London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Don’t reply to Gwood he talks utter nonsense. Anyway more breaking news.
Could it be DVRG input
Broker note from April 26:
"Through its highly scalable and robust genome sequencing database, which is supported by proprietary software and artificial intelligence (‘AI’), the Company already partners with 50 of the world’s largest cosmetic and skincare companies. "
Gwoods, I bet you're gutted when your car passes it's MOT. I can picture you arguing with the mechanic.
The financials prove your point. O wait, they dont!
I'm feel for you, that must be one of the weakest, most lame, responses I've had the misfortune to read. Muggy would be appalled.
It deserves no reply, can't do it, nope. Too much.
Let's say you have 30 cosmetic companies they work with. Thats 100k each a year. Terrible for a company that is supposed to be so high tech.
"Only one of those companies r&d expenses are in the 10s of millions each"
What does that have to with the price of fish? Anything?
Estée Lauder, Unilever alone are monsters, massive companies, how is their R&D spend remotely relevant? I'll tell you, help you out....it isn't.
The rat the ramper.
Only one of those companies r&d expenses are in the 10s of millions each. Labskin made 3m last year. And that's not ramping.
Give me a break!
I reported the muppet Rat.
This person continually ignores reasonable debated points, and insists on bullying people around demonstrably factual, established points. In this instance, he implies the company is being untruthful about its involvement with 18 companies involved in healthcare. The company has established contracts for lab services in place, yielding revenue with these companies..... He turns up to misinform, disrupt, de-ramp. He's not a shareholder, he's a manipulator.
GWoods. Are you smoking something strange? What’s the matter with you? Deramping is one thing, but get your facts right. You’re a joke.
DavidLaw, I fear you are wasting your time. You are either dealing with an individual that is simply dishonest, or so stupid that are incapable of carrying out the most basic of research:
#Labskin clients now (" These) include the likes of Estée Lauder, Unilever and L’Occitane – and that’s just the start of a long list.”
3:56 pm · 19 Oct 2020·
Name one wastewater plant working with DV on this covid project? Again nothing to say?
Name one company with retrofitting done? No, nothing?
Name one cosmetic company they work with?
Thats my point.
Gwoods, I'm not missing the trends at all, I see them clearly.
It's a recent fact they have 18 of the top 20 skincare companies as clients, that's great news, it's because they significantly improved the Labskin service (went from a basic cloned skin service at low cost to one backed by AI, a full service at higher cost) and Skin Trust Club microbiome data feeds into this new service.
All that microbiome data has value to skincare companies performing clinical trials, they can pre-test new formulas via Skinlab to rule out bad formulations before spending big on clinical trials. They will also be able to analyse how a formulation impacted the microbiome and use it in marketing rather than the usual 68 out of 78 women said their skin felt better blah...
If you don't see this, you are missing the obvious reason why Skin Trust Club is so valuable long-term. Direct revenue from users of Skin Trust Club, indirect revenue selling the microbiome data to Labskin clients for virtual clinical trials etc... the latter has the potential to make more HIGH margin revenue than the former.
Have to say that's the first time I've seen someone try to spin really good news (18/20 top skin companies as clients) as bad news, very strange. Now they are adding the top 30, top 40, top 50 companies as clients, is that also bad news? I'm sure you are aware there are hundreds of skincare companies and between them they create thousands of new products which require testing.
Urggh! hadn't realised whilst writing that, the GWoods/Muggins crew had arrived for some concerted de-ramping.....geez.
great contributions. Thank you. Really well-rounded overview and so much more detail than I could either be bothered to collate or find the time to write.
To add to the why/utility element of STC. Dermatologists are to some degree limited in what they can achieve from inspection/observation; it is not possible to account for genetic heritage/undiagnosed allergen sensitivity/non beneficial bacterial contamination from mere observation, all of which I believe can be encompassed in the STC sampling; this why DVRG are receiving interest from dermatologists, it gives them access to an additional, useful diagnostic tool with demonstrable utility.
Ingredients in many cosmetics, both natural and synthetic, can have a significant deleterious effect on skin health (especially true of cheaper formulations) as can elements (favoured by ladies in particular)such as perfumes, as an example.
In years gone by, many ostensibly 'high-end' cosmetics companies produced products laced with perfumes, both synthetic and natural and called their so-called products claimed to be hypo-allergenic; they regularly had customers complaining bitterly that their expensive product had caused all manner of problems; acne; rashes etc
Lanolin is a common low-cost ingredient that many skins fail to tolerate; people use these products for years, flopping around from one inappropriate product to another, not understanding what is at the root of their problem.
This then (hopefully) gives you a little insight into the potential utility of the product STC is offering to the lay person; It facilitates you making better choices in selecting skin care products that exclude the ingredients that the science says you should avoid, for your particular skin type and microbiome makeup.
Hope that illuminates things for ya!
Sometimes you've just got to tell them to F uc k Off!
I said medical service.
I also said "implicitly".
It is not being marketed as a medical device.
Your missing the trends.
Why do they have skinstust. Because they ran out of top 20 cosmetic companies to sign on. ( never who or what)
You prep for a year to launch skintrust, but don't have the equipment to quickly scale up? Because the financials came out and they are horrible. Look to the future if we scale up to 1m samples a day we can make billions.
Its always look to the future with DV. Until it comes and they are on to the next big thing!
"I read that as you believed they needed a beautician to understand the results, which isn't the case"
I think it was just a misunderstanding then. I'm 90% sure it was Gerard Brandon who first suggested, in a recent video, the ability for customers to send the data to their beautician using their smartphone. That's why I thought it was a major selling point.
It's good to hear that some people have seen a benefit from it. But anecdotal evidence of the service's benefits from a few shareholders only goes part of the way to overcoming my doubts. If it's being marketed, either directly or implicitly, as a medical service I'd like to see some trial data proving it works.
HelloSanDiego, you said "What I got was that people are expected to pay £25 a month for a test that gives them some details about their skin 'biome', which can then be passed to their beautician. The implication is that it will somehow make them look better".
I read that as you believed they needed a beautician to understand the results, which isn't the case. Skin Trust Club have a database of products they recommend based on results, so the users doesn't need anyone to analyse the results, they just need the app. However dermatologists etc... are seeing the value in what the app offers and can use that to help their clients with skin problems.
- Does that info actually offer the customer any benefit?
In theory yes, it's a new service, time will tell if people find benefit from the app. You'll see a few here have used the service and say it's useful.
- Are the products it recommends really any better for them?
- Would their money be better spent with a dermatologist?
Depends on the individual and skin issues. Would you see a dermatologist for minor skin issues or because you just wanted to get the best out of your 'normal' skin?
- Is there any reason why the established cosmetics brands haven't been doing this for years if the info is potentially so valuable?
Someone has to do it first and Labskin have been building their microbiome database for over a decade, that's a big hurdle to leap over for a new entry.
- L'Oreal is worth over €200bn. Why didn't they buy Integumen if there's so much potential there?
You can make that argument for lots of things, why didn't Pfizer buy BioNTech BEFORE they created a groundbreaking Covid vaccine? Why didn't Microsoft buy ZOOM (competitor to MS Teams) before the pandemic and loads of people started using ZOOM? Why didn't a company like SKY buy Netflix before it grew so large?
Gwoods, that's rubbish, Skin Trust Club roll out wasn't a bust, they are just starting the service after beta testing.
Did you expect £millions in revenue from a brand new service from day 1 BEFORE they had the staff to handle the tens of thousands of swabs etc... a month?
Potential revenue from 20,000 swabs a month is £18m per year (assuming £75 per swab). That's the capacity they are aiming for in the UK by the end of this year.
According to https://www.**********.co.uk/rns/announcement/8408c738-7051-48ab-88e3-cfb7b1de4949/ their max capacity to end of June was 5,000 (I'm assuming monthly???). At £75 per swab that's £375k in revenue per month, IF running at full capacity it's £2.25m in revenue between June 1st and December 31st.
Takes time to build a business, some of the recent cash is for ramping up the Skin Trust Club service, takes labspace and manpower to process thousands of swabs a month.
Why would they be ramping up ability to test up to 20,000 swabs per month in the UK and 20,000 in the US and 20,000 in China by end of 2022 if the service was already a bust?
We can't judge Skin Trust Club at this stage (it's like a new startup), going to be at least another year before we know if it's gained and maintained traction.