Currency in AUD
Last close As at 26/05/2023
AUD0.01
— 0.00 (0.00%)
Market capitalisation
AUD99m
Research: Metals & Mining
While lithium had a relatively poor coronavirus in terms of its price performance relative to other metals, the speed of its catch-up post-crisis has been striking. The price has doubled since August and there is near-universal consensus that the market will remain in deficit (barring the extraordinary) for the remainder of the decade. This note updates our valuation and forecasts for Lepidico to reflect a 19.3% increase in our long-term lithium hydroxide price assumption to a still relatively conservative US$18,000/t, which more than offsets the effects of some of the delays (eg slow assay turnaround times) that the company is experiencing.
Lepidico |
Big swings and small roundabouts |
Refining forecasts |
Metals & mining |
16 February 2022 |
Share price performance
Business description
Next events
Analyst
Lepidico is a research client of Edison Investment Research Limited |
While lithium had a relatively poor coronavirus in terms of its price performance relative to other metals, the speed of its catch-up post-crisis has been striking. The price has doubled since August and there is near-universal consensus that the market will remain in deficit (barring the extraordinary) for the remainder of the decade. This note updates our valuation and forecasts for Lepidico to reflect a 19.3% increase in our long-term lithium hydroxide price assumption to a still relatively conservative US$18,000/t, which more than offsets the effects of some of the delays (eg slow assay turnaround times) that the company is experiencing.
Year end |
Total revenues (A$m) |
PBT |
Cash from |
Net cash/(debt)* |
Capex |
06/20 |
0.0 |
(10.8) |
(4.7) |
(0.4) |
(7.5) |
06/21 |
4.1 |
(0.3) |
1.0 |
14.7 |
(0.6) |
06/22e |
0.0 |
(3.8) |
(3.3) |
11.6 |
(56.6) |
06/23e |
0.0 |
(3.8) |
(3.3) |
(138.7) |
(146.1) |
Note: *Historical numbers include Desert Lion Energy convertible.
Ongoing focus on risk mitigation
Lepidico’s Phase 1 Plant project has been materially de-risked by its running of an earlier pilot plant campaign, and the decision to now convert this facility to a demonstration plant will further reduce operating and scale-up risk from 467:1 to 219:1. This will complement the company’s already green environmental credentials, which boast low carbon dioxide emissions and a process flow sheet that involves neither pyrometallurgical processes nor pressure vessels.
Funding discussions advancing
In its role as independent consultant to the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), Behre Dolbear Australia (BDA) is in the process of completing the final draft of its environmental and social review report, which is key for securing debt funding. The DFC nevertheless has sufficient confidence in the proceedings to date to appoint legal counsel in order to expedite the process.
Valuation: Up 16% to 7.37–8.41cps including Phase 2
Both Lepidico’s Karibib mine in Namibia and its chemical plant in Abu Dhabi are now fully permitted to construct. Having raised initial equity, it is now committing to Phase 1 development activities to keep the project on a fast track, in parallel with its ongoing funding workstreams (now that binding lithium offtake has been secured) and continual improvements in environmental and social performance. In our last note on the company (Binding offtake signed with Traxys, published on 17 December 2021), we valued Lepidico at 5.70c/share and this has now risen by 16.5% to 6.64c plus a potential risk-adjusted 0.73–1.77 cents (fully diluted) for a conceptual 20,000tpa LCE Phase 2 plant to take the total aggregate conceptual valuation to 7.37–8.41 cents per share. Note that this valuation still does not attribute any value to Lepidico from either the supply of concentrate from third-party sources or any other development options (eg third-party technology licensing).
Small roundabouts – project details
Timing
Since our last note in December 2021, it has become clear that Lepidico has experienced, and is experiencing, ongoing delays, in particular in engineering works and the matter of assay turnaround times. These are not unique to Lepidico. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, one laboratory in Perth closed, while others have been working on either reduced hours or with a reduced workforce. As a consequence, the metallurgical testing industry’s capacity to process samples sent in for assay has reduced by approximately 30%.
Process flowsheet refinements
Filters
In Lepidico’s definitive feasibility study on its integrated Karibib mining and concentrating and Abu Dhabi chemical plant – led by consultants Lycopodium – certain assumptions were made regarding the cost and operating performance of the major mechanical equipment within the chemical plant. One of these related to the cost and performance of the filters to be used in the plant. However, whereas cheaper filters with an adequate performance had been assumed for the purposes of Lycopodium’s DFS, subsequent more detailed work has established that so-called ‘plate & frame’ filters contribute to a notably superior performance of the plant and a better recovery of end-product chemicals. Substitution with plate and frame filters will have some impact on overall capital expenditure offset by improved efficiency. The water requirement in the plant has increased as a result, which will also necessitate an increase in crystalliser capacity. We have conservatively allowed an additional US$10m in capex for this refinement to the flowsheet versus Lycopodium’s US$96.2m DFS chemical plant capex estimate, which was conducted to an accuracy of ±15% in May 2020. At the same time, however, we note that the need for the associated design alterations is likely to delay the front-end engineering and design (FEED) workstream until mid-CY22.
In the meantime, Lepidico has commissioned a lithium hydroxide monohydrate trial at its demonstration plant, which will continue until early March. The results of the trial are important to the design and specification of the back end of the plant and, whereas previously the official results might have been expected to have been known later the same month, the requirement for prudence has caused management to plan around the possibility that the results will not be available until April-May.
Surge capacity
An additional, likely refinement to Lepidico’s chemical plant design will be the installation of surge capacity at several stages within the flowsheet to allow for much greater plant operability and up-time. In particular, this will allow discrete maintenance to be performed on one section of the plant, while the remainder of the plant stays in production, rather than being required to shut the plant in order to perform maintenance on one specific section. In practice, this refinement will require the inclusion of storage tanks into the plant’s design. Once again however, we do not expect this to have a material effect on capex, although it will nevertheless represent a modest addition relative to the US$96.2m estimated in May 2020 (see our note, Valuation update post-feasibility study, published on 20 July 2020).
Big swings – the lithium price
The prices of both lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide have increased sharply since our last note on Lepidico, as the market has been squeezed upwards having previously been in the doldrums notably longer than almost all other metals, owing to its much greater exposure to the EV sector. Thus, whereas the prices of other base metals recovered from approximately March 2020 onwards, the price of lithium carbonate continued to decline until late October and barely recovered to finish close to its low for the year (rather than high, as for most other metals). As a consequence, exploration and mine development was severely curtailed in the period 2018–20, with the result that the long-term thesis in support of lithium remains, to all intents and purposes, unchanged (ie EV demand to account for nearly half of all cars sold by 2030, battery power to increase 13x relative to today and lithium demand to sextuple from 2019 to 2030), but after two years of ‘lost’ time and investment in the interim. As a degree of normality has returned to the world economy in 2021, therefore, there has been a period of restocking of lithium chemicals and concentrates – especially in China – superimposed onto a background of previously depleted inventories throughout the supply chain, causing lithium prices to bounce sharply. Moreover, this trend has accelerated into the New Year, as evidenced in the graph below of benchmark prices in North and South America.
Exhibit 1: Lithium hydroxide and lithium carbonate prices, January 2013 to present (US$/t) |
Source: Bloomberg |
Quarterly contract pricing increases (negotiated in the September to November period) have similarly been observed for 2022, and spot prices in China have recently exceeded US$50,000/t.
Our previous price assumption for lithium hydroxide (Lepidico’s principal product) had been based on an assumed long-term lithium carbonate price of US$12,000/t and a 25.8% price premium of the former over the latter, driven by the statistically significant relationship between that premium and the latter’s price since February 2016. However, as the following graph makes clear, this correlation now appears to be in the process of either breaking down or shifting to a ‘new paradigm’.
Exhibit 2: Lithium carbonate price (US$/t) versus lithium hydroxide price premium (%) |
Source: Edison Investment Research |
One justification for the apparent shift in the observed relationship between the lithium carbonate price and the lithium hydroxide price premium is that, historically, the bulk of lithium was produced from South American brines, which are typically processed into lithium carbonate. This could then be further processed into lithium hydroxide, albeit at a cost which was recouped in the form of the lithium hydroxide price premium. Hence, lithium hydroxide almost invariably traded at a premium to lithium carbonate to reflect the cost of conversion. At present, however, the majority of new lithium capacity is in the form of hard rock mining to produce spodumene concentrate and thence to lithium hydroxide without the need for a lithium carbonate intermediate product. Hence, in future, unlike the past, there will be no (or, at least, a reduced) expectation of a causal relationship between the price of lithium carbonate and the price of lithium hydroxide. That being the case, and in recognition of the current squeeze in the market, the continuation of the secular trend towards increased lithium demand and the two-year period of ‘lost’ investment between 2018 and 2020, we have now revised our short- and long-term forecasts for lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide prices to those shown below.
Exhibit 3: Lithium price forecasts (US$/t)
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 |
2026 |
2027 onwards |
|
Previous |
||||||
Lithium hydroxide (US$/t) |
15,091 |
15,091 |
15,091 |
15,091 |
15,091 |
15,091 |
Lithium carbonate (US$/t) |
12,000 |
12,000 |
12,000 |
12,000 |
12,000 |
12,000 |
Hydroxide price premium (%) |
25.8 |
25.8 |
25.8 |
25.8 |
25.8 |
25.8 |
Current |
||||||
Lithium hydroxide (US$/t) |
25,000 |
25,000 |
25,000 |
22,000 |
20,000 |
18,000 |
Lithium carbonate (US$/t) |
24,000 |
24,000 |
24,000 |
21,000 |
19,000 |
17,000 |
Hydroxide price premium (%) |
4.2 |
4.2 |
4.2 |
4.8 |
5.3 |
5.9 |
Increase (%) |
||||||
Lithium hydroxide |
+65.7 |
+65.7 |
+65.7 |
+45.8 |
+32.5 |
+19.3 |
Lithium carbonate |
+100.0 |
+100.0 |
+100.0 |
+75.0 |
+58.3 |
+41.7 |
Source: Edison Investment Research
While the near-term increase in our price forecasts for lithium hydroxide may appear large in percentage terms, they should be considered in the following context:
■
At least one well-known metals trader believes that the price of lithium hydroxide could tighten to US$100,000/t over the course of the next two years and that it will then settle back to US$30–40,000/t until 2030, with US$17,000/t representing only the low point of prices over the course of the next cycle.
■
As recently as 2022, well-known consultants, Roskill, forecast average contract battery-grade carbonate prices of US$23,609/t (in constant 2021 US dollars) over the 2021–36 period and US$24,683/t for domestic China spot prices over the same time period.
■
Notwithstanding the above divergence of views, a broad consensus that the lithium market will be in deficit for the remainder of the current decade and that prices may exhibit volatility, but should in general be supported by increases in the global cost curve of existing producers sustaining prices at higher levels for longer.
■
Piedmont recently calculated its reserves (typically with a requirement to be ‘conservative’ in accordance with the strictures of S-K 1300 and JORC Code reporting) based on a fixed price of US$18,000/t for battery-quality lithium hydroxide.
Note that, within this context, Lepidico, which had calculated its reserves previously based on a price of less than US$13,000/t, is expected to re-calculate them again mid-year at a yet to be determined (but likely higher) price.
Valuation
In the light of the ‘big swings’ and ‘small roundabouts’ discussed previously, we have made the following adjustments to our financial model of Lepidico:
■
Whereas previously, we had assumed that Lepidico would make its first shipment of product in early CY23, we now assume that it will occur in early CY24. This will have the effect of shifting first revenue from FY23 to FY24.
■
We have adopted the updated lithium hydroxide price forecasts presented in Exhibit 3.
■
We have assumed an additional US$10m in capex (plus contingency) and an associated increase in future equity funding from US$14.0m/A$19.6m (net) to US$41.8m/A$58.3m (gross) over the course of the next 12 months at the prevailing share price of 3.4c (cf 3.7c previously).
■
We have updated our forex rate from A$1.3878/US$ to A$1.3936/US$.
All other assumptions and forecasts remain unchanged.
Project
Lepidico’s DFS (see our note, Developing to the (L-)Max, published on 29 May 2020) calculated a project NPV8 for the integrated Karibib mining and chemical plant operation of US$221m, or A$310m (5.0c/share on a pre-funding basis and 3.9c/share on a post-FY22 equity funding basis) at the current foreign exchange rate of A$1.3936/US$.
In our report Gold stars and black holes, published in January 2019, we calculated a mean enterprise value for companies with projects at the DFS stage of development of 30.9% of project net present value (NPV), ranging up to 133.5%. This alone would imply a pre-funding valuation for Lepidico of 1.5c/share, ranging up to 6.7c/share.
Company
Our valuation of Lepidico varies from our value of the integrated Karibib mining and chemical plant project in that it takes into account Lepidico’s 80% interest in the Namibian mine (but 100% of the Abu Dhabi chemical plant), which will give rise to both a tax-paying position in Namibia and a minority interest in the profits generated from mining operations. It also assumes ongoing corporate costs in the order of A$3.1m per year.
In our last note on the company, we calculated a value for Lepidico’s shares of 5.43c plus 0.27c for the value of an envisaged loan to the minority shareholders in the upstream Namibian operation to give a total valuation for the company of 5.70c/share. In the wake of the changes discussed above, our (discounted) valuation of Lepidico’s future (maximum potential) dividend stream to shareholders has now increased by 18.0%, from 5.43c to 6.41c/share in FY21, rising to a peak of 8.98c/share on the cusp of the company’s first material dividend in FY26, as shown in the graph below:
Exhibit 4: Edison estimate of future Lepidico EPS and (maximum potential) DPS |
|
Source: Edison Investment Research |
To this valuation of 6.41c/share should then be added the value of Lepidico’s envisaged future loan to the minority shareholders in the Namibian mining and concentrating operation, which we estimate at 0.23c/share (fully diluted), to result in a total value for Lepidico’s shares of 6.64c/share (cf 5.70c/share previously), based solely on its Phase 1 project. A ‘bridge’ chart, showing the transition in valuation from 5.70c/share to 6.64/share by component is provided below.
Exhibit 5: Lepidico valuation bridge, December 2021 to February 2022 |
|
Source: Edison Investment Research |
To this valuation of 6.64c/share may then be added an (updated) potential risk-adjusted 0.73–1.77c/share (fully diluted) for a conceptual 20,000tpa LCE Phase 2 plant (see pages 4-6 of our note, Phase 2 coming into view, published on 18 June 2021, updated for a long-term lithium hydroxide price of US$18,000/t), to take the total aggregate conceptual valuation to 7.37–8.41 cents per share.
Sensitivities
Two of the principal risks to which our valuation of Lepidico is exposed are: 1) the long-term price of lithium hydroxide; and 2) the price at which it raises future equity. The effects of variations in the long-term price of lithium hydroxide from the one currently assumed (US$18,000/t) are shown in the table below:
Exhibit 6: Lepidico valuation sensitivity to the long-term price of lithium hydroxide (US$/t)
Lithium hydroxide price (US$/t) |
18,000 |
20,000 |
25,000 |
30,000 |
35,000 |
40,000 |
45,000 |
50,000 |
Lepidico valuation (Australian cents per share) |
6.64 |
7.20 |
8.58 |
9.97 |
11.35 |
12.74 |
14.13 |
15.51 |
Change cf ‘base case’ (%) |
u/c |
+8.4 |
+29.2 |
+50.2 |
+70.9 |
+91.9 |
+112.8 |
+133.6 |
Source: Edison Investment Research
At the same time, our financial model assumes that Lepidico will raise US$41.8m/A$58.3m (gross) in FY22 at a share price of 3.4c to achieve a future (project) maximum net debt:equity ratio of 70:30 and a (company) maximum net debt:equity ratio of 54:46. Exhibit 7 demonstrates the sensitivity of our valuation to variations in this assumption, as follows:
Exhibit 7: Lepidico valuation sensitivity to future equity funding price (Australian cents per share)
Equity funding price |
2.90 |
3.40 |
3.70 |
4.00 |
4.50 |
5.00 |
5.50 |
6.00 |
6.50 |
7.00 |
7.48 |
Lepidico valuation |
6.42 |
6.64 |
6.76 |
6.86 |
7.00 |
7.11 |
7.21 |
7.29 |
7.37 |
7.43 |
7.48 |
Source: Edison Investment Research
Note that Lepidico may choose to source all (or a portion) of this future equity funding requirement from a strategic partner after debt funding has already been secured. In this eventuality, it is possible/likely that a higher price than that currently prevailing could be supported.
Ongoing initiatives – realising Phase 2
Lepidico has recommenced exploration drilling again within its 68km2 prospecting mining licence area, with a view to increasing its resource to a size that is sufficient to support a Phase 2 plant. Initial focus will be on Helikon 2-5 and other lithium pegmatites that have yet to be drill tested.
The current resource at Helikon 2-5 amounts to 2.2Mt at an average grade of 0.41% lithium oxide, distributed between the various Helikon deposits as follows:
Exhibit 8: Mineral resource estimate, Helikon 2-5 (January 2020)
Deposit |
Category |
Cut-off grade |
kt |
Grade |
Contained |
Contained LCE |
Helikon 2 |
Inferred |
0.20 |
216.0 |
0.56 |
1,210 |
2,991 |
Helikon 3 |
Inferred |
0.20 |
295.0 |
0.48 |
1,416 |
3,501 |
Helikon 4 |
Inferred |
0.20 |
1,510.0 |
0.38 |
5,738 |
14,189 |
Helikon 5 |
Inferred |
0.20 |
179.0 |
0.31 |
555 |
1,372 |
Total |
Inferred |
0.20 |
2,200.0 |
0.41 |
8,919 |
22,054 |
Source: Lepidico, Edison Investment Research. Note: LCE = lithium carbonate equivalent.
At 0.41% lithium oxide, the average grade of Helikon 2-5 compares well with the average resource grade of Rubicon 1 and Helikon 1 combined of 0.43% and the average reserve grade of Rubicon 1 and Helikon 1 combined of 0.46%.
Management’s initial target is to increase the combined resource at Helikon 2-5 from 2.2Mt to 6.0Mt, which it believes would be sufficient to support a Phase 2 plant of approximately the same size as its Phase 1 plant of c 5,000tpa, which could be located in either Namibia, Europe or North America (note that this compares with the aggregate tonnage of 9.0Mt at Rubicon 1 and Helikon 1 currently dedicated to supporting the Phase 1 plant). Beyond this, management believes that a 10–12Mt resource inventory would support a c 10,000tpa Phase 2 plant. However, the ostensible goal of the programme is to delineate a resource of 25Mt, which management estimates could support a full 20,000tpa Phase 2 plant.
Exhibit 9: Financial summary
Accounts: IFRS, Yr end: June, AUD: Thousands |
|
|
2018A |
2019A |
2020A |
2021A |
2022E |
2023E |
Total revenues |
|
|
171 |
2 |
47 |
4,137 |
0 |
0 |
Cost of sales |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Gross profit |
|
|
171 |
2 |
47 |
4,137 |
0 |
0 |
SG&A (expenses) |
|
|
(5,284) |
(4,006) |
(4,904) |
(3,398) |
(3,146) |
(3,146) |
Other income/(expense) |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Exceptionals and adjustments |
Exceptionals |
|
(2,171) |
(1,150) |
(2,740) |
(338) |
0 |
0 |
Depreciation and amortisation |
|
|
(6) |
(8) |
(1,208) |
(713) |
(713) |
(713) |
Reported EBIT |
|
|
(7,290) |
(5,162) |
(8,805) |
(311) |
(3,859) |
(3,859) |
Finance income/(expense) |
|
|
70 |
57 |
17 |
0 |
74 |
58 |
Other income/(expense) |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Exceptionals and adjustments |
Exceptionals |
|
0 |
0 |
(2,026) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Reported PBT |
|
|
(7,220) |
(5,105) |
(10,814) |
(311) |
(3,786) |
(3,801) |
Income tax expense (includes exceptionals) |
|
|
0 |
0 |
696 |
593 |
0 |
0 |
Reported net income |
|
|
(7,220) |
(5,105) |
(10,118) |
283 |
(3,786) |
(3,801) |
Basic average number of shares, m |
|
|
2,624 |
3,272 |
4,568 |
5,218 |
6,991 |
7,830 |
Basic EPS (c) |
|
|
(0.0) |
(0.0) |
(0.0) |
0.0 |
(0.0) |
(0.0) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance sheet |
|
|
||||||
Property, plant and equipment |
|
|
27 |
20 |
1,904 |
1,669 |
57,253 |
202,640 |
Intangible assets |
|
|
19,027 |
22,925 |
23,870 |
24,631 |
24,631 |
24,631 |
Other non-current assets |
|
|
730 |
27,469 |
42,798 |
44,058 |
44,058 |
44,058 |
Total non-current assets |
|
|
19,783 |
50,414 |
68,573 |
70,358 |
125,942 |
271,329 |
Cash and equivalents |
|
|
4,860 |
13,660 |
4,793 |
14,738 |
14,738 |
14,738 |
Inventories |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Trade and other receivables |
|
|
712 |
1,869 |
1,767 |
244 |
122 |
0 |
Other current assets |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Total current assets |
|
|
5,572 |
15,529 |
6,560 |
14,982 |
14,860 |
14,738 |
Non-current loans and borrowings |
|
|
0 |
3,276 |
5,215 |
0 |
3,128 |
152,549 |
Other non-current liabilities |
|
|
0 |
0 |
10,055 |
9,283 |
9,283 |
9,283 |
Total non-current liabilities |
|
|
0 |
3,276 |
15,271 |
9,283 |
12,411 |
161,832 |
Trade and other payables |
|
|
804 |
10,940 |
565 |
968 |
613 |
259 |
Current loans and borrowings |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Other current liabilities |
|
|
51 |
86 |
108 |
140 |
140 |
140 |
Total current liabilities |
|
|
856 |
11,026 |
672 |
1,108 |
753 |
399 |
Equity attributable to company |
|
|
24,500 |
53,252 |
52,404 |
68,314 |
121,002 |
117,201 |
Non-controlling interest |
|
|
0 |
(1,610) |
6,785 |
6,636 |
6,636 |
6,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cashflow statement |
|
|
||||||
Profit for the year |
|
|
(7,220) |
(5,105) |
(10,118) |
283 |
(3,786) |
(3,801) |
Taxation expenses |
|
|
0 |
0 |
(696) |
(593) |
0 |
0 |
Depreciation and amortisation |
|
|
6 |
8 |
1,208 |
713 |
713 |
713 |
Share based payments |
|
|
2,138 |
520 |
1,027 |
338 |
0 |
0 |
Other adjustments |
|
|
2,066 |
664 |
4,716 |
(497) |
0 |
0 |
Movements in working capital |
|
|
(28) |
410 |
(1,509) |
201 |
(233) |
(233) |
Income taxes paid |
|
|
0 |
0 |
696 |
593 |
0 |
0 |
Cash from operations (CFO) |
|
|
(3,038) |
(3,504) |
(4,676) |
1,037 |
(3,305) |
(3,321) |
Capex |
|
|
(3,057) |
(6,251) |
(7,452) |
(550) |
(56,297) |
(146,100) |
Acquisitions & disposals net |
|
|
110 |
0 |
416 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Cash used in investing activities (CFIA) |
|
|
(2,947) |
(6,251) |
(7,036) |
(550) |
(56,297) |
(146,100) |
Net proceeds from issue of shares |
|
|
7,555 |
18,462 |
3,523 |
14,707 |
56,474 |
0 |
Movements in debt |
|
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
(5,176) |
3,128 |
149,421 |
Cash from financing activities (CFF) |
|
|
7,555 |
18,462 |
3,523 |
9,531 |
59,602 |
149,421 |
Increase/(decrease) in cash and equivalents |
|
|
1,570 |
8,707 |
(8,190) |
10,017 |
0 |
0 |
Currency translation differences and other |
|
|
(17) |
93 |
(678) |
(72) |
0 |
0 |
Cash and equivalents at end of period |
|
|
4,860 |
13,660 |
4,793 |
14,738 |
14,738 |
14,738 |
Net (debt) cash |
|
|
4,860 |
10,385 |
(422) |
14,738 |
11,610 |
(137,811) |
Movement in net (debt) cash over period |
|
|
1,553 |
5,525 |
(10,807) |
15,160 |
(3,128) |
(149,421) |
Source: Company sources, Edison Investment Research
|
|
Research: Healthcare
InMed Pharmaceuticals’ (INM’s) Q222 financial results reflect its evolution from a pure-play biotech firm to one with commercial sales to the health and wellness market, with revenues of $0.3m, all cannabichromene (CBC). As of January, it also began selling cannabicitran (CBT) to the health and wellness market. The now-completed BayMedica acquisition boosts its product portfolio for rare cannabinoids and rounds out InMed’s manufacturing capabilities. INM continued advancing its drug development programs, including its ongoing 755-201-EB Phase II trial and preparing for an INM-088 FDA pre-investigational new drug meeting to treat glaucoma.
Get access to the very latest content matched to your personal investment style.