Creo Medical Share Price (CREO)

Not clear what you mean by "acquisition based turnover" Redduke. Last year most of the revenue was attributed to major purchase Albyn, but they were acquired nearly two years ago now, and there have been other acquisitions. Difficult to strip out every acquisition and account separately, since most of them will be rapidly integrated. Anyway, it all counts, and if an acquisition is earnings enhancing, that's sound business. The revenue "surge" is promising, and plenty of good looking growth numbers, but the loss continues to increase, so once again, it's jam tomorrow folks. Market seems to like it though, probably impressed by the robots.

It is underhand to compare this years FY sales inclusive of acquisition based turnover vs last year which is excludes it.
This is why like for like or inorganic and organic comparisons need to be used in accounting standards.

Management are supposedly pursuing partnerships as well as acquisitions, but the market clearly lacks confidence in the strategy.

The latest trading statement said "Revenue from the Company's core Creo product portfolio is growing and is in-line with management's cumulative revenue forecasts at the time of IPO in December 2016." That sounds convoluted. It comes across as if they are having to aggregate 6 years worth of revenue in order to find something positive to say? I can't find any such forecast so it is not clear what this statement actually means (if anything). IIRC last years revenue from core products was the first ever anyway, so "growth" from such a small base is meaningless until they put actual numbers on it. In all likelihood it's going to be modest.

It is a worry that the SP has drifted so far South and there are a few things that do concern me. Creo is first and foremost a technology company. Amongst the management there is very little what I would call true sales and production expertise, people who have dedicated their life to mass manufacturing surgical instruments or marketing to GP's, hospitals, consultants. Mars is the perfect company. It has a modest office just off a roundabout on the A3 and all it does is manage a load of outsourcing contracts and patrol quality and cost. It does not manufacture, it does not market, it does not distribute. And why would it? There are people out there and that's all they do. Creo have gone for what I think is an outdated and scrappy approach. They are trying to do everything themselves with some expertise bought in (expensively) through acquisition. Undoubtedly they are going to make a lot of mistakes and incur considerable delays with this approach. The published sales figures are flattering because they are not core sales. There are too many lightweight hangers on, some of them incredibly well paid. I don't like the acquisitions personally and in a Covid year where lots of plans had to be put on hold the remuneration committee thought it was fair and reasonable to pay the main men a bonus of 75% of salary for doing there job and because of the brilliant acquisitions a transactional bonus of 100% of salary in cash plus a further bonus of 100% of salary in share options. So in a pretty lousy year Craig Gulliford takes home his £280,000 salary and £770,000 bonus and Han**** and Rees not far behind him. Total bonuses over 1.0% of market cap! I sold out the major part of my shareholding at an average just under £2.00 but sadly I have a big chunk still left and I really don't like the direction the company has taken the last 24 months. I think they need a new dynamic been there done that chairman with the skill to get the company back on track, take what I believe are genuinely outstanding products, outsource, get the real sales going, harness the technology before it is outdated and something even better comes along...from someone else.

True machiismo. With revenue ahead of targets and a marked SP spike, it looked like the tide had turned, but two months later that now looks like a blip. The long decline started more than a year ago and the SP has more than halved.

Although revenue is rising, it doesn't seem to be fast enough for the market, with losses still forecast for the foreseeable future. The products look like winners, eventually, but investors have already waited 'long term' to glimpse breakeven. The company dutifully talks about commercialisation, and has taken significant steps to achieve that, but investors want to see more visibility on the likely proximity of a breakeven point. At present it is opaque, and there may be a suspicion that management still seem far more interested in the technology than financial health?

Optimists might view the most recent numbers as indicating the mere foothills of a steep revenue hike which is likely to continue for years, coupled with an increasingly attractive entry point, but they probably need a couple more outstanding sets of results to convince the market it is finally happening.