Member Info for cromer

Re Footnote on page 15: "* IBA’s Superconducting Synchro-Cyclotron,S2C2, is under development. The marketing approval will be subject to review by competent authorities Notified bodies, et al…)." “Any links to up-to-date progress on that? Beware of conflating sales of outdated tech with glossy brochures of development technology.” Well there's a status report in this link saying “Shipment of cyclotron to Nice March 2014 “, so I'd expect it to have regulatory approval by now, even if not in mass production. https://indico.cern.ch/event/286275/contributions/651650/attachments/531390/732777/Part-4.pdf “Absolutely nothing in that brochure which states how fast the energy switching is on that Synchro-Cyclotron. If it can approach 5ms then it might actually be a competitor to LIGHT. “ Hospitals aren't going to choose just on the basis of particular technicalities. “Just to hammer that home, homer, here's a link to IBA news from June 2016 heralding their latest installation in Miami. "https://iba-worldwide.com/content/220-ton-breakthrough-cancer-care-arrives-miami-cancer-institute" 220 ton. $430 Million facility. Let that sink in. “ I guess there's a waiting list for one of the cheap compact systems, and AVO's system is hardly ready to roll! Mevion's compact system is $25-35 m, Varian's $25m. Let that sink in.

presumably not the c 90% of hospitals who even AVO admits are likely to be choose one of their competitors' systems."  “Where does that come from? AVO's figures are based on 10% market penetration, sure. Do they say ANYWHERE that they think 90% of people will chose another suppler? If you think those two things equate then really there is very little hope for you my friend. “ Yes my friend, the two do equate – the one entails the other. If you're thinking of supply shortage precluding effective choice AVO could easily license out production if demand was much higher than anticipated.

“Not really David, I just object to folk who compare apples to pears and then say that one of them is an inferior or pointless option. “ I haven't claimed that it's inferior – though there's a risk that it won't be as reliable as established cyclotron systems – just that it's not superior enough to warrant its development costs considering its likely small market share. And not necessary to 'save the children etc', when bulls use that pitch. which as far as i have seen has not been mentioned or covered... which to me is indicative of the poor quality of the market research by certain posters on this board.  “Varian Medical also have a super conducting cyclotron …..” Ha! Why the hell should I do a whole market research report when citing one or two examples was quite adequate. to show that AVO 's competition wouldn't just be with expensive football pitch sized machines the company and rampers love to cite.

“trying to undermine the efforts of company whose technology some of us may indeed relay on to save our lives”  Do spare us that old line. If I ever need proton therapy I won't expect to die if my local hospital is one of those which has opted for some other supplier – or if AVO's particular system never makes it to market. Actually I might die one day because of some cancer treatment that might have been developed if the market had diverted its limited resources to that instead of the slightly 'better mousetrap' technology of AVO's. What silly comparisons? Don't tell me that you STILL think that when IBA indicated the size of its new compact machine by telling us it was the size of 2 typical LINACS that I was making a silly comparison by helpfully giving a link to what those sizes were . If they'd given it as the size of 2 dialysis machines or 2 snooker tables and I'd looked up that size I expect you'd be howling that it was a silly comparison! Same with the Chinese paper issue – far from making a silly comparison, someone else had posted the link and I was obviously – to any sensible reader - dismissing it as an irrelevance! THREE times recently, including your paranoia about thinking you were being got at rather than me, you've grossly misinterpreted what you read. And yes indeed, enough of this folly.

david - how refreshing, and what a rarity to see a poster like you on the board ! Yes - one its main wool-pullings has been inviting comparison to an old generation of cyclotrons (huge, heavy, inferior) rather than the competition that it will actually be facing. I'm busy tonight but I'll get back to (/at :-) the others later. Regards

the fact you push forward the Chinese paper as some sort of competition demonstrates your a BS'er” 938 Mev - you have a remarkable habit of getting hold of the wrong end of the stick, as with the recent farce with your fellow bulls who you thought were targeting you rather than me. When I wrote “ Never mind that Chinese paper - the compact systems from IBA/Mevion could do so easily imo. “ How the heck can you interpret that as me pushing the paper forward ! I was obviously dismissing it as an irrelevance to the new systems already on the market. I wonder how you'll interpret THIS post. The mind boggles – perhaps you'll think I'm accusing you of being Chinese!

I suppose with you that I'd better explain and not expect you to see your misinterpretation on any re-reading. "Show recommended vault sizes for low energy linacs, not super conducting cyclotrons" When giving the size of their footprint it was exactly those low energy linacs they were referencing as a guide - hence my link. Re your misunderstandings generally, see my next post on a different thread from a few days ago.

938 - your frequent misunderstandings are really quite something. Worrying really.

So I reckon about 44 foot L by 20 foot W by 10 foot H. Not much compared to the Harley St development of 11 - 15 000 sq ft. Ok may be you need a crane to lift the cyclotron or gantry into place, but who cares when the units cost $20m or so - presumably not the c 90% of hospitals who even AVO admits are likely to be choose one of their competitors' systems.

The link to that fact sheet .. https://iba-worldwide.com/sites/protontherapy/files/media_document/proteusone_fact_sheet.pdf

They don't do so specifically, but as with the old football pitch analogy it suits them for investors to think that all their competitors including Mevion use giant cyclotrons. Look at the picture of the on p17 on IBA's fact sheet for its Proteus system ..and what they say on the left of that ... "In many areas, size matters. This is particularly true in a high-tech medical facility where every square foot is invaluable. There is a common misconception that proton therapy requires a large — and costly — facility in which to operate. As a consequence, too many facility executives look at the space and capital they have available and quickly deem a proton center to be impossible. The IBA team has worked relentlessly to prove this belief to be false. The result is ProteusONE: a proton therapy solution with a footprint limited to the size of two typical linac vaults." For the size of 2 such vaults see.. https://www.oncologysystems.com/radiation-therapy/linear-accelerators/linear-accelerator-vault-dimensions.php

938Mev "I also believe that as the availability of Proton beam therapy increases so will the number of patients, the reason not many cancers qualify clinically is because of the cost of sending patients overseas, if consultants can treat their patients in the UK and near to their homes at a fraction of the cost then clinical indications for proton therapy will naturally increase" The cost etc is irrelevant to what I quoted from Cancer Research uk ie "One of the companies has already said they believe that as many as 10 per cent of patients who currently receive radiotherapy should get proton beam therapy. This is well above the NHS’s estimates, and there’s no evidence to back this up." The company was talking about patient suitability , regardless of current costs. "there is no chance the current technology could be installed into a Harley Street Clinic otherwise it would have been done already. " Never mind that Chinese paper - the compact systems from IBA/Mevion could do so easily imo. - see my next post. Rest of your post just old waffle

938Mev "AVO's LIGHT technology provides this hope." So too do its competitors - with proven and perfectly adequate systems.

Phil, the wild figures bandied around assume wholesale replacement of conventional radiotherapy with pbt. That isn't currently considered likely by independent sources eg some quotes from http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/07/16/proton-beam-therapy-where-are-we-now/ "Another crucial question is whether some patients shouldn’t be treated with proton beam therapy, because conventional radiotherapy may be just as (or even more) effective for their type of cancer. Proton therapy won’t be suitable for everyone, and it won’t replace conventional radiotherapy." "One of the companies has already said they believe that as many as 10 per cent of patients who currently receive radiotherapy should get proton beam therapy. This is well above the NHS’s estimates, and there’s no evidence to back this up."

and before LIGHT has been built, proved to be reliable and with regulatory approval, it beats me why any hospital would want to place a firm order when they can get a compact, perfectly adequate and well proven one from Mevion/ IBA/maybe Hitachi. As part of its PR spin I think AVO has encouraged its investors to think of a binary divide between heavy giant cyclotrons and their LIGHT machine. Don't fall for it – their relevant competition now is with compact superconductor synchro-cyclotrons. Recall my recent posts about 90% of hospitals choosing competitor systems even in 10 years time. (If it ever gets to market). That alone should make you question the alleged superiority of LIGHT.

"Money is made in growth stocks on earnings surprises - something that FEVR has consistently provided to date" Historically it has on the updates between full reports, but it's always fallen short of broker forecasts on publication of actual yearly reports. Eg last year 11.48 actual compared to 12.6p consensus forecast, and in 2014 2.2 actual compared to 6.5p consensus. (Mouse over the earnings bars in that ft link). Therefore I think it's rather unsafe to reckon on the forecasts being too pessimistic. Imo they need to be wildly out to make this share reasonable value. Ta civilised reply

After the results the house broker has raised this year's earnings forecast from 7.1 p to just 7.42 p, and just 7.93 p for 2018. For such mediocre growth rates the forward price earnings ratios make this share terrible value compared to other growth stocks.

The consensus broker forecast is for earnings to slow TO about 10% next year - from 18.44 p to 20.54 p. http://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/forecasts?s=FEVR:LSE A forward PE of about 50 is utterly crap value compared to other growth stocks - about 22 would be typical for 10% forecast growth.

The broker earnings forecast is 4.98p. A price earnings ratio of 40.96 at the current sp , compared to a sector average of 22.98 !

I've just closed my short here at 12.77 (opened at c 16p). Still think it's way overpriced but good luck all of you.