Some of the OG Amedica team that's gone now was saying this from the start, especially after the IPO flop.
Some of the OG Amedica team that's gone now was saying this from the start, especially after the IPO flop.
Why is everything based off one study anyways? And that study showed it had similar outcomes, not better.
The FDA had inquiries regarding the firm’s CASCADE trial, a study which compared the 24-month outcomes from the C+Csc implant. The agency had questions about the outcomes at earlier time points. In November 2016 the FDA declined to award 510(k) clearance for Valeo C+Csc.
The FDA had inquiries regarding the firm’s CASCADE trial, a study which compared the 24-month outcomes from the C+Csc implant. The agency had questions about the outcomes at earlier time points. In November 2016 the FDA declined to award 510(k) clearance for Valeo C+Csc.
Fusion was on par with AUTOGRAFT. There isnt anything on market that fuses as fast as the patients own bone.
PROFIT MARGIN: FAIL
This methodology seeks companies with a minimum trailing 12 month after tax profit margin of 7%. The companies that pass this criterion have strong positions within their respective industries and offer greater shareholder returns. A true test of the quality of a company is that they can sustain this margin. AMDA's profit margin of -91.52% fails this test.
RELATIVE STRENGTH: FAIL
The investor must look at the relative strength of the company in question. Companies whose relative strength is 90 or above (that is, the company outperforms 90% or more of the market for the past year), are considered attractive. Companies whose price has been rising much quicker than the market tend to keep rising. AMDA, with a relative strength of 6, fails this test.
COMPARE SALES AND EPS GROWTH TO THE SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR: FAIL
Companies must demonstrate both revenue and net income growth of at least 25% as compared to the prior year. These growth rates give you the dynamic companies that you are looking for. These rates for AMDA (-79.28% for EPS, and -30.17% for Sales) are not good enough to pass.
INSIDER HOLDINGS: FAIL
AMDA's insiders ownership is not available at the current time. Insiders of a company should own at least 15% of the outstanding shares. A high percentage typically indicates that the insiders are confident that the company will do well.
CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS: FAIL
A positive cash flow is typically used for internal expansion, acquisitions, dividend payments, etc. A company that generates rather than consumes cash is in much better shape to fund such activities on their own, rather than needing to borrow funds to do so. AMDA's free cash flow of $-2.06 per share fails this test.
PROFIT MARGIN CONSISTENCY: FAIL
The profit margin in the past must be consistently increasing. The profit margin of AMDA has been inconsistent in the past three years (Current year: -122.93%, Last year: -143.15%, Two years ago: -37.16%), which is unacceptable. This inconsistency will carryover directly to the company's bottom line, or earnings per share.
This methodology seeks companies with a minimum trailing 12 month after tax profit margin of 7%. The companies that pass this criterion have strong positions within their respective industries and offer greater shareholder returns. A true test of the quality of a company is that they can sustain this margin. AMDA's profit margin of -91.52% fails this test.
RELATIVE STRENGTH: FAIL
The investor must look at the relative strength of the company in question. Companies whose relative strength is 90 or above (that is, the company outperforms 90% or more of the market for the past year), are considered attractive. Companies whose price has been rising much quicker than the market tend to keep rising. AMDA, with a relative strength of 6, fails this test.
COMPARE SALES AND EPS GROWTH TO THE SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR: FAIL
Companies must demonstrate both revenue and net income growth of at least 25% as compared to the prior year. These growth rates give you the dynamic companies that you are looking for. These rates for AMDA (-79.28% for EPS, and -30.17% for Sales) are not good enough to pass.
INSIDER HOLDINGS: FAIL
AMDA's insiders ownership is not available at the current time. Insiders of a company should own at least 15% of the outstanding shares. A high percentage typically indicates that the insiders are confident that the company will do well.
CASH FLOW FROM OPERATIONS: FAIL
A positive cash flow is typically used for internal expansion, acquisitions, dividend payments, etc. A company that generates rather than consumes cash is in much better shape to fund such activities on their own, rather than needing to borrow funds to do so. AMDA's free cash flow of $-2.06 per share fails this test.
PROFIT MARGIN CONSISTENCY: FAIL
The profit margin in the past must be consistently increasing. The profit margin of AMDA has been inconsistent in the past three years (Current year: -122.93%, Last year: -143.15%, Two years ago: -37.16%), which is unacceptable. This inconsistency will carryover directly to the company's bottom line, or earnings per share.
Hearing deal fell through with zimmer only willing to go as high as $96.7 million after backing out compensation for insiders. Amedica wanted an even $120 million. Long road to bringing the tech to the market but it is possible and should be interesting to see how they do.
That explains the need for more money at Amedica. Didn't know it was this bad.
To this all i have to say is BS .
http://www.amedica.com/news-media/p...edica-signs-exclusive-chinese-silicon-nitride
That Chinese info is a year and a half old now.....there is nothing new to see, only the fact it is doing nothing in USA for you.
Takes time for clearance especially when a trial is required.
heard the same thing, Zimmer not going over 100.
It is pretty obvious now that everyone is waiting for Amedica to be Delisted so they can be acquired for pennies on the dollar. If you stop drinking the Amedica koolaid for a second and look what's really going on, it's a flat out mess from the outside looking in.
http://investors.amedica.com/press-...a-announces-adjournment-of-special-meeting-of
Uh oh... "A description of those risks can be found in Amedica's Risk Factors disclosure in its Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 23, 2016, and in Amedica's other filings with the SEC."
Isn't this the same report that's currently MISSING?? Nothing annual about amedicas 10k form. They want us to view an old one for risks?? A NO Vote from lots of us coming.
Uh oh... "A description of those risks can be found in Amedica's Risk Factors disclosure in its Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on March 23, 2016, and in Amedica's other filings with the SEC."
Isn't this the same report that's currently MISSING?? Nothing annual about amedicas 10k form. They want us to view an old one for risks?? A NO Vote from lots of us coming.
Markets telling us the direction its heading...to porous interbody devices. Zimmer has one in TM Ardis but performance isn't great. Is it that much of a stretch to think that Zimmer signed the Letter of Intent with Amedica in 2015 to develop a Si3N4 version of Ardis?
Nuvasive announcement of its acquisition of Vertera Spine just further validates the desire to goto porous implants.
https://www.nuvasive.com/news/nuvasive-announces-acquisition-vertera-spine/
Nuvasive announcement of its acquisition of Vertera Spine just further validates the desire to goto porous implants.
https://www.nuvasive.com/news/nuvasive-announces-acquisition-vertera-spine/
Be nice to read that letter. Maybe Zimmer was just slowing Amedica down so they could make their own product. Wouldn't be the first time it's happened. Like the IPO mess, possibly signing with Zimmer in 2015 was another horrible decision this company has made. A few years later and nothing still from Amedica, yet Zimmer isn't losing market share.
The PR is linked here. Zimmers has a measly 6% market share in spine. Lots of room to grow. LDR boost revenue but has been flat since acquisition.
Zimmer is also working with Amedica on hip just like this anonymous poster said they would 6 years ago. This has also been linked here.
http://spineblogger.blogspot.com/2011/05/whos-next.html?m=1
A hip is years away still if that's even happening. Nothing's been filed with the FDA, that's gonna take a long time once it starts. Problem with that is Amedica might not a company by then, things are falling apart internally as you can see with current issues with FDA and SEC.
Who do you think that strategic partner is going to be working with them on knee? The same company working with them on hip!