(As I keep on saying, and having to say since it is cheerfully ignored), the commercialisation barriers for the battery space are VERY different to diagnostics. The reason is the regulatory cost of change.
In the diagnostics space there are immense regulatory costs (to prove testing is accurate and reliable and safe) which (naively, or recklessly depending on your viewpoint) a previous CEO and a CFO somehow imagined would be funded by the purchaser. For years they imagined this. We believed them.
This is why diagnostic purchasers were so thin on the ground. (Still are).
Basic. Strategic. Error.
This material difference in the different spaces about barriers to adoption makes this ann much more market sensitive. IMO.
Meanwhile, who is spamming? The person who says it's just same old same old, or the person who is trying to explain it's not same old same old and why?
As investors we have to be agile, get away from fixations and appreciate what a material difference is.
From being overblown with misplaced enthusiasm and hope in the diagnostics space, we now can't seem to get excited about anything in an entirely different space, with nothing like the regulatory barriers.
This changes the commercial realities. I do wish we could drop the emotion (I'm weary, I'm cynical, oh not another access/confidentiality agreement, yawn etc) because it's holding us back.
Meanwhile I'm hoping the new Chairman has a LOT of strategic smarts, because being local won't count for much if he or she doesn't have that much.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
