buckeye, I don't know for sure but the Medafor shareholder letter(s) seem to me to be saying almost the opposite of what SA said, my take away in any event. I think SA applied a 5x #$%$ multiplier to what he said about absorbency. Remember too SA would tell you he is, and has been, a great CRY CEO for the past roughly 25 years. But when SA is evaluated, using a long term stock price metric, his performance would seem to be pretty bad. There should be plenty of CRY shareholders out there that can confirm this point. SA can't duck and hide from HIS POOR STOCK PERFORMANCE METRIC, because it is on Google for the world to see. Judge the past 16 year stock performance for yourself. There is FACT and there is FICTION, and SA seems to have become the KING OF FICTION. Also, I think that questions and answers are always scripted beforehand. No follow-up questions were asked pertaining to PerClot, so a smoke screen there as well. Analyst's are usually friends of the company, or their officers, so their questions are rarely the tough ones like the tissue question I suggested the analysts ask. Note CRY never touches on tissue profitability, because it doesn't seem to exist. This is important, and SA won't talk about it. Clearly though CRY has made the decision to go forward with PerClot, so it looks like this showdown occurs in a couple years. By then CRY will have roughly $18 million in in bedded PerClot costs. SA better be right, or he will have another great screw-up to add to his already rather long list. No problem though, the Board will grant him yet another new 3 year employment contract, because he is after all the KING OF FICTION.
IMO CRY's EPS would probably have been $0.55 this year, instead of under $0.30, had SA not sued Medafor. This brings up another point. CRY sued Medafor, not the other way around, All you have to do to verify this is look and see that CRY was the Plaintiff and Medafor was the Defendant. A Defendant doesn't sue themselves, so not difficult determining who sued who. So the KING OF FICTION is also the KING OF LITIGATION it would seem. Oh ya, lots of wonderful work being done by SA. But it is done for himself and his cronies (e.g. salaries, bonuses, options, etc.), not for shareholders generally (e.g. share price appreciation). Lots of wonderful work being done by SA, and it's all reflected in the stock price too. So what does the CRY Board do? Reward under performance by granting another 3 year employment contract to the KING OF UNDER-PERFORMERS, yet another new SA title.. Things at CRY certainly work for SA, but they don't seem to be working very well for shareholders generally. IMO, if you went looking for an ineffective CEO, you would be hard pressed to find a better under performer that SA's, as measured by stock price performance for the past 16 years.
Another thing. SA has a poor track record, when measured by historic share price. So he didn't get the price up while times were good. Now, from a macro standpoint, stock valuations are IMO likely to encounter some pretty strong headwinds. So even if he gets better ESP numbers, I'm guessing that the P/E is apt to shrink, which if I'm right will mean more years of waiting for CRY stock to appreciate.