Given the uncertain response and compliance to it, given it's less than stellar predictive ability not to mention a possible FDA labeling concern outlining as much, I don't think the market can justify it's 685 million dollar market cap for much longer. In short; this stock is over priced. Good company, (not great) but over priced stock. I realize that there are those who will counter with what the market COULD be, ie. BILLIONS etc. blah blah blah, however that WON'T be until we can see better than a 43% detection rate for precancerous polyps 1cm and smaller (anything larger is no longer a "polyp". So enough of my explaining. I wish all of you good luck and hope you don't give back these long, hard fought gains expecting that these prices will last forever. Rose colored glasses are a blessing when all hope is lost, but we are far far from that now with a market cap approaching 700 million yet unsuccessful in achieving what I believed (and there are many like me) to be one of our primary objectives with this test.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The majority of pre-cancerous polyps less than 1 cm don't ever become cancer.
As a result, you would be referring people for needless colonoscopies.
The 92% detection rate for CANCERS is a "game-changer".
Good Luck on your shorts.
You may be the most arrogant puke of all. I have trouble separating your insolent outbursts from those of our resident pumptroll, ms, but I will show you the undeserved respect of pretending like you are not the same person.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
"Given the uncertain response and compliance to it"
FIT and the pap smear carry no FDA-required label regarding their pre-cancer detection, so there is no reason to expect the FDA to require the labeling you suggest for Cologuard.
The market sets the market cap, without regard to what you or I think. A binary event (top-line results) recently drove the stock price below $9 for all of 6 days, now it is back around where it was. Seems pretty clear what value the market places on EXAS.
You cite 43% as the pre-cancer detection rate. That is the overall number, but the 1 cm and smaller polyps fall under the category of things that probably should not be treated since many such polyps do not progress to cancer. If the test detected a very high fraction of these small polyps, it would negatively effect the clinical usefulness and cost efficiency of the test since many people would be required to undergo a procedure to remove a polyp that would never have progressed to disease. The PSA test is currently under such scrutiny. The detection rate for 2cm and larger polyps is 66%. Take the test 3 times and your odds of detecting disease are 97%. That assumes no progression in the disease (for which sensitivity is higher) and no improvements in the test over the 9 years spent at 1 test every 3 years. Not only is that better than any non-invasive test, it is good on it's own right.
We all spend a lot of time trying to convince ourselves of the wisdom of our investment, or convince others of the foolishness of theirs. Considering the weight of these arguments, I think a neutral observer would agree that the long arguments are more based on fact, precedence and science than the short arguments. So before you go pointing at my rose-colored glasses, look in the mirror and take note of your own.
sstephanc, thank you for your well articulated and thoughtful response. I am so tired of the bashers who attack my posts with nothing more than name calling and insults. Where you differ from the others is in that you actually offer a point of view and some information as opposed to the sole use of insults hurled my way. Although I'm not certain of a consensus on all of the "facts" you cite, you make a sound argument and that is something I can appreciate.
By "uncertain response", I am referring to the medical community's acceptance and by "compliance" I am referring to the public's willingness to go through the procedure in addition to colonoscopy. I suspect that only those with a hereditary high risk level will comply. Thank you.
trg, are you truly that ignorant, are you just trying to be an a s-swhole? The use of the inclusive form "we" is used widely throughout stock message boards to mean, "we, the SHAREHOLDERS" dummy! Get with it!!!!
btw, Crushalgo, don't pay any attention to this simpleton gone pumptard, we need more HONEST points of view on this board as opposed to the same old bagholding cheerleaders who have little more to contribute than to put those without their blind optimism "in their place" - P A T H E T I C !