MSTR - Again, it boils down to what Medizone's value proposition is. If they want to sell a machine and some consumables and make a margin over cost, then, the more efficient AS is, the smaller the market in terms of application frequency and hence, the number of machines needed. In this scenario, shareholders won't make much.
Alternatively, if the value proposition is based upon the reduction in HAIs and associated costs, and these costs are reasonably well documented, MZEI could price its units or service on some formula of cost savings. The development and buy-in of the formula approach requires MZEI to be able to demonstrate facility-wide reduction in HAI efficacy and as we all know, testing at this level hasn't been done.
All we have heard about pricing is ancient; a price in the range of $125K for the machines and who knows what for the chemicals/bar code. This price was supposed to be based upon being 1/6th or 1/7th the cost of HAIs (how that was determined 3-4 years ago is anyone's guess). What pricing elasticity analysis was done to determine pricing is likewise unknown.
Your thought process is aligned with both MZEI's intended market (customers need to know their expected ROI) and the market for MZEI's shares (shareholders need a reasoned basis for forecasting EPS).
It is my expectation that Ed won't be determining the desired metrics. My sense is that MZEI wants to get the AS units into ANY hospital facility so as to demonstrate efficacy. The real pulling in terms of economic modeling will be left for the suitor. Just because MZEI may sell AS on the cheap to get things started, doesn't mean that the suitor will maintain the pricing policy MZEI establishes. The risk here is that Ed get's too many 'agreements' in place that tie the hands of suitors and potentially reduces buyout valuations. Due to the lack of economic data, the only way that shareholders can be comfortable that we will get a decent deal is if there are multiple bidders for MZEI as MZEI lacks the data to justify a valuation.
