maybe he got a call from their lawyers.... he claims not enough views is why he pulled the report. that cant be the reason, otherwise all his reports would have been pulled.
Careers is now a separate menu tab.
looks like they added the ability to map search by geographic location.
VP of sales is being advertised. Probably reports to Renard. Ad states responsible for US and outside US.
To me these are more positive signs for us longs....i think this says they are confident that they have a superior product and are going to eat up InSphero's liver cell balls and spit out tons of 3D printed liver assays in the next year or two in Europe.
I believe llew has a valid point and expenses are not negligible. You are calculating revenue per share. You have to look at their quarterly report and you will see that expenses are not negligible. Good science leading to products and services doesn't come cheap. There's a ramp up going on... I would project expenses for the upcoming year to be more like 40 to 50 million.... I think with the 5% penetration scenario.... You'd be looking at eps of 5 to 10 cents per share. Just trying to be more realistic here. BTW, I would be happy with 40 to 50 million in revenue in first year of service/product.
Again, they may not have taken any money upfront... So that may be from other sources as you mention grants...
Again, sounds like neither of us are experts... I was told that if they took payments before coMpletion of the service, then that would be held in a liability account (deferred revenue?) and then that moved from a liability to the asset side on completion of the service. Looking at the recent quarterly release, there is 140000 of deferred revenue. so maybe the question is what total amount of dollars worth of contracts might that represent? I didn't expect much in contracts before general availability. If they did get 10% down in an upfront payment then maybe they had 1.4 mil in contracts with select clients. If it is 50% down, the we're looking at 288k in prerelease contracts. All conjecture on my part. Thoughts?
I was told by an accountant that ONVO has to abide by the rules for contracts like this... No revenue is booked until services have been completed/performed. No payment upfront entire amount due on completion. He came up with this interpretation from their filing about revenue recognition. Again...this is one accountant's opinion...
Or... a heart... kidney and most of all a brain...
What twojuggs posted earlier about the Nguyen presentation ... Think of it in terms of another KOL reporting results...more evidence to support that their tissue cultures act like the real thing. Too bad the details seem to get lost in the Exvive3d announcement. Otherwise we'd get an additional bounce...
Details of the presentation included:
� Demonstration of metabolic competence over time. Metabolism of midazolam, including detection and quantitation of metabolite formation (hydroxymidazolam), over the course of 4 weeks was demonstrated. Importantly, induction with rifampicin throughout the full 4-week time course led to robust induction of CYP3A4 and formation of metabolite, demonstrating the ability to show the liver breaking down midazolam appropriately.
� Donor-to-Donor Reproducibility. Response to drug-induced liver injury was assessed in exVive3D Human Liver Tissues fabricated with (3) independent liver cell (hepatocyte) donors. Three out of three donor-derived livers responded with an appropriate and predictable injury response to a known toxicant, with a high degree of concordance among donors.
� Expansion of detectable end points. A key value driver for the Company's exVive3D Human Liver Tissues is the ability to study liver sections under the microscope in order to collect histopathologic data in addition to biochemical data. To that end, the Company demonstrated that both cell death (necrotic) and fat deposition (steatotic) mechanisms of liver injury can be detected in the exVive3D Human Liver Tissues.
I asked IR about providing guidance on their margins with their product/service and whether they have had to adjust pricing on their service (lower their estimate) based on beta contract work and got the following:
Thank you for your interest in Organovo. We haven't guided on margin range, but we may be able to do so as the business matures. We do see our pricing being supported in our commercial quoting and contracting and stand by the estimate of the average contract.
Just providing this as an FYI...
Yes... I want them ticked.... I want them to have some fight in them. I do view InSphero as formidable competition. If ONVO's product is clearly better then their message should be clear. No other tissue culture does what ours can do! GROWWWWLLLLL!!
Jack, I asked a similar question last week and posted the IR response here. I like your response even better as IR sounded tired of hearing the question asked. I like "demonstrated data far superior to anything ever offered". Thanks for posting.
I asked the question directly to Organovo a couple of weeks ago and got the following back:
There have been several attempts to provide 3D liver cultures, but nothing previous to Organovo's exVive 3D Human Liver has allowed for significant multicellularity with defined internal architecture, qualities that are enabled by our 3D bioprinting capabilities. These previous systems have not achieved significant market share due to the limitations in their ability to demonstrate powerful results to customers.
All of our primary and secondary market research continues to indicate that 95%+ of potential customers use non-3D methods, so we focus our messaging on differentiating against what customers are actually using.
Since last year we have stated that we were confident we would be able to achieve superior data to that available for any other method, including those attempts at 3D liver cultures. This data would clearly differentiate our tissue as superior. This was demonstrated with the data that Roche made public in June at a scientific conference.
As we described in our quarterly results press release on August 12, "[A] Key opinion leader reported Organovo's 3D Human Liver Tissue was able to establish the toxicity of toxic drug known to induce liver injury in humans that did not show toxicity in animal and other pre-clinical testing, an achievement historically unmet by animal models or other liver cell model systems."
We encourage you to listen to our most recent investor presentation to hear our CEO describe the data: https://vts.inxpo.com/scripts/Server.nxp?LASCmd=AI:4;F:APIUTILS!51004&PageID=4429D3F3-288E-4D3C-9F0C-DB1BC26B393E
The data is also on slide 9 of our investor PPT: http://www.organovo.com/sites/default/files/assets/Organovo%20Investor%20Slide%20Deck%202014-09.pdf
I think it's misleading too... check out this article... http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/10/15/russia-bioprinter-research-centre/ Two weeks ago.... read last paragraph...
I agree with you. Want to make the announcement either before the holiday week I would think. Looks like the congress would be a darn good time to make a splash... BTW, ONVO's presentation at the congress is:
The Organovo 3D Bioprinting Platform: Changing the
Shape of Medical Research and Practice
Deborah G. Nguyen, Director, R&D, Tissue Applications,
From what Murphy says in this interview, it seems that the breast cancer opportunity has overtaken the kidney tissue project. Is the breast cancer tissue project possibly associated with the Janssen joint project?
Actually, Not a Holy Day of obligation this year..... but I'll go church anyway to pray for good news for ONVO on Monday...
Good article... there's another published 4 days ago . Google: xconomy Keith Murphy and you should see it listed in the first few links...