of these enterprises?
Problem here would be, that a potential bigger loss maker
needs to be provided with cash as well.
Notable: The US lab is still in the books as a liability.
xxx
I read today's FAQ as I have read Clarus.
The FAQ did not address the the important issues of finance
and slow launch. No, the FAQ did confirm Clarus,
as they will fill the 3000 patients capacity first and then may
offer to the world.
3000 patients across 50 locations per state? Sounds costly.
But Clarus was diplomatic here and only pushed out profitability by 1-2 years,
knowing the next offering is just around the corner perhaps.
xxx
If Aristotle would be a well accepted test, so would be the demand.
CEO's excuse of requiring a Dr MED to prescripe the text is noise,
since a big rollout would surely need go exactly that route through Drs and insurance.
But Aristotle is not backed by the market, that is the problem here.
And instead of producing credibility with mentioned science papers,
presentations and detailed information plus trial data,
company only shows some data points.
Even the latter are not exactly exciting and we see with Colonsentry,
which also failed to receive a proper reimbursement backing.
In this sense, CEO and company decided to walk the usual path: Go all alone.
Problem: No profits and lots of cash burn - the usual.
xxx
OK, I was waiting for company and analysts update
and I have seen enough from them.
Thought market would at least keep the 200dma intact,
but given the negative consensus, this was impossible.
Usual support range is around 55 cents +/- 10%, thanks to the offerings.
I hope for a proper company response, dissappointed again.
Now please go ahead and bash me for my little analysis
not matching your visions (which could still play out one day).
At least my thoughts were fully matches by Clarus.
Have a good one.