How much longer do you think cost of revenue = product revenue ? hopefully by the end of this year when they go into full production. Initially, is expensive to build complex low volume products.
Frankly, I could give two #$%$ about human genome sequences. I predicts that anything gained by personal genomics approaches will be exploited by big pharma to justify their existence at exorbitant price, that's just how they roll. I am much more interested in the capacity of SMRT tech to inform us of the true diversity of genomiic DNA sequences-- warts and all-- of all species in our world. PacBio SMRT can do that, ILMN,cannot. That is not at allto say that human genome assemblies are unimportant. It's just that I happen to have a broader perspective.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Its Q1 has net loss $19.4 million which is bigger than its revenue $19.1 million. I don't see PACB could be profitable in next 5 years.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Prior to roll-out of the Sequel system, the PacBio RS platform earned a reputation for long reads, to be sure, but a that benefit came with a significant cost in terms of error rate, requiring additional data obtained via short-read platforms in order to achieve acceptable sequence accuracy. The Sequel SMRT platform eliminates the need for traditional short read sequence acquisition. In re: to your question "how to change the situation" the answer is straighforward: implementation and performance. I predict that we will soon begin to see an increasing number of exceptionally high quality, de novo genome sequence assemblies described in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and that will change the situation in PacBio's favor.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Putting things into perspective, 98.24% of the shares float did not change hands on Friday. Last reported, 68% are owned by tutes. 80% of ave daily volume. There was more selling, but don't think it's tutes
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Yes, I agree with your thoughts.
We are (pretty much) just along for the ride. And often (most often) opportunities like this company are created for the whales of investing and not the bait-fish.
As well, you are correct about "the meal". We still eat from the same table, though.
Going thru the transcript, it appears they are releasing new software late May, but transition to a higher production they keep on saying this summer ( it appears it should be by june) as they also mention increased production in second half of this year. Roche appears to be the wild card nobody knows when they plan to start selling hoping for later this year. Any thoughts.
I will take the opposite side of the coin and say that taking out the shorting aspect, until big money entrenches itself with large institutional ownership the rocket will not take off. We are just along for the ride regardless of how good or bad it is, no stock of substance ever made more for the little guys than the whales. We just eat the leftovers, sometimes what is left is pretty darn good.
Well, Hey "bubba"!
If I were really preoccupied with short sellers, I'd be one. I'm not.
If you can't understand how shorts make a living via concerted selling, I can't help you with that.
Only you can. Go check out a book from the library. I'm willing to bet that there are books out there on short selling; and your library probably has them.
If Andrew Left can run (and profit from) Citron on the basis of shorting and attack as many companies as he has, I'm sure that what I am seeing here is not conspiracy, or "seeing things", etc.
If you have read the posts, you know the reasons.
Whether they are professional people or run-of-the-mill, generally, I have found that people that take exception with my dislike of shorts, are shorts themselves. Shorting has long been used as more than just some tool to make money. I have entertained discussions with shorts in the past and I have heard many, many of the reasons that they make to rationalize why they approve of shorting.
I could sit here and explain it all to you, but I'm not going to.
I've researched it myself; you go right on ahead and do your own research on it, if you are so inclined.
I find it very curious that a professional, self described geneticist shows up here, and rather than talk about the company, their products or their stock; instead you have chosen to focus on me and ask me to explain things for you that you don't understand. Perplexing. Whatever.
Seems more like a psychologist than a geneticist to me. But again, whatever.
Regardless, your confusion over my views won't change much here.
Once again, welcome, and "let the games begin".
It’s not the shorts that keep this stock going down, but the fact that no one is interested in buying.
Not the guys from the ICAHN institute create revenue for Pacbio, but the thousands of small core facilities around the world (academia and industry). These core facilities receive requests from scientists that, for a great part, are not sequencing experts. When I talk to other scientists about SMRT sequencing, they are all still saying: ‘Pacbio? No way! It’s too expensive and their error rate is way too high’. It’s them that need to be convinced that things have changed and that they are better off with Pacbio. Only then PACB’s revenue will increase substantially, which in turn will arouse the interest of large investors and help the stock going up.
Soon SMRT sequencing will be on par with ILMN regarding costs/Gb. The only advantage of Illumina that remains is higher throughput (and lower sample input?). But then again, what is the use of lots of but completely scrambled ‘genomes’? Actually, I believe that in 2-3 years max Illumina only assemblies will officially not be allowed to be called ‘genomes’ anymore, because they aren’t. Illumina became such a big beast because they were cheap and provided a higher throughput than Sanger. That’s all. Scientists knew about all the disadvantages, but ignored them because there was no alternative available.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Nam-- I generally find your posts informative and often entertaining, but I will confess that I don't understand the reason for your preoccupation with short-sellers. That is, I don't think I understand how the "shorts" make a living through concerted selling algos, as you seem to allege. Do the shorts meet in a conference room somewhere to plot strategy? More fundamentally, why would anyone with any knowledge about the DNA sequencing sector go short on PacB? SMRT is a disruptive technology and one that is already eating Illumina's lunch and it's just going to get worse for ILMN. I work in the genomics field and any facility manager or purchasing agent who shells-out $300k for an Illumina short-read platform vs a comparably priced PacB Sequel unit will be pilloried by clients and should probably be fired for incompetence. Bottom line, this conspiracy of shorts you allege seems highly unlikely to my mind, but what the heck do I know? I'm a geneticist, not a broker, so please help me understand what you think is going on with the shorts.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Hey Nam... I sold my call options for a nice profit and was thinking about loading up on Sept calls @ $10 with the proceeds. The great thing about this company is that their news is for science and their customers but stock people don't care about science. We may see some selling but the runs are going to be substantial and at some point soon they will stick. This company isn't too far from growing profits in a big way!
That's sort of like saying don't blame pedophiles for child molestation or don't blame arsonists for fraudulent fires.
Other companies hire "boiler rooms" for short services. What's going on here is DEFINITELY attributable to shorts.
I have taken positions in many, many, many, MANY stocks in companies and I have NEVER had to short sell to get a position which I could profit from.
If a price is too high, all one has to do is wait for a little while and be patient. Change (up or down) is a constant in this game.
As of 04/15/16, Insti ownership had risen from 68% to 70.14%
Short Interest had fallen from 14.88% of float to 13.84% for the same date.
So there are some small improvements there.
The shorts are here for a reason (other than filling their pockets).
All of the reasons which have been discussed previously are why they're here.
The success of the Sequel, the Roche partnership, the subject of PacBio being buyable, etc. It's all been discussed here before.
They're here for a reason, it's not hap-hazard. It's also why insti-interest is up around 70%. Same, same.
I realize that I am preaching to the choir here; just remember, thanks to our miserable SEC (securities ex commision) and their move to change the uptick rule back in 2007, there isn't a single stock that you can go to and NOT find shorts.
There like litter or those plastic grocery bags; you literally can find them everywhere. Since 2007, they have built themselves a whole cottage industry just defiling companies and corporations.
And now, no matter how hard they try, the SEC can't put THAT toothpaste back in the tube. It NEVER should have been done in the first place (uptick rule).
That is a total load of bunk.
there are more than 3 support levels between where PACB is now and the $8 mark. .
One of them is triple support, strength 10.
So, "your eyeballs are brown".
Good luck navigating it, I'm not telling you what or where they are.
$7.87 is close to a support level, but I doubt you're getting there.