Researching BioStem Technologies (BSEM)

Investment Analysis Clubs Saul’s Investing Discussions
1

Hat tip to @ryshab for discovering another biologics company with promising growth prospects named BioStem Technologies (BSEM).

The company is a 300M market cap company. They make wound care solutions that heal faster than traditional gauze. The product sells for roughly $1200-$1500 per treatment, and their products have over a 95% gross margin as the source material is made from biologics.

The company’s financial metrics are accelerating rapidly looking at these numbers. Additionally, they pre-reported revenue numbers where gross margin went even higher to 96.5%

Revenue
3.5M → 11.4 → 41.9 → 74.5 → 82.6 → 102.9 (preannounced)

EBITDA
-0.6M → -2.1 → 4.7 → 8.9 → 9.3

Net income
-1.5M → -2.7 → 3.3 → 6.4 → 6.8

The company is already profitable on over 100M of quarterly revenue.

There are two issues to address for why this company is only valued at 300M, when typically these financials would correspond to a multi billion dollar market cap.

The first is the company is listed on the pink sheets which would normally be a red flag for me. However, the company applied to be up-listed to the Nasdaq, and from a detailed review of their earnings, investor relations page, and filings similar to a 10-K I believe their up-listing to Nasdaq is likely. The stated reason for starting out on the pink sheets was that it was for lower regulations and cost efficiencies. Additionally, the company has already moved from the OTC Pink sheets to the OTCQB Venture market in December 2022, showing their commitment to meet regulations and up-list.

The second big issue I see is investor perception around their product which source material comes from the placenta after a live birth. Since births are happening all the time, there is a constant source of practically free material from hospitals that they work with, and this explains the high gross margin. My initial concern was that with a new administration, this type of research of development could he halted. However, I discovered it is embryonic stem cell research the R administrations object to, not this type of material which has laws in places like Utah from 2024 stating development of this material is legal.

Just keep in mind this is a small company with 37 employees, based out of Pompano Beach, FL. With a 300M market cap, and being listed on the pink sheets that presents more risk than we would typically look for on Saul’s board. However, I believe the rewards on up-listing to Nasdaq with their impressive financials outweighs the risks here which I why I started a position.

Adding a few more details about the business,

  • cash 14.6M, debt 4.5M
  • forward p/e 7.3x (the few analysts who cover BSEM project a very low PE)
  • FY 2024 revenue 301.8M vs 16.7M, +1702%
  • Q4 revenue preannounced 102.9M
  • Q4 gross profit 99.3M vs 10.9M year ago, +811%
  • robust adoption of AmnioWrap2 OneView in post acute care market
  • Venture Medical, exclusive sales and marketing partner
  • small acquisition of Progena Care, broadening product portfolio in wound care
  • perinatal tissue is used to make an “allograft”
  • BioREtain processing method, advanced wound care, reviewed accredited by AATB with cGTP and cGMP (good manufacturing processes and other certifications seem all in line)
  • portfolio: AmnioWrap2, VENDAJE, VENDAJE AT, VENDAJE OPTIC
  • each BioStem placental allograft is processed at FDA registered and AATB accredited site in Pompano Beach, FL
  • Florida laws protect access to placental therapies
  • chronic wounds including diabetic ulcers is a 9-13B TAM
  • Medicare reimbursement pricing for two of their products
  • VENDAJE received national pricing approval for Medicare October 2024
  • 103M revenue on $1200-$1500 per wrap suggests treating with 68,600 - 85,750 wraps in the quarter

Some notes from their last conference call back in November,

  • Jason Matuszewski, founder and CEO
  • adj EBITDA 9.9M
  • cash position improved to 14.6M
  • gross margin remains solid at 95%
  • working with congressional leaders and industry partners advocating for further Medicare coverage
  • VENDAJE AC launch was in Q4 2024
  • final stages of a study for venous leg ulcers
  • Form 10 filed September 27 with SEC to get up-listed on Nasdaq
  • revenue 82.6M vs 3.6M year ago
  • workforce expansion, some higher fees associated with distributor agreements for AmnioWrap2
  • gross margin going up from improved manufacturing and operational efficiencies
  • GAAP net income for third consecutive quarter
  • October makes the kick off a “pivotal” clinical trial on diabetic foot ulcers
  • the product acts a barrier or cover for chronic wounds

Overall this company has promising growth prospects, strong profitability, and a low valuation. While there are large risks coming with being on the pink sheets, I feel the opportunity here greatly outweighs the risk.

40 Likes
2

Wow
Ok so $400m annual run rate from 37 employees = $10m+ in revenue per employee.
FYI - the industry average for pharmaceuticals/lifescience is usually about $500,000 in revenues per employee.
Ant

12 Likes
3

Thank you to Ryshab for the introduction and to you WPR101 for a great follow up.
I took a 1.5% position at lunch today and spent this evening reading everything I could on this company.
I think I’m most excited about the positioning of this company in the bio tech space: they’re not a device company or a pharmaceutical company- because the BioStem solution is really replacing labor, this is unique.
They’re not in phase one or even phase two waiting for phase three clinical trials, waiting for some binary outcome. Bio Stem is already selling to Medicare patients a fantastically profitable solution to one of the most labor intensive problems within healthcare (As a Physical Therapist, performing wound care in both hospitals and in Home Care settings, for many years, I understand the TAM viscerally.).

Pertinent to investing, wound care is very time consuming, for the patient and the professional providing the care. In California, each hour of labor (so not including supplies, none of which make much difference presently), by either a RN or PT, is reimbursed by Medicare at about (I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me) $320 and $400/hour depending on which, Nursing reimbursement for wound care is reimbursed at a higher rate than when A PT does it.
Chronic wounds, most often associated with Diabetes are … well… chronic. Wound care for one wound on one person often takes a full hour 3-5 days a week and months to years to heal or may never heal (often resulting in amputations that leaves another wound, the incision, needing to heal).

I’m not surprised by their margins when considering the potential in decreasing even a relatively small number of labor hours.

Thanks again,

Jason

20 Likes
4

I’ve only briefly looked at this one but noticed the Medicare coverage was up in the air. Apparently the decision got pushed back to August though.

It was also interesting to read MiMedX’s earnings calls. They are a competitor so you have to take it with a grain of salt but they keep harping on abuses for skin substitutes:

Q3 '24
For the third quarter, we once again achieved year-over-year top-line growth and maintained an excellent operating margin in spite of the challenges in the private office and associated care settings due to the massive abuse of the Medicare reimbursement system being perpetrated in those sectors. We generate approximately 25% of our revenue from Medicare fee-for-service patients in the areas being impacted by this fraudulent activity. Based on feedback we have received during numerous recent interactions with relevant governing bodies, we are confident that corrective action is on the near-term horizon, which we expect will restore good fiscal governance to this market.

Q2 '24
On my very first MiMedx earnings call 1.5 years ago, we provided commentary on challenges we were facing in the private office and adjacent care settings due to what we described at the time as certain participants using loopholes in the Medicare reimbursement system in order to provide sizable financial incentives to physicians for using their products. Since that time, the situation has gotten dramatically worse as a result of new and intricate schemes designed with the express purpose of self-enrichment by massively overbilling CMS for products with sparse supporting clinical data. Frankly, I’m shocked, this has been allowed to persist for so long but remain optimistic it will be addressed in the very near future. To put this crisis in perspective, CMS payments for skin substitutes increased by over 260% or $2.5 billion in a single year from approximately $1.5 billion in 2022 to $4 billion in 2023. In recent months, the situation has reached a frenzied state, causing tremendous disruption and dislocation in the market, and MiMedx is not immune.

They may not be talking about BioStem directly but it sure seems like it could be an explanation for the company’s amazing growth.

Lastly, the company is highly dependent on a distributor named Venture Medical. I couldn’t find a whole lot on them but it’s a potential risk.

The main thing I’m worried about is the growth in the Medicare billing which could lead to a suspension of the coverage at some point. I’m curious to hear another perspective on these risks. Thanks!

Best,
Fish

35 Likes
5

Here’s some basic info on Venture Medical – I was also curious about them, chiefly because of the risk to BSEM from naming an exclusive distributor to their primary market, the US.
website
announcement of exclusive agreement with BSEM
Venture Medical CEO/Founder John Schroeder profile on LinkedIn

Apparently the two companies partnered for sales/distribution on another BSEM product, AmnioWrap2 and that worked well so they’re partnered again here.

Can anyone comment on how common these types of exclusive distribution arrangements are for companies involved in developing new medical devices? I can imagine it would make sense for a small company of 37 employees to use a distributor like Venture Medical to reach customers quickly. Building your own salesforce takes time, and building relationships with hospitals also takes time. If I were them, I’d probably do the same thing.

Can anyone with more experience in the medical device world comment?

ActonUp
(new position established at a “trial” level today)

7 Likes
6

About a 10 min video. I found it intresting, hope you do too.

6 Likes
7

Thanks for the shout out wpr101 and Will.

This last presentative by CEO Jason in Jan conference is a great overview or what they do and where they are headed.
Check it out:

A lot great information has been shared here. I have owned this business since summer of 2024 and to me this still is a home run kind of play. Either they will go BIG or will be muted for a while.

The upside is quite obvious so let me focus on the risks. And there a lot of them:

  • Loss of medicare coverage is the big one. This will definitely impact sales numbers and probably the main reason there is a lid on this stock still. Zacks wrote an article following the huge sell off in May when medicare announced they are dropping BioStem and a whole bunch of others from the LCD list. This lays out what options BioStem management has if they are close to getting dropped. I think it’s a good read, take a look.
    Zacks Small Cap Research - BSEM: Medicare Issues Shouldn’t Impact BioStem

  • Nasdaq listing getting delayed: Nasdaq listing should come and that should boost the stock but they mentioned they are working on filing a reply and we haven’t heard anything else yet. The next earnings call will be important to get more clarity on this.

  • This is an excerpt from their sec filing 10-12B/A:
    Specifically, on June 29, 2023, we entered into the License Agreement with Hesed, pursuant to which we license the “AmnioWrap2” trade name and Q-code from Hesed, which is an unrelated party. We retain sole ownership of all other rights and intellectual property with respect to that product and our proprietary BioREtain technology, which is necessary for us to manufacture AW2. Either party may terminate the License Agreement either by a notice of non-renewal at least 90 days prior to the renewal or at any time by giving 6 months prior written notice to the other party in the event of a breach of the License Agreement that cannot be cured, such as a breach of the confidentiality obligations or a breach that continues for 15 days after written notice to the breaching party. If the License Agreement is breached or terminated by either party, we will no longer have the rights to manufacture and commercialize our AW2 product and our revenues may decrease substantially, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Here is the filing:
https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=102213&ref=318857290&type=HTML&symbol=BSEM&cdn=b81a77f928cd2a09fd45b1679317f19a&companyName=BioStem+Technologies+Inc&formType=10-12B%2FA&formDescription=[Amend]+Registration+of+securities+[Section+12(b)]&dateFiled=2025-01-23

This is also another big risk that investors need to consider.

But having said all this, I think they have the better product. It will take time to prove it out widely as clinical trials is expensive and they are still a tiny business. Also, NASDQA uplisting is going to be a boost. And they are racking up the cash now. Management has shown they are not shy to buy businesses and expand their portfolio. So I expect a lot of that as well.

One last note, some of you may already know this, analysts are not allowed to cover OTC listed businesses. Hence, they have to pay Zacks for their reviews. Once they are Nasdaq listed, just the coverage from analysts will drive more visibility as they should be bringing in north of 400 million yearly revenue.

24 Likes
8

I reached out to a buddy of mine who is quite familiar with the diabetes chronic care market for skin care procedures, and he advised me to stay away, since the market is a “cesspool” of Medicare fraud. That’s making me quite cautious here.

I notice, looking at the company website that,

  1. their Scientific Advisory Board has 3 commercial members and only 1 academic expert – that seems light to me on the academic side if their products are so much better than the competition.
  2. With the business heading towards $300m in revenue for 2025, I’d also expect to see much more from enthusiastic physicians and hospital administrators talking about how the product is making a difference for them compared to the competition. I don’t see any of that. This also makes me wary.

More “yellow flag” material: Their R&D expense for the 9 months ending September 2024 was about $640k, vs about $170k for the prior year 9 mo period. That says to me that their R&D team is just a few people now and a year before that, was more like 1-2 people. For a company developing their own medical device technology, that seems awfully light to me, and makes me wonder how they can have so few people involved in all the aspects of developing a new technology going into the human body.

They also note in their Form 10 that they have not published “any clinical efficacy data from randomized, controlled clinical trials for any of our products,” which is another way of saying that there isn’t strong proof that the product works. They say that they will include that evidence in their filings with CMS for reimbursement status.

Consequently I’m not planning to add to my position until the CMS funding issue is cleared up, which would close the payments concern as well as the scientific validity concern.

ActonUp

29 Likes
9

There is a lot to consider here, for sure.

Wpro101-
“Overall this company has promising growth prospects, strong profitability, and a low valuation. While there are large risks coming with being on the pink sheets, I feel the opportunity here greatly outweighs the risk.”

Obviously WPR101 is correct about the later part of the above statement, in his lead post here. Biostem Technologies does have, ‘strong profitability, and a low valuation’.

I believe the TAM here is large. My having worked in hospitals and understanding that what has been thrown together to promote wound care, over the last 27 years … including the Wound Vac, has not made much difference for the diabetic patients. But before I decide to add to my starter position, of 1.5%, I need to follow up on the first assertion a bit more, ‘Overall this company has promising growth prospects.’. The following is just a little more color on the overall likelyhood of continued adoption.

From the BioStem website
“For all products, follow-up care might be scheduled within 7 to 10 days post-application.”. My back of the napkin math: this means no less than 36:1 fewer labor hours for a wound that takes 12 weeks to close when using any of the BioStem products compared to ‘the standard’ (the standard is a wet to dry dressing that needs to be changed daily for 5 days f/b a dry dressing for the weekend). A hospital is incentivized to keep the status quo, collecting a near 200% margin on the labor, we don’t take home those egregious reimbursement dollars I mentioned above. The incentive for the payers (Medicare and hopefully soon private insurance companies) is to adopt use of a dressing that doesn’t need to be changed as often.
There are some great facts on this link below:
BioStem’s placental allografts are processed utilizing the Company’s proprietary BioREtain® method, which preserves the tissue’s endogenous biological properties while maintaining the structure and matrix found in fresh perinatal tissue. The patented six-step BioREtain® process is gentle, minimally invasive, and preserves the natural integrity of the amniotic tissue/components critical to the wound treatment process. For a full overview of BioREtain, please visit: https://biostemtechnologies.com/our-science/#six-steps.

I found the following assertions by Grok:
The BioStem product VENDAJE AC® is now covered by Medicare for wound care in all Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) regions across the United States.
Also…
…there are products being listed with significant institutions like the U.S. Department of Defense and Veterans’ Administration suggest a growing acceptance and positive user experience in professional environments.

As I understand it, drug regulation focuses heavily on pharmacology and toxicology, while wound care materials emphasize biocompatibility, physical properties, and performance in a specific clinical context. This lower hurdle for use is why many providing wound care services more often than not purchase what ever is asked for by those doing the actual care, Physical Therapists and RNs. We are the cash cows for the Hospitals and they like to keep us happy. Most of us are singularly focused of the best possible outcomes for our patients.

With regulatory hurdles low, many hospitals incorporate similar allograft products into their wound care protocols, often through their tissue banks or in partnership with Biostem and their competitors.

Here’s a list of nine I’ve come across:

  1. MIMEDX Group, Inc.:
  • Known for products like EPIFIX®, EPICORD®, and AXIOFILL®. These are amniotic membrane and umbilical cord allografts used for various wound care applications, including diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, and surgical wounds.
  1. StimLabs LLC:
  • Offers products like Revita and Vialize, which are derived from placental tissue. These are used for a range of conditions from chronic wounds to surgical repairs, focusing on providing a structural matrix for healing.
  1. Organogenesis Inc.:
  • While more known for other products, they have explored placental-derived options like PuraPly AM, which is an amniotic membrane allograft used in advanced wound care.
  1. Amniox Medical, Inc.:
  • Provides Neox® and Clarix®, which are cryopreserved amniotic membranes used in ophthalmology and wound care, respectively, to promote healing by providing a natural tissue barrier.
  1. Skye Biologics:
  • Offers Skye™ Wound Gel, which is a flowable, amnion-derived allograft for wound care, particularly for hard-to-heal wounds.
  1. Human Regenerative Technologies (HRT) LLC:
  • With products like PX50®, they focus on flowable amniotic allografts for minimally invasive treatments of various injuries, including orthopedic uses.
  1. Osiris Therapeutics (now part of Smith & Nephew):
  • Before its acquisition, Osiris was known for Grafix®, a cryopreserved placental membrane used for treating nonhealing wounds.
  1. AlloSource:
  • They produce ProChondrix CR, which isn’t directly for wound care but involves placental tissue for cartilage repair, indicating their experience with placental allografts.
  1. MiMedx (formerly known for AmnioChor):
  • Although primarily known for MIMEDX’s products, they’ve had a history of providing various placental-derived tissue products under different names in the past.

I’m looking into each of the above before I invest any more into Biostem.

Best

Jason

29 Likes
10

Not sure if they are a direct competitor, but I’ve had my eye on Avita Medical ($RCEL); they have a device “RECELL”

From Google AI: RECELL

  • “Uses a patient’s skin to create Spray-On Skin™ Cells to treat burns and skin defects”
  • A small amount of the patient’s skin is used to create Spray-On Skin™ Cells
  • The cells are applied directly to the wound or combined with autografts
  • The cells promote faster healing and reduce scarring

What it’s used for

  • Thermal burn wounds: Deep-partial thickness and full-thickness burns
  • Full-thickness skin defects: Traumatic wounds, surgical wounds, and skin cancer
  • Vitiligo: Stable depigmented vitiligo lesions

Benefits

  • Reduces the amount of donor skin required
  • Improves healing
  • Reduces pain
  • Reduces the length of stay for burns covering less than 50% of the body

Approval

They seem to have a history of over-promising and under-delivering. This past March they had a revenue miss, and they missed again this past September. Then this past Jan 7 they gave upguided guidance that contradicted their narrative from just few weeks prior.

That said, they seem to have a good product and their revenue is growing

–Fiscal quarters, in millions
2022: 7.5, 8.3, 9.1, 9.4
2023: 10.5, 11.6, 13.5, 14.2
2024: 11.1, 15.2, 19.5

I’m monitoring them, but not sure they are worth a whole lot of time unless/until they get a closer grip on their guidance, and return to hitting their estimates.

13 Likes
11

I have been following Avita (RCEL) for literally years. In the recent past, they have definitely missed on guidance. They have FDA approval for a large device RCEL then an automated large device. Recently last year introduced a smaller automated device RCEL Go mini or smaller wounds/burns. This smaller device markedly expands their TAM to other than major burn/trama centers Up to then the current CEO was spot on in guidance/approval dates. They had expected FDA approval in March 2024 and doubled the size of their sales staff in anticipation of the FDA action so they could hit the approval ready to run. The mini is basically a smaller version of the original large automated device, so they contemplated an easy approval. Unfortunately the FDA asked for more data, which delayed the approval until May 31st, 2024. Since then management has had a tough time providing guidance on rolling out their product. Large burn/trama centers who they had as customers go through a VAC process which vettes cost/benefit efficiencies. This process can take 3-6 months to evaluate. Avita’s management has had a tough time anticipating the timing of the VAC approvals by their target customers. Last quarter they blamed the miss on inventory adjustments at year’s end. As you say, they are currently a “show me” stock.

On the positive side they have distributor agreements with 7-8 EU/Scandinavian countries, they acquired distribution rights to 2 adjacent verticals for burns/wounds that gives them 2 items to sell in addition to their RCEL GO and RCEL GO mini. Their devices work. Burn/trauma centers have approved their use at a very high rate (98%) as I recall. Go to Avita’s website to see actual outcomes of their approach. Outcomes are almost miracle like. They are going after the Vitiligo segment next. The holy grail would be for cosmetic applications where a patient’s face could be prepped and spray on skin used to repair sun damage, scarring or acne.

The problem is they are a small company. They estimate profitability by the 4th quarter of 2025. (Again, grain of salt, given recent misses) Anecdotally, their treatment has been used for diabetic long term wounds and even flesh eating bacteria wounds. FDA approvals cost money. I see them as eventually being acquired by a large company that can fund such studies. Even with their misses, they are reporting sales of 30% yoy growth. Their devices are patent protected. Using a credit card size of skin from the patient’s body, the device can treat 80xs that size of burn/wounds.

14 Likes
12

I looked into $RCEL a bit more; in theory there is overlap of their solutions vs. $BSEM but I don’t think they are head-to-head competitors.

For instance, in their 2024 Q4 CC this past Thursday Feb 13 , the CEO said:

“Acute defines the nature of our focus. We treat patients with event-driven injuries, burns, traumatic or surgical wounds, not chronic wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers or pressure sores. Simply put, our patients are victims of severe unexpected accidents or events like car crashes, industrial fires or traumatic burns.”

$RCEL treats “full thickness” wounds, meaning wounds in which all of the skin is gone. There are several problems with Full Thickness wounds:

  1. Highly susceptible to infection and re-infection, because there is lots of surface area for bacteria to attack and because the long time it takes them to heal means more exposure to bacteria
  2. Connective tissue “structural integrity” that is required for a wound to heal is all gone; in Full Thickness wounds there is no structure upon which new cells can attach.

$RCEL now has three products:

RECELL / RECELL GO / RECELL GO Mini
Three versions of the same device. Utilizes a very small amount of patient donor skin cells to make a spray; the spray contains live skin cells and is applied to the wound. This causes the wound to heal everywhere-at-once instead of just/only starting from the perimeter. Dramatically reduces healing time. As far as I can tell, this is a 100% unique product. It is used in conjunction with skin grafts. (…But you can’t get to the stage of using RECELL or skin grafts unless/until the necessary "structure’ is back in place in the wound…that’s what their next product, Cohealyx, is for…). RECELL GO added automation of some of the steps; RECELL GO MINI is for smaller wounds.

Cohealyx
A “dermal matrix”. Dermal Matrices solve the problem of lack of structure in a “full thickness” wound. They are constructed of biological material (collagen for example) in a sheet format that is used to cover the wound. The dermal matrix provides an interim structure that the body utilizes as a sort of scaffolding. Cohealyx is unique because unlike any other dermal matrix, it slowly absorbs/dissolves into the wound. This means Cohealyx never has to be replaced! Other dermal matrices DO have to be replaced; the replacement procedure undoes some of the healing and presents an opportunity for re-infection.

"In a validated porcine model, our preclinical work demonstrated that when Cohealyx is used as a dermal matrix on a large wound, it is ready for grafting in just seven days, compared to 12 to 21 days for alternative dermal matrices in the studies. This faster readiness translates directly to shorter hospital stays, reduced cost and better patient outcomes. "

And:

"The medical community has already started to recognize Cohealyx as a game changer in the treatment of acute wounds. According to our treating physician, not only does Cohealyx reduce the amount of time a patient spends in the hospital, but he believes that it will allow physicians to treat more patients because of how easy it was to use in the operating room.

And:

"Quite honestly, this outcome is a turning point for AVITA Medical and a breakthrough in acute wound care, setting a new standard for treating and healing severe injuries while lowering the cost of care, shortening the time for patients to return home. "

PermeaDerm
Used to cover the wound to protect it; it is a “temporary biosynthetic dressing” that can be used in multiple stages of wound care. “It is porous, facilitating airflow to the wound to promote healing while enabling exudate drainage.” It is flexible. And, notably, it is transparent: “Its transparent cover allows clinicians to monitor the skin graft healing progress without disturbing it rather than lifting or removing the dressing, which can potentially disrupt the graft. Practitioners have a clear view of the progress, making it uniquely effective.”

–Fiscal quarters, in millions
2022: (total: 34.3): 7.5, 8.3, 9.1, 9.4
2023: (total: 49.2): 10.5, 11.6, 13.5, 14.2
2024: (total: 64.2 ): 11.1, 15.2, 19.5, 18.4

YOY 2023 growth about 49%
YOY 2024 growth about 30%

In this last CC they said the kinks in RECELL consumables inventory are mostly worked out now, and they have a clear path forward to launching Cohealyx, they are “committed to generating free cash flow in the second half of the year and achieving GAAP profitability during Q4 of 2025”.

And they say that they started 2024 with a $500M TAM from RECELL, and by the end of 2024 the addition of RECELL GO, RECELL GO mini, PermeaDerm and Cohealyx took them from a $500 million TAM with a single product focused solely on burn centers to a $3.5 billion TAM in therapeutic acute wound care across both burns and trauma centers. So my view is they are confident they will accelerate revenue.

Despite the sequential quarterly decrease in revenue and the missed estimate, the market liked the 2024 Q4 print this past Thursday; by market close on Friday their stock had gone up 20% and that held in after-hours.

I had started a 1.5% position a few days before the CC, woot :slight_smile:

8 Likes