NARI - Earnings Call Highlights

Saul, In your recent monthly portfolio update you mentioned that you felt that for NARI “…their conference call and guidance for the rest of the year had an air of extreme caution, hesitation, and worry”.

When I first read the transcript I didn’t get the same impression as you - but my ‘spidey senses’ are certainly not as well developed as yours. Can you please explain what comments in the call lead you the draw the above conclusion? Thanks for your feedback.

I read the transcript for a second time today and I have picked out the following statements (quoted below) which lead me to the conclusion that the managment are actually quietly confident - all metrics are moving in the right direction and reopening is a tailwind - the unknown is that they have no “have a pre-COVID normal” and that they perfer for guide numbers which they are very comfortable for them to achieve (setting them up for a likely beat).

Prepared Remarks

Bill Hoffman – President and Chief Executive Officer:

We treated a record number of patients and reported revenue above our guidance.
During Q1, our physician customers performed approximately 5,500 procedures, up about 130% from the same quarter last year and up about 20% from Q4.

As in the past, the vast majority of revenue in the quarter came from replenishment of inventory after procedures while the balance came from stocking orders, which include inventory for new customers, increases in inventory levels as customers grow, and new product introductions.

While recent developments are encouraging, we continue to believe that some caution in the short and intermediate-term is prudent.

We have noticed for example some hospitals are full of non-COVID patients as they return for treatment that was deferred during the pandemic.

First, we continue to expand our sales organization to target new hospitals and physicians.

Our performance in Q1, strong as it was, suggests that we treated fewer than 5% of all patients who we believe can benefit from treatment with our devices.

We remain very early in our efforts to penetrate our core markets and the effort will require a lot more sales professionals. We continue to believe that when fully built out, our sales organization will rival in size the largest interventionally focused sales organizations in the market today.

We are currently targeting 180 to 200 total territories by the end of 2021.

We are excited about our recently announced partnership with Aidoc…We believe their purpose-built PE software solution can be helpful in developing this scalable and repeatable VTE center of excellence model.

Our fourth growth driver is to continue to expand our product portfolio. During our last earnings call, we announced the limited market release of our T20 Curve, which has been FDA cleared for a clot in transit, as well as our flows basis venous closure system…Both devices are now in full market release and enjoying brisk adoption. Looking ahead, we remain very excited about the robust lineup of new products and innovation in our pipeline.

Our fifth and final growth driver is expansion into adjacent and international markets. We continue to make progress early in our European launch… the operating environment for new product introductions remains challenging. …The most recent pandemic surge has caused new lockdowns, limiting travel and hospital access, but even with these headwinds we are seeing case volumes steadily increase, and we remain optimistic about our European opportunity as we look forward to an improved COVID environment.

We are excited about several opportunities beyond our core DVT and PE markets. We are actively working on multiple ideas to address significant unmet needs in these adjacent markets and we’re looking forward to discussing them in upcoming calls.

Mitch Hill – Chief Financial Officer:

Gross margin increased due to a modest 2% increase in revenue per procedure year-over-year as well as positive operating leverage in our manufacturing facility due to continuous improvement initiatives.

The $5.2 million increase in R&D expense was primarily driven by an increase in headcount, as well as product development and clinical evidence development costs SG&A expense was $36.9 million in the first quarter of 2021 compared with 16.4 million for the same period of the prior year.

As I’ve mentioned in previous quarters, our intent is to grow sustainably and we expect to continue to invest heavily in our growth drivers, as described by Bill…Our intent is not to maximize cash flow but to invest in growth.

While we continue to experience COVID-related challenges and uncertainties, we are comfortable providing forward-looking guidance as follows. For the full year of 2021, we are guiding to $240 million to $250 million in revenue.

Questions & Answers

Q from Cecilia Furlong re COVID recovery?

Mitch Hill – Chief Financial Officer:
…the operating environment is considerably improved since Q4 and probably even since our last earnings call, which was not so long ago, so the decline in hospitalizations and the decline in COVID diagnoses all have allowed hospitals to ease up on restrictions. The challenges, value analysis committees are meeting their functional, they’re never efficient or fast, but they’re meeting and so I don’t think there are any COVID related headwinds to bringing on new customers.

We continue to expand our activities with non-interventional stakeholders, again that’s pulmonologists, hospitalists, intensivists, and of course ER physicians, restrictions for our sales professionals to be in other departments, that’s eased up as well.

We’ve even seen some diversions …. so many patients who have deferred treatment
So we want to keep an eye on that. But generally speaking, the environment is clearly a different and more functional environment than it’s been in some time.

Andrew Hykes – Chief Operating Officer:
During the quarter we added about 140 new accounts, which brings us just up to about 1,000 active accounts. Keep in mind, only about 60% of those accounts are using both technologies. So we’ve still got some runway left to pull in the second technology in about 40% of those accounts.

Q re guidance from Larry Biegelsen?

Mitch Hill – Chief Financial Officer:
… we are kind of thinking through how we will make it through Q2, obviously, and thinking about the second half of the year, we wanted to be comfortable and sort of confident in our guidance. Just as a reminder, the IPO is about a year ago right now, and we’ve not yet had sort of a COVID free quarter as a company. So we’re still trying to understand exactly what that’s going to look like and I think as a result of that we are seeing obviously an improving business environment in the second half of the year, but we wanted to continue to be very confident and comfortable with the guidance, and we think the numbers we provided at the 240 to 250 sets us up in that territory or that range.

Bill Hoffman – President and Chief Executive Officer:
…We don’t have a pre-COVID normal.We don’t know what that means. So we just wanted to be thoughtful, I think we’d like to stay away from intra-quarter trends. We’d like to stay away from sequential trends and commentary on that. We feel very good and we always will when we provide a number, we feel very confident in our ability to hit that number.

Q from Danielle Lastly re data coming out of Flame inflection driver?

Tom Tu:
… multiple studies ongoing …I think what you see is that there is rapid commercial adoption of this technique even in the absence of the clinical data, and I don’t anticipate that the results of this trial are necessary to continue the growth trajectory of this company.

Q from Danielle Lastly re competitors?

Andrew Hykes – Chief Operating Officer:
… I think on the competitive front, no big changes… We do see trialing of competitive products out in the market, but we continue to very much like our own chances when we’re competing head-to-head with the other devices, we have not seen any changes in the pricing dynamics… So we’ve been able to maintain if not hold those pricing levels and get modest uplift along the way.

Q from Bill Plovanic re international growth?

Andrew Hykes – Chief Operating Officer:
…From a financial standpoint, as you’ve heard us describe in the past, I think the rest of this year and even into 2022 will continue to be a building year where we will be able to see measurable contribution from Europe, but nothing that approaches anywhere close to material contribution to the broader commercial franchise and I think that’s still a pretty good way to think about Europe in the short to medium term. Relative to some of the other markets, we are under way from a regulatory standpoint in both China and Japan, but those are going to be much longer roads for us to navigate.

Q from Bill Plovanic re new products?

Mitch Hill – Chief Financial Officer:
… those products that are being added to the FlowTriever price per procedure are going to have a bit of a drag on the gross margin of that particular product, and so that’s something that will, I think, have a noticeable, but fairly small effect on the gross margin for the product.

Q from Marie Thibault re Aidoc?

Tom Tu:
We chose Aidoc specifically because of their advanced work in this pulmonary embolism space, I think not just from the artificial intelligence aspect of automating the RV to LV ratio calculation, but also in their communication ability, once the patient has been identified and to be able to activate the appropriate physicians who can then make a rapid decision about patient triage, I think this will be a very fruitful partnership with the patients being the ones that benefit the most.

Thanks

12 Likes

Saul, In your recent monthly portfolio update you mentioned that you felt that for NARI “…their conference call and guidance for the rest of the year had an air of extreme caution, hesitation, and worry”. When I first read the transcript I didn’t get the same impression as you - but my ‘spidey senses’ are certainly not as well developed as yours. Can you please explain what comments in the call lead you the draw the above conclusion? Thanks for your feedback.

Hi MoneySpin,

First, it’s apparent that I wasn’t the only one surprised and shocked, as the share price fell off a cliff and hasn’t come back. I would have expected a lot of enthusiasm like: “We are out of Covid finally, we can get into the hospitals, we are expecting great things, etc”. Instead we got some of the quotes you quoted:

"While recent developments are encouraging, we continue to believe that some caution in the short and intermediate-term is prudent." [But they are more prudent than ever]

"We have noticed for example some hospitals are full of non-COVID patients as they return for treatment that was deferred during the pandemic". [Implying that they are having trouble getting in].

“we are kind of thinking through how we will make it through Q2”

“While we continue to experience COVID-related challenges and uncertainties, we are comfortable providing forward-looking guidance as follows. For the full year of 2021, we are guiding to $240 million to $250 million in revenue.”

This was after $57.4 for the first quarter. Which multiplied by 4 gives a run rate of $230 million. So $240 to $250 is not just cautious, it is basically allowing for almost no sequential growth for the rest of the year.

In the first quarter, in the middle of Covid, they were up 18% sequentially.

If they slowed up and grew just 12% sequentially each of the next three quarters they would be at $274.4 million for the year. They could have guided to $274 and been sure of beating it, or to be even more cautious to $270 or $265 million.

But they went all the way to a midpoint of $245!!!. They didn’t guide to the next quarter even though they were half way through the quarter. Something seemed wrong. Oh, and if they continued sequential growth of 18% like they had in the first quarter, they would be at $299.3 million. That’s with no acceleration post-Covid, just hitting that 18% they had in the first quarter.

So, as I said, maybe they were being just excessively super-duper cautious, but this was beyond cautious, and it worried me (and lots of others, apparently). If I was wrong I can always change my mind.

Sorry,

Saul

33 Likes

Saul, I think you mentioned you are a doctor, so I figured you might have insight on this.

Inari sells machines and materials to help deal with blood clots. And, one of the dangerous side-effects of COVID-19 is blood clots, including thrombosis.

So, could their apparent pessimism be because COVID-19 has actually been a tail-wind for NARI, not a head-wind? Perhaps they think they are getting more device and materials sales because hospitals want their devices to help deal with thrombosis caused by COVID-19.

2 Likes

Saul… Inari sells devices to help deal with blood clots. And, one of the dangerous side-effects of COVID-19 is blood clots, including thrombosis. So, could their apparent pessimism be because COVID-19 has actually been a tail-wind for NARI, not a head-wind? Perhaps they had been getting more sales because hospitals used their devices to treat thrombosis caused by COVID-19.

Hi rbgibbons, that certainly is a possibility, although I have no specialized knowledge at all in that area.
Saul

5 Likes

Only NARI really knows the net effect of COVID on their growth. While it did cause some clots, it also hampered their ability to access hospitals, doctors, and technologists. As a relatively new device, their physical presence is important in education, training, and supporting procedures. There were also fewer conferences and no educational events to sign up new business. The bigger hospitals probably had more access, or already had a relationship, but that’s the low hanging fruit. Those hospitals buy and try everything even if just for research purposes. So those were a headwind. Hospitals are much more open now to visitors so at least that should be relieved. Conferences are starting up again in the second half of the year.

Despite what they try to sell us as investors, the FlowTriever isn’t the only option for thrombectomy. Most hospitals that might use the device already have another device that can do the same. Maybe not “designed for veins” or FDA approved but there are multiple other thrombectomy options for all of their indications. It’s not a question of Inari or blood thinners. That narrative was always false and part of the reason I never invested.

COVID did cause some clots. I’m not sure how many were a candidate for their procedure. At some point, someone with the degree of clot that they had would probably be so bad off that doctors might not try. Even if you cleared out the clot from the lungs, someone with COVID had a low chance of surviving anyway. And those without clot in their lungs (DVT alone) wouldn’t be considered emergent, which was almost a requirement at times in the hospitals to do procedures on a COVID patient. Finally, long distance travel is a common instigator of clots that might be candidates for thrombectomy, and those were clearly less common. People also might have avoided coming to the hospital if they did have a clot.

So whether COVID was a net headwind or tailwind is hard to say. Only they know. But that’s important. They probably know, or at least they should, and they’re the ones providing guidance.

23 Likes

I think Inari had a good quarter, and the lack of short term guidance is worth thinking about. But I don’t think I will be altering my position (4%). Here’s why I think it’s perhaps not that big of a deal:

Q2 2020 - Aug 11, 2020. No guidance given
Q3 2020 - Nov 12, 2020. No guidance given
Q4 2020 - Mar 9, 2021. They guide for Q1 2020 ($54mm-$56mm), and for full year 2021, $225mm-$235mm. This would be 68% YoY growth over full year 2020.
Q1 2021 - May 11, 2021. Revenues are 57.4mm, small revenue beat. They increase their guidance for full year 2021 to $240mm-$250mm (79% YoY growth over full year 2020). Notably they do not provide guidance for Q2 2021.

Gotta admit, the inconsistency and lack of rationale for why they choose not to provide guidance for Q2 2021 is annoying. But, we see they have a history of being afraid to provide guidance for whatever reason. Simultaneously, they have a history of putting up stellar numbers anyway.

If we play with the numbers a little bit, with $57.4mm of revenue already on the books for full year 2021, they can get to the high end of guidance ($250mm) with revenues of $61mm, $64mm, and $68mm. This is not particularly impressive, but it would represent consistent 5%-6% growth every quarter. But this is just guidance! They probably think they will come in much higher.

Also, it’s pretty normal for companies to issue full year guidance very conservatively, even in ways that don’t make much sense at all. For example, the latest rockstar, Upstart, is guiding for revenues of $600mm for full year 2021, which is of course great because revenues last year were $233mm.

Here’s where things get nonsensical with Upstart though. They are guiding for Q2 to be $160mm. Q1 was $121mm. That means that Q1 + Q2 = $281mm. To get to $600mm for the full year, that only leaves $319mm for Q3 and Q4. That is about $160mm each, which is exactly what they are guiding for in Q2.

So Upstart is guiding sequential revenue growth to be FLAT for Q3 and Q4, but it’s not really relevant for a couple reasons:
a) Their year over year increase for full year 2021 versus full year 2020 is HUGE, to the point where it doesn’t really matter if they beat their revenue estimates or not. Simply meeting them will be a large accomplishment.
b) Nobody actually thinks they will have flat growth for Q3 and Q4.

The reason I went on this Upstart tangent is because I think the same can be said about Inari. They are currently guiding for 78% growth for full year 2021, which is pretty huge relative to other growth stocks. And they may very well beat and raise this guidance throughout the year.

15 Likes

I wouldn’t read too much in to full year growth rates at Upstart. Zoom did the same thing last year (guided to no growth a few quarters out, then raised each quarter). My guess is that during hyper-growth phases the cautious projections compound and get more cautions the further out they guide. I doubt anyone wants to get caught expecting this sort of growth to repeat over several quarters and get caught being wrong. What I mean is, growth projections would be more guesswork/faith the further out they go due to a lack of visibility even if there are specific longer-term catalysts. In still other words, the further out you go the less you really know for sure. It makes a lot of sense to guide based on the current partial known quarter for next quarter’s results and then perhaps trail it off at more normal organic growth rates until more is known. This is speculation of course, but it seems consistent with other companies and common sense I think. The crazier the growth the more this feels right to me.

3 Likes

“Despite what they try to sell us as investors, the FlowTriever isn’t the only option for thrombectomy. Most hospitals that might use the device already have another device that can do the same. Maybe not “designed for veins” or FDA approved but there are multiple other thrombectomy options for all of their indications. It’s not a question of Inari or blood thinners. That narrative was always false and part of the reason I never invested.”

I’ll have to disagree here. I’ve been treating DVT/PE for 15 years and used every device under the sun for both. The Inari device is a better device for two main reasons IMO. No lytics needed and what I would call “door in to door out” time. I have a plethora of devices I can use, however, only one all but guarantees me no risk of intracranial hemorrhage–> Inari. Second, patients go home the same day for DVT or the following day for a massive or submassive PE. This is a huge savings for our hospital system and also frees up beds. That is not possible with most other modalities we have in our lab. I’ve also seen patients near death with immediate improvement upon clot extraction and normalized hemodynamics within minutes. Can lytics do the same? Maybe, but at what cost to the patient if they have an ICH (1-2% risk)? I’ve also yet to see Inari fail for massive or submassive PE extraction but I’ve seen lytics fail many times and the reason lytics fail is because of clot that is too old for them to be effective. Inari is near equally effective for old and new clot extraction in our experience.

Also, our in hospital PE mortality rate has fallen since the device was widely adopted. More time is needed to confirm this trend but it looks promising.

I’d add that I don’t think covid was a headwind or tailwind for the company at established sites as our usage was down early on but increased in the winter months. It certainly could have been in establishing new sites. Like you said, only they really know.

What does all of that mean for the company? I don’t know. I tend not to invest in companies where I’m a significant user of their devices for ethical reasons.

MC

No position in Inari

69 Likes

I’ll have to disagree here. I’ve been treating DVT/PE for 15 years and used every device under the sun for both. The Inari device is a better device for two main reasons IMO. No lytics needed and what I would call “door in to door out” time. I have a plethora of devices I can use, however, only one all but guarantees me no risk of intracranial hemorrhage–> Inari. Second, patients go home the same day for DVT or the following day for a massive or submassive PE. This is a huge savings for our hospital system and also frees up beds. That is not possible with most other modalities we have in our lab. I’ve also seen patients near death with immediate improvement upon clot extraction and normalized hemodynamics within minutes. Can lytics do the same? Maybe, but at what cost to the patient if they have an ICH (1-2% risk)? I’ve also yet to see Inari fail for massive or submassive PE extraction but I’ve seen lytics fail many times and the reason lytics fail is because of clot that is too old for them to be effective. Inari is near equally effective for old and new clot extraction in our experience.

Fair enough. In IR we’ve been doing thrombectomy or just mechanical thrombus disruption for a long time without thrombolytics, and in the last 5-10 years the decision for an ICU stay has not been related to our procedure. Inari has an elegant device, though I find Penumbra to be not much different. So at least for my specialty, there have been other options. Catheter directed thrombolysis has a very low rate of hemorrhage, much different from systemic thrombolysis. Other aspiration devices also work well enough (with or without medications), or in a smaller hospital without those devices we will just disrupt the clot with a catheter or other device.

4 Likes

“Fair enough. In IR we’ve been doing thrombectomy or just mechanical thrombus disruption for a long time without thrombolytics, and in the last 5-10 years the decision for an ICU stay has not been related to our procedure. Inari has an elegant device, though I find Penumbra to be not much different. So at least for my specialty, there have been other options. Catheter directed thrombolysis has a very low rate of hemorrhage, much different from systemic thrombolysis. Other aspiration devices also work well enough (with or without medications), or in a smaller hospital without those devices we will just disrupt the clot with a catheter or other device.”

I agree with that I think. I find Penumbra works but that Inari works better especially for saddle PE.

MC

3 Likes

Thanks for the deep knowledge.

The stock price is a bit in trouble. I will hold 1-2qtr to see how this plays out.

@heartMD
You are still alive, have not see you here for 2-3 years… still in ABMD after the pumping?