Astute observers of human nature know that people generally, and rightly so, require sufficiently strong evidence or proof before believing or relying upon stated accomplishments. In many cases, particularly where legal or regulatory requirements restrict open communication, people are left in a position of uncertainty. That is why trusted sources of information are so important, and why the erosion of trust engendered by agenda-driven, social media-promoted viewpoints is so corrosive to society’s underlying fabric of trust.
Over a period of many months, we here at themoneynarrative have noted to what extent certain investors are frustrated by a perceived lack of progress by RHT.V, despite apparent evidence to the contrary. This frustration has, in certain quarters, tipped over into distrust for management pronouncements and projections, notwithstanding that the latter are clearly aspirational.
We too wish that quicker progress might be made, but we are not convinced that RHT.V’s business development plan is flawed. Sure, there have been mistakes along the way, but that is to be expected with any issuer, and particularly an early-stage issuer.
Lest readers jump to the conclusion that we are simply defending RHT.V management, we are very pleased to be in a position to report that a trusted contact has taken proactive steps to investigate RHT.V’s current situation with the parties that are best positioned to reveal it: their customers.
As investigative reporters and detectives know, people love to talk, it being in mankind’s nature to feel important when knowing something that others do not, and to demonstrate this by sharing it. That is why so many news stories begin with a statement like “from sources not authorized to comment publicly” or words to this effect.
Before reporting our contact’s findings, they have required that we advise readers as follows:
- All Reliq Health client contacts were anonymous, positioned as potential client inquiries seeking feedback regarding the client experience with the company;
- Information gathered was from qualified and knowledgeable individuals within the Reliq Health client organization;
- The sample size, while relatively small, reflects, in our view, the breadth of Reliq Health clients both in terms of the nature of their business and their geographic location;
- No inducements of any nature were offered, and information gathered was offered by Reliq Health client representatives voluntarily and willingly;
- We will not reveal Reliq Health client contact and representative names, or any detailed information that would permit identification of the parties involved.
Their findings are summarized as follows (no additional details were provided to us):
The information gathered was very revealing, the dynamic being extremely positive regarding client perception of the overall experience with Reliq Health, the value proposition of Reliq Health’s offering, the ease of implementation (both clients and patients), the positive health outcomes realized by patients, and the avoidance of negative readmission consequences both for patients and (financially) for clients.
With no exceptions, all Reliq Health client contacts recommended the company, some offering very high praise. It is clear that significant work remains to be done to onboard the maximum number of eligible patients possible, with Reliq Health client representatives reporting that trial implementation, where applicable, and onboarding to date has been highly satisfactory.
While we are firm believers in the scientific method and sufficiently large sample sizes that allow results to be interpreted with a high degree of confidence, the overwhelming endorsement of all Reliq Health clients contacted allows us to conclude with a high level of comfort that the company is indeed making solid client progress in their business and that their published financial statements and press releases in due course will fully reflect this.
Quite apart from the positive findings reported to us, investors might ponder whether such a party is conducting a deeper dive in preparation for initiation of RHT.V coverage, or simply out of idle curiosity. We can only speculate, the true rationale not having been shared with us. Whatever the rationale, we are happy to be able to pass along to readers benefits from the durable relationships we have created over the years.
themoneynarrative 
Investors are, very understandably, quite nervous in this interim period before release of delayed RHT.V financial statements. The fact that they are significantly delayed creates additional angst. On top of that, there have been events in the company’s past that cause people to question whether history is repeating itself.
While answers regarding the company’s wellbeing will not be forthcoming before financial statements are released, other sources of information that we have investigated as well as our reading of available source material suggest that dire scenarios promoted by some observers are way off the mark.
First of all, a small informal survey of RHT.V clients has confirmed that all is well; to be clear: the products and services work, patients are using them, readings are being taken, reimbursements are taking place, and payment is being made. Of course, the small sample size means that we cannot be certain that that is the case across the board (it undoubtedly is not), but the absence of any negative responses is certainly a very positive sign.
Discussion of current regulator action against a criminal element that manipulated RHT.V and its investors some years back has absolutely no connection with the victims of the alleged crimes, being the company, its former CEO Lisa Crossley, and investors. Settlement of the old case involving the company (with insurance company participation) eliminated the distraction and allowed the company to move on from the situation, which was exactly what any responsible CEO would have done.
Two criticisms might be brought to bear against the company. The first is that many aspirational statements were perceived as being statements of upcoming events or accomplishments, when this was not the case. Could communications have been better, and might certain aspirations (e.g. Nasdaq listing) have been better left unsaid? Absolutely.
The second criticism relates to a more difficult issue, which all early-stage organizations face, which is the transition into a larger, more complex entity from an operational perspective during a period when financial constraints impose limitations. This might have been handled better, but one should consider the benefits realized such as the focus on capture of market share/sales and absence of debt financing.
We surmise that there will be write-offs, and it is perhaps even likely that collections will be disappointing. That being said, both doomsday and stellar prognostications, being highly unlikely outcomes, serve no purpose and are unlikely to be true. Investors who are too worried about the possibilities are investing in the wrong place. We expect positive sales and other announcements to resume in the not-too-distant future, with some very exciting developments to come. And for the record, the “Unit Financing” was not cancelled or reimbursed.
LikeLike
Any thoughts on new contract announcements? For quite a long time there were constant, almost timed contract announcements. In the past few months there has only been one. If there were none, I would probably have dismissed it as the company is late in its financial reporting (and assumed they were holding back on any news); however, they did publish one back on Dec 13,2023. I also understand that this is the holiday season but leading up to the holiday season itself was very slow, with the pre December contract dating back to late September (which does not align with their track record). I am not looking for any type of specific response but bring it forth as an additional “question mark” amongst all other “question marks” (i.e. late reporting, mgmt changes, …).
Do you think it is possible that the “Unit Financing” obtained back in early October 2023 got cancelled or happened but reimbursement was necessitated.
I hope we get some positive news next week when they hopefully report their numbers. There are numerous potential scenarios in people’s minds covering everything from “closure, to restructuring, to this being a non event”. In the interim, the market appears to slowly give less and less goodwill to this business.
Any thoughts in general?
Thank you.
LikeLike
The chance of some write-offs of booked revenue could be in the card of audits due to long overdue receivables. That underscore the working capital mentioned is not a good indicator to reflect the health of the company. Instead, I would argue that the free cash flow position before the raise is far more important. Besides, with the audited report and Q1 results we will have a true picture on the collection side. Thus with $6 million added we can guesstimate how much longer Reliq can operate before they may need another raise again.
LikeLike
Current assets comprise economic resources that a company has or expects to realize in the upcoming one-year period, including cash and equivalents, short-term investments, and accounts receivable. Working capital, being current assets less current liabilities, represents short-term liquidity available to support operations. In the September 28, 2023 Offering Document’s Use of Available Funds tableau, “Working capital as at most recent month end” is shown as $16,300,000. Taken at face value, the most recent month end at that time was August 2023, meaning that current assets less current liabilities at that time were $16,300,000, a significant shift from the March 31, 2023 figure of $7,529,977 ($16,286,773 – $8,756,796). While it is curious that the $16,300,000 and $16,286,773 figures are indeed very closely aligned, we would not assume that an error has been made. Everything will certainly be clarified when the year end and Q1 financials are issued shortly, since the Offering period is covered by Q1 (i.e. to September 30, 2023).
LikeLike