The fact that he was there that long ... that speaks to his own expectation that Pure EP was developing an innovation. If the hardware delivered on that prospect (and I think it did), I'd have to ask him and find out why he left. Clashes on the carpet are not rare.
I've argued with CEOs who, the next day or after a weekend, call me back and ask that I go over the concepts, step by step, once again. I've actually heard "that I should be grateful" that they are willing to hear what I propose. My response was logic, not snarky: if I thought that you cannot take the time to listen to a viable alterative, I would not be here in the first place.
For my BSGM thesis, I depended upon the literature and listened to the clinicians from the two Mayos (Rochester and Mayo), from South Bend and Austin. I don't think they are lying because they were paid to lie. I really do have a distaste for "honorarium" in its various forms. I also consider that BSGM's unblinded data was meaningful. "You cannot fix what you cannot see." What a great quote.
Who knows, it makes some sense that maybe hospitals are intent upon building back their balance sheets, post-Covid and facing labor shortages and a ramp-up in costs.
Perhaps some might prefer Afib call-backs because they generate key, high profits? Tightening cash flow and shoe-horning priority to high margin is survival. (EP is, according to data released, third-party high margin remuneration).
I'll give BSGM until year-end. At a buck and change, not much to lose, hammered with all of biotech. For an independent view of the market, read:
Note from the article that leader Abbott took an 8% sales dive in 2020. Are they all fighting hard back? The fourteen EP suppliers would probably prefer that BSGM would disappear. Is the POC of renal ablation :: blood pressure complete?