2026 Q2 - tulosraportti
62 päivää sitten
‧52 min
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | - | - | ||
| 210 | - | - | ||
| 351 | - | - | ||
| 38 | - | - | ||
| 131 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Rahastot ja ETF:t, joilla on osaketta
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 - tulosraportti 22.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 - tulosraportti 16.7. | ||
2026 Q1 - tulosraportti 22.4. | ||
2025 Q4 - tulosraportti 24.2. | ||
2025 Q3 - tulosraportti 23.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 - tulosraportti 15.7.2025 |
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
·6 t sittenRan today's article in Financial Times about Bonesupport and the highest short interest, through Gemini; The article highlights the ongoing conflict between Bonesupport's strong commercial growth and an extensive short-selling wave driven by doubts surrounding the mechanism of action of antibiotic release. Key points in the FT article Commercial Strength vs. Short-Selling Paradox: Bonesupport guides for organic growth of 33–36%, has only buy recommendations from the analysis firm and lacks financial capital needs. Despite this, the stock is one of Europe's most shorted (~27 trading days' turnover to cover the positions). Short sellers' thesis: A Danish study published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery claims that Cerament's 28-day antibiotic release is based on flawed experimental design (serial dilution) and that >99% of the antibiotic is actually released within 24 hours in mouse models. Bonesupport's defense: The mouse model placed the material in soft tissue without the containment and bone contact crucial for clinical function. The company relies on human data from over 340 clinical studies on more than 3,000 patients. Short-term catalysts: The FDA decision regarding Cerament V (where additional biocompatibility data was recently requested) and the results from the large-scale SOLARIO study at Oxford University. Impact on Bonesupport as an Investment Case 1. The Scientific Case: Human In-Vivo vs. Mouse Models Clinical evidence carries more weight: In orthobiologics, actual clinical results in humans (real-world evidence) have far higher evidentiary value than academic mouse models in soft tissue. With over 12,000 annual procedures in the USA alone and a strong repurchase frequency among orthopedic surgeons, commercial acceptance is practical proof of function. Conflict of interest among critics: The authors behind the Danish study are founders of Precision Antibiotics (funded by Novo Nordisk Fonden), a startup company developing a directly competing local antibiotic delivery. The short-selling narrative is thus based on criticism from a commercial challenger. 2. Catalysts and Volatility Drivers The SOLARIO study as a commercial lever: Demonstrating that local antibiotics enable a shortening of the systemic antibiotic course (from ≥ 4 weeks to ≤ 7 days) strengthens the health economic argument towards hospitals and insurance systems (CMS/Medicare). FDA & Cerament V: The delay in the FDA decision creates a short-term regulatory overhang. Since the Cerament platform is already approved in the USA (Cerament G) and Cerament V has been approved in the EU since 2015, the delay appears more as a matter of documentation timing than a fundamental product risk. Strong Squeeze Potential: With short positions equivalent to approximately 27 trading days, any news that removes doubt (e.g., a positive outcome from the FDA or strong quarterly reports) can trigger a rapid and powerful short squeeze. 3. Risks to Monitor Short-term uncertainty among surgeons: Even if the theoretical criticism is weak in a clinical context, academic debate and newspaper headlines can create temporary hesitation among cautious orthopedic surgeons regarding product choice. Protracted timeline in the USA: If the FDA process for Cerament V is further prolonged, it could temporarily pressure the valuation multiple, even if the core business of Cerament G continues to grow strongly. The FT article points to a classic conflict between theoretical pre-clinical criticism and proven clinical and commercial execution. For a long-term investor, the short sellers' thesis appears exaggerated as it is based on mouse models outside bone tissue rather than the extensive human data underlying the company's approvals. The high short interest creates short-term price volatility but also offers significant upside if the company continues to deliver on its financial goals.
·1 päivä sittenBonesupport and Stryker - Acquisition in the LONG TERM Perhaps far-fetched but... Why is Bonesupport allying itself with Stryker? Stryker is, in some respects, a competitor. At my previous employer, I came into contact with equity analysts and asked if they thought any larger company might be interested in Bonesupport, and Stryker came up several times. Stryker could buy all of Bonesupport for one year's profit, that's how big the company is, and they have historically done this type of deal. I ran the case through chat GPT and got this 1. Background and investment idea BONESUPPORT has established a strong position in synthetic bone substitute materials through the CERAMENT platform. The company's growth is primarily driven by the USA, where CERAMENT G has gained increasing commercial importance. At the same time, the company has a high gross margin, improved profitability, and a strong net cash position. A particularly interesting development is that Stryker has entered into a distribution collaboration with BONESUPPORT in Australia and New Zealand. This can be seen as a possible first practical contact between two companies where Stryker is simultaneously a potential strategic buyer. Important: there is no public information indicating that Stryker plans an acquisition of BONESUPPORT. This is therefore a hypothetical scenario and not a claim that a deal is underway. 2. Why Stryker is an interesting potential buyer · Stryker is a global medical technology group with much larger financial resources than BONESUPPORT. · BONESUPPORT's CERAMENT technology can complement Stryker's existing orthopedics business. · Through the distribution, Stryker gets the opportunity to see how CERAMENT performs commercially and how surgeons and hospitals react. · A distribution collaboration can therefore serve as a practical test of the strategic potential before a possible acquisition. · If BONESUPPORT continues to gain market share, the value of owning the technology could become greater for a global player than for the market as a standalone company. 3. The size difference between the companies 2025 Stryker BONESUPPORT Revenue approx. USD 25.1 bn SEK 1.175 bn Reported operating profit approx. USD 4.9 bn SEK 232 m Net profit approx. USD 3.2 bn approx. SEK 140 m Market capitalization (Sept. 2026) approx. USD 105.7 bn approx. SEK 15 bn The figures illustrate the very large difference in size. Stryker simultaneously has the capacity to carry out significant corporate acquisitions; for example, the company acquired Inari Medical for approximately USD 4.9 billion. 4. Why the distribution collaboration can be important The most interesting aspect of the case is not solely the distribution agreement but what Stryker can learn through the collaboration. A possible development is: 1. Q4 2026: Stryker begins distributing BONESUPPORT's products in Australia and New Zealand. 2. 2027: Stryker monitors sales, usage, clinical response, and customer relationships. 3. If the results are strong, the collaboration can be expanded to more markets or products. 4. Stryker then gets significantly better decision-making basis to assess the long-term strategic benefit of CERAMENT. 5. If BONESUPPORT simultaneously continues to grow rapidly in the USA and Europe, an acquisition could become attractive. 6. Stryker can then choose to buy the entire company before BONESUPPORT becomes even larger and thus more expensive. 5. Possible valuation in case of a bid With approximately 65.44 million outstanding shares and a share price around 218–230 SEK, today's market capitalization corresponds to approximately 14–15 billion SEK. Illustrative bid levels are shown below. These are scenarios, not target prices. Bid/share Share value Premium vs 218 SEK Approximate EV* 300 SEK 19632.6 bn SEK 38 % 19632.1 bn SEK 350 SEK 22904.7 bn SEK 61 % 22904.2 bn SEK 400 SEK 26176.8 bn SEK 83 % 26176.3 bn SEK 450 SEK 29448.8 bn SEK 106 % 29448.4 bn SEK * Simplified EV = share value minus approximately 0.42 bn SEK net cash. Transaction adjustments are not included. 6. How big is such a purchase for Stryker? With a USD/SEK exchange rate around 9.2–9.3, a purchase for 30 billion SEK implies approximately USD 3.2 billion. This corresponds to only about 3 percent of Stryker's market capitalization of approximately USD 105.7 billion. This does not mean that the price is unimportant for Stryker, but the size is manageable for a group of Stryker's size. Furthermore, an acquisition of BONESUPPORT would be significantly smaller than Stryker's Inari deal.
If the company has a value of 450-500/Share, that explains the short interest. It's just a matter of waiting.
·4.9.Bonex has grown every quarter since 2021. They now expect 33-36% growth. Multiple expansion comes with increased revenue and thus further profits, and the P/E ratio quickly falls from the current 70 to an expected 47 during Q3. This shows how fast things move when earnings per share more than double. Insider purchases strengthen my view that the stock is reasonably priced, along with all analysts' target prices.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 184 235 | 184 235 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 184 235 | 184 235 | 0 | 0 |
2026 Q2 - tulosraportti
62 päivää sitten
‧52 min
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·6 t sittenRan today's article in Financial Times about Bonesupport and the highest short interest, through Gemini; The article highlights the ongoing conflict between Bonesupport's strong commercial growth and an extensive short-selling wave driven by doubts surrounding the mechanism of action of antibiotic release. Key points in the FT article Commercial Strength vs. Short-Selling Paradox: Bonesupport guides for organic growth of 33–36%, has only buy recommendations from the analysis firm and lacks financial capital needs. Despite this, the stock is one of Europe's most shorted (~27 trading days' turnover to cover the positions). Short sellers' thesis: A Danish study published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery claims that Cerament's 28-day antibiotic release is based on flawed experimental design (serial dilution) and that >99% of the antibiotic is actually released within 24 hours in mouse models. Bonesupport's defense: The mouse model placed the material in soft tissue without the containment and bone contact crucial for clinical function. The company relies on human data from over 340 clinical studies on more than 3,000 patients. Short-term catalysts: The FDA decision regarding Cerament V (where additional biocompatibility data was recently requested) and the results from the large-scale SOLARIO study at Oxford University. Impact on Bonesupport as an Investment Case 1. The Scientific Case: Human In-Vivo vs. Mouse Models Clinical evidence carries more weight: In orthobiologics, actual clinical results in humans (real-world evidence) have far higher evidentiary value than academic mouse models in soft tissue. With over 12,000 annual procedures in the USA alone and a strong repurchase frequency among orthopedic surgeons, commercial acceptance is practical proof of function. Conflict of interest among critics: The authors behind the Danish study are founders of Precision Antibiotics (funded by Novo Nordisk Fonden), a startup company developing a directly competing local antibiotic delivery. The short-selling narrative is thus based on criticism from a commercial challenger. 2. Catalysts and Volatility Drivers The SOLARIO study as a commercial lever: Demonstrating that local antibiotics enable a shortening of the systemic antibiotic course (from ≥ 4 weeks to ≤ 7 days) strengthens the health economic argument towards hospitals and insurance systems (CMS/Medicare). FDA & Cerament V: The delay in the FDA decision creates a short-term regulatory overhang. Since the Cerament platform is already approved in the USA (Cerament G) and Cerament V has been approved in the EU since 2015, the delay appears more as a matter of documentation timing than a fundamental product risk. Strong Squeeze Potential: With short positions equivalent to approximately 27 trading days, any news that removes doubt (e.g., a positive outcome from the FDA or strong quarterly reports) can trigger a rapid and powerful short squeeze. 3. Risks to Monitor Short-term uncertainty among surgeons: Even if the theoretical criticism is weak in a clinical context, academic debate and newspaper headlines can create temporary hesitation among cautious orthopedic surgeons regarding product choice. Protracted timeline in the USA: If the FDA process for Cerament V is further prolonged, it could temporarily pressure the valuation multiple, even if the core business of Cerament G continues to grow strongly. The FT article points to a classic conflict between theoretical pre-clinical criticism and proven clinical and commercial execution. For a long-term investor, the short sellers' thesis appears exaggerated as it is based on mouse models outside bone tissue rather than the extensive human data underlying the company's approvals. The high short interest creates short-term price volatility but also offers significant upside if the company continues to deliver on its financial goals.
- ·1 päivä sittenBonesupport and Stryker - Acquisition in the LONG TERM Perhaps far-fetched but... Why is Bonesupport allying itself with Stryker? Stryker is, in some respects, a competitor. At my previous employer, I came into contact with equity analysts and asked if they thought any larger company might be interested in Bonesupport, and Stryker came up several times. Stryker could buy all of Bonesupport for one year's profit, that's how big the company is, and they have historically done this type of deal. I ran the case through chat GPT and got this 1. Background and investment idea BONESUPPORT has established a strong position in synthetic bone substitute materials through the CERAMENT platform. The company's growth is primarily driven by the USA, where CERAMENT G has gained increasing commercial importance. At the same time, the company has a high gross margin, improved profitability, and a strong net cash position. A particularly interesting development is that Stryker has entered into a distribution collaboration with BONESUPPORT in Australia and New Zealand. This can be seen as a possible first practical contact between two companies where Stryker is simultaneously a potential strategic buyer. Important: there is no public information indicating that Stryker plans an acquisition of BONESUPPORT. This is therefore a hypothetical scenario and not a claim that a deal is underway. 2. Why Stryker is an interesting potential buyer · Stryker is a global medical technology group with much larger financial resources than BONESUPPORT. · BONESUPPORT's CERAMENT technology can complement Stryker's existing orthopedics business. · Through the distribution, Stryker gets the opportunity to see how CERAMENT performs commercially and how surgeons and hospitals react. · A distribution collaboration can therefore serve as a practical test of the strategic potential before a possible acquisition. · If BONESUPPORT continues to gain market share, the value of owning the technology could become greater for a global player than for the market as a standalone company. 3. The size difference between the companies 2025 Stryker BONESUPPORT Revenue approx. USD 25.1 bn SEK 1.175 bn Reported operating profit approx. USD 4.9 bn SEK 232 m Net profit approx. USD 3.2 bn approx. SEK 140 m Market capitalization (Sept. 2026) approx. USD 105.7 bn approx. SEK 15 bn The figures illustrate the very large difference in size. Stryker simultaneously has the capacity to carry out significant corporate acquisitions; for example, the company acquired Inari Medical for approximately USD 4.9 billion. 4. Why the distribution collaboration can be important The most interesting aspect of the case is not solely the distribution agreement but what Stryker can learn through the collaboration. A possible development is: 1. Q4 2026: Stryker begins distributing BONESUPPORT's products in Australia and New Zealand. 2. 2027: Stryker monitors sales, usage, clinical response, and customer relationships. 3. If the results are strong, the collaboration can be expanded to more markets or products. 4. Stryker then gets significantly better decision-making basis to assess the long-term strategic benefit of CERAMENT. 5. If BONESUPPORT simultaneously continues to grow rapidly in the USA and Europe, an acquisition could become attractive. 6. Stryker can then choose to buy the entire company before BONESUPPORT becomes even larger and thus more expensive. 5. Possible valuation in case of a bid With approximately 65.44 million outstanding shares and a share price around 218–230 SEK, today's market capitalization corresponds to approximately 14–15 billion SEK. Illustrative bid levels are shown below. These are scenarios, not target prices. Bid/share Share value Premium vs 218 SEK Approximate EV* 300 SEK 19632.6 bn SEK 38 % 19632.1 bn SEK 350 SEK 22904.7 bn SEK 61 % 22904.2 bn SEK 400 SEK 26176.8 bn SEK 83 % 26176.3 bn SEK 450 SEK 29448.8 bn SEK 106 % 29448.4 bn SEK * Simplified EV = share value minus approximately 0.42 bn SEK net cash. Transaction adjustments are not included. 6. How big is such a purchase for Stryker? With a USD/SEK exchange rate around 9.2–9.3, a purchase for 30 billion SEK implies approximately USD 3.2 billion. This corresponds to only about 3 percent of Stryker's market capitalization of approximately USD 105.7 billion. This does not mean that the price is unimportant for Stryker, but the size is manageable for a group of Stryker's size. Furthermore, an acquisition of BONESUPPORT would be significantly smaller than Stryker's Inari deal.If the company has a value of 450-500/Share, that explains the short interest. It's just a matter of waiting.
- ·4.9.Bonex has grown every quarter since 2021. They now expect 33-36% growth. Multiple expansion comes with increased revenue and thus further profits, and the P/E ratio quickly falls from the current 70 to an expected 47 during Q3. This shows how fast things move when earnings per share more than double. Insider purchases strengthen my view that the stock is reasonably priced, along with all analysts' target prices.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | - | - | ||
| 210 | - | - | ||
| 351 | - | - | ||
| 38 | - | - | ||
| 131 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Rahastot ja ETF:t, joilla on osaketta
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 - tulosraportti 22.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 - tulosraportti 16.7. | ||
2026 Q1 - tulosraportti 22.4. | ||
2025 Q4 - tulosraportti 24.2. | ||
2025 Q3 - tulosraportti 23.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 - tulosraportti 15.7.2025 |
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 184 235 | 184 235 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 184 235 | 184 235 | 0 | 0 |
2026 Q2 - tulosraportti
62 päivää sitten
‧52 min
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 - tulosraportti 22.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 - tulosraportti 16.7. | ||
2026 Q1 - tulosraportti 22.4. | ||
2025 Q4 - tulosraportti 24.2. | ||
2025 Q3 - tulosraportti 23.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 - tulosraportti 15.7.2025 |
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·6 t sittenRan today's article in Financial Times about Bonesupport and the highest short interest, through Gemini; The article highlights the ongoing conflict between Bonesupport's strong commercial growth and an extensive short-selling wave driven by doubts surrounding the mechanism of action of antibiotic release. Key points in the FT article Commercial Strength vs. Short-Selling Paradox: Bonesupport guides for organic growth of 33–36%, has only buy recommendations from the analysis firm and lacks financial capital needs. Despite this, the stock is one of Europe's most shorted (~27 trading days' turnover to cover the positions). Short sellers' thesis: A Danish study published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery claims that Cerament's 28-day antibiotic release is based on flawed experimental design (serial dilution) and that >99% of the antibiotic is actually released within 24 hours in mouse models. Bonesupport's defense: The mouse model placed the material in soft tissue without the containment and bone contact crucial for clinical function. The company relies on human data from over 340 clinical studies on more than 3,000 patients. Short-term catalysts: The FDA decision regarding Cerament V (where additional biocompatibility data was recently requested) and the results from the large-scale SOLARIO study at Oxford University. Impact on Bonesupport as an Investment Case 1. The Scientific Case: Human In-Vivo vs. Mouse Models Clinical evidence carries more weight: In orthobiologics, actual clinical results in humans (real-world evidence) have far higher evidentiary value than academic mouse models in soft tissue. With over 12,000 annual procedures in the USA alone and a strong repurchase frequency among orthopedic surgeons, commercial acceptance is practical proof of function. Conflict of interest among critics: The authors behind the Danish study are founders of Precision Antibiotics (funded by Novo Nordisk Fonden), a startup company developing a directly competing local antibiotic delivery. The short-selling narrative is thus based on criticism from a commercial challenger. 2. Catalysts and Volatility Drivers The SOLARIO study as a commercial lever: Demonstrating that local antibiotics enable a shortening of the systemic antibiotic course (from ≥ 4 weeks to ≤ 7 days) strengthens the health economic argument towards hospitals and insurance systems (CMS/Medicare). FDA & Cerament V: The delay in the FDA decision creates a short-term regulatory overhang. Since the Cerament platform is already approved in the USA (Cerament G) and Cerament V has been approved in the EU since 2015, the delay appears more as a matter of documentation timing than a fundamental product risk. Strong Squeeze Potential: With short positions equivalent to approximately 27 trading days, any news that removes doubt (e.g., a positive outcome from the FDA or strong quarterly reports) can trigger a rapid and powerful short squeeze. 3. Risks to Monitor Short-term uncertainty among surgeons: Even if the theoretical criticism is weak in a clinical context, academic debate and newspaper headlines can create temporary hesitation among cautious orthopedic surgeons regarding product choice. Protracted timeline in the USA: If the FDA process for Cerament V is further prolonged, it could temporarily pressure the valuation multiple, even if the core business of Cerament G continues to grow strongly. The FT article points to a classic conflict between theoretical pre-clinical criticism and proven clinical and commercial execution. For a long-term investor, the short sellers' thesis appears exaggerated as it is based on mouse models outside bone tissue rather than the extensive human data underlying the company's approvals. The high short interest creates short-term price volatility but also offers significant upside if the company continues to deliver on its financial goals.
- ·1 päivä sittenBonesupport and Stryker - Acquisition in the LONG TERM Perhaps far-fetched but... Why is Bonesupport allying itself with Stryker? Stryker is, in some respects, a competitor. At my previous employer, I came into contact with equity analysts and asked if they thought any larger company might be interested in Bonesupport, and Stryker came up several times. Stryker could buy all of Bonesupport for one year's profit, that's how big the company is, and they have historically done this type of deal. I ran the case through chat GPT and got this 1. Background and investment idea BONESUPPORT has established a strong position in synthetic bone substitute materials through the CERAMENT platform. The company's growth is primarily driven by the USA, where CERAMENT G has gained increasing commercial importance. At the same time, the company has a high gross margin, improved profitability, and a strong net cash position. A particularly interesting development is that Stryker has entered into a distribution collaboration with BONESUPPORT in Australia and New Zealand. This can be seen as a possible first practical contact between two companies where Stryker is simultaneously a potential strategic buyer. Important: there is no public information indicating that Stryker plans an acquisition of BONESUPPORT. This is therefore a hypothetical scenario and not a claim that a deal is underway. 2. Why Stryker is an interesting potential buyer · Stryker is a global medical technology group with much larger financial resources than BONESUPPORT. · BONESUPPORT's CERAMENT technology can complement Stryker's existing orthopedics business. · Through the distribution, Stryker gets the opportunity to see how CERAMENT performs commercially and how surgeons and hospitals react. · A distribution collaboration can therefore serve as a practical test of the strategic potential before a possible acquisition. · If BONESUPPORT continues to gain market share, the value of owning the technology could become greater for a global player than for the market as a standalone company. 3. The size difference between the companies 2025 Stryker BONESUPPORT Revenue approx. USD 25.1 bn SEK 1.175 bn Reported operating profit approx. USD 4.9 bn SEK 232 m Net profit approx. USD 3.2 bn approx. SEK 140 m Market capitalization (Sept. 2026) approx. USD 105.7 bn approx. SEK 15 bn The figures illustrate the very large difference in size. Stryker simultaneously has the capacity to carry out significant corporate acquisitions; for example, the company acquired Inari Medical for approximately USD 4.9 billion. 4. Why the distribution collaboration can be important The most interesting aspect of the case is not solely the distribution agreement but what Stryker can learn through the collaboration. A possible development is: 1. Q4 2026: Stryker begins distributing BONESUPPORT's products in Australia and New Zealand. 2. 2027: Stryker monitors sales, usage, clinical response, and customer relationships. 3. If the results are strong, the collaboration can be expanded to more markets or products. 4. Stryker then gets significantly better decision-making basis to assess the long-term strategic benefit of CERAMENT. 5. If BONESUPPORT simultaneously continues to grow rapidly in the USA and Europe, an acquisition could become attractive. 6. Stryker can then choose to buy the entire company before BONESUPPORT becomes even larger and thus more expensive. 5. Possible valuation in case of a bid With approximately 65.44 million outstanding shares and a share price around 218–230 SEK, today's market capitalization corresponds to approximately 14–15 billion SEK. Illustrative bid levels are shown below. These are scenarios, not target prices. Bid/share Share value Premium vs 218 SEK Approximate EV* 300 SEK 19632.6 bn SEK 38 % 19632.1 bn SEK 350 SEK 22904.7 bn SEK 61 % 22904.2 bn SEK 400 SEK 26176.8 bn SEK 83 % 26176.3 bn SEK 450 SEK 29448.8 bn SEK 106 % 29448.4 bn SEK * Simplified EV = share value minus approximately 0.42 bn SEK net cash. Transaction adjustments are not included. 6. How big is such a purchase for Stryker? With a USD/SEK exchange rate around 9.2–9.3, a purchase for 30 billion SEK implies approximately USD 3.2 billion. This corresponds to only about 3 percent of Stryker's market capitalization of approximately USD 105.7 billion. This does not mean that the price is unimportant for Stryker, but the size is manageable for a group of Stryker's size. Furthermore, an acquisition of BONESUPPORT would be significantly smaller than Stryker's Inari deal.If the company has a value of 450-500/Share, that explains the short interest. It's just a matter of waiting.
- ·4.9.Bonex has grown every quarter since 2021. They now expect 33-36% growth. Multiple expansion comes with increased revenue and thus further profits, and the P/E ratio quickly falls from the current 70 to an expected 47 during Q3. This shows how fast things move when earnings per share more than double. Insider purchases strengthen my view that the stock is reasonably priced, along with all analysts' target prices.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Määrä
Osto
-
Myynti
Määrä
-
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | - | - | ||
| 210 | - | - | ||
| 351 | - | - | ||
| 38 | - | - | ||
| 131 | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Rahastot ja ETF:t, joilla on osaketta
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Välittäjätilasto
Ostaneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 184 235 | 184 235 | 0 | 0 |
Myyneet eniten
| Välittäjä | Ostettu | Myyty | Netto | Sisäinen |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anonyymi | 184 235 | 184 235 | 0 | 0 |