if faupel is able to move that sale along, i wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a rather abrupt departure by cartwright in the near future.
and by shady character, i'm referring to him continuously divulging things in private that should not be divulged in private by a ceo speaking about his company, and particularly about him stating several months ago that he believed the company would receive a not approvable letter this time around, followed by him trying to play a fool that didn't know what a not approvable letter is.
several well said truths in this comment.
i thought it was intereting that cartwright seemed to attempt to justify his existence in the q1 conference call...i think he's under the spotlight by a lot of people right now. it doesn't help that he's a relatively shady character.
it's another not approvable letter, which is the exact same type of response that guided therapeutics has received the last 2 times.
a not approvable letter requires an amendment to respond. an amendmen with additional patient data will take the full 180 days (or longer) to file, and then the clock restarts to give the fda a fresh 180 days to review the amendment pma application. as you saw this time, the fda has no problem going well past the 180 day review time frame. you are AT LEAST 1 year out from the next fda decision. you're right, they didn't categorically deny approval, but this is yet another big blow to a struggling company that has a revolutionary product to bring to market.
obtaining funding to support the excruciatingly slow international sales ramp up is not going to be an easy task by any means. it's anybody's guess as to whether or not they can survive.
nope, they failed to do that. the fda said it's not approvable in its current form, and more patient data is likely needed.
you say operating margin is important to valuation, yet you say ebitda is flawed because it excludes interest. lol..it's obvious you're either trolling or don't have a clue what you're talking about. i believe it's probably both. so, i'll explain why your statement is funny...operating margin doesn't include interest expense either. however, it does include depreciation and amortization..especially amortization of the intangibles...hopefully you know what they are, and why you're better off not including the amortization of intangibles in a valuation.
the fact that you claim ebitda gives a pumpers bias to a valuation is also funny. a valuation that considers ebitda and free cash flow is pretty much the standard for valuation, with adjustments made for particular asset valuations and other factors that may be company specific.
again, the valuation just changed drastically because of what happened with digital ad sales, which changed much more drastically than i believe anybody without insider knowledge saw coming.
anyway...i'm not going to waste my time with you anymore...like i said, you're either trolling or have no clue what you're talking about...and it's probably both.
oh yeah, and the funny thing is that this whole conversation started when i was simply saying that costs and revenues would tend to decline in tandem. you decided to use that statement to try to jump on me by somehow claiming that i botched a valuation that was well supported until the fundamentals changed. i first countered by pointing out the fact that trend analysis of deferred directory costs and deferred directory revenue supported my point. but, you kept going, so i had to get super technical (i'm just being facetious here, i figured you would actually look at the margins at some point and realize you were in over your head and give up) and actually show you their margin trend, and it agrees with what i was saying about costs trending with revenues.
i'm sure you'll try to pull something else out of thin air without actually citing any actual facts. i'll be waiting.
and if you want to talk ebitda margins, let's look at what they have actually done over the last 8 quarters:
Q1 2015: 35%
Q4 2014: 40%
Q3 2014: 37%
Q2 2014: 37%
Q1 2014: 40%
Q4 2013: 40%
Q3 2013: 41%
Q2 2013: 39%
in other words, there hasn't been any meaningful margin deterioration, yet you claim that i missed some sort of significant margin deterioration. do you want to clarify?
they had three questions to answer from the last not approvable letter. only one pertained to the cleaning issue. the other two pertained to (1) patient follow up data and combining luviva with the hpv test and (2) a clarification about the optical technology.
there's a reason that analysts both internal and external to the company don't care much about operating margin. there's a reason that those tables in the press release go to great lengths to clarify adjusted proforma ebitda and free cash flow. if you want to value this company, you need to be looking at ebitda and free cash flow. you also have to separately consider the valuation of their intangibles...primarily their directory services agreements, paying close attention to the remaining lives on those assets. if you're taking any other approach, you're wasting your time. i'll tutor you sometime if you need a better understanding of why this is the case.
as far as revenue...you realize that digital revenue actually grew in q1 year over year, right? yet you think it will drop that much in q2? what do you think ad sales will be like in q2?
i answered your question about one to two years. given the recent volatility in digital ad sales and no indication of how they'll do in q2, you're only guessing. i don't like guessing. if digital continues on the same track, i don't think the company will exist in 2 years.
you're confusing ad sales and revenue. i asked what you think revenue will do next quarter, but you're responding in terms of ad sales...at least you appear to be.
as far as a valuation and profit margins...if by profit margins you mean operating margin or net margin, those are most definitely irrelevant to a valuation of this company.