It has to done in a "timely" manner so as not to theoretically give anyone a trading advantage. I say theoretically because this guideline seems to be ignored by some companies.
Regarding PACB, I am assuming that were they to experience a relationship change with Roche or a significant change in their second half of the year forecast for revenues (remember, they told us that sales were back-ended into this year's second half), they would have to make an announcement as soon as they became aware of the change,
Like the song, "It's all in the Game." Wall Street does not exist for small (retail) investors. Does anyone really think these guys care about small buyers/sellers of perhaps, at most, a few thousand shares of stock when they can generate commissions from huge short sale recommendation that they "orchestrate" with quasi-secretive tips to large institutions/hedge funds, knowing that they will get the other side of those trades after the damage has been done?
With retail commissions down to next to nothing, these anal-ysts need a better source of income to keep their jobs. Overhead is not covered by commissions of $7.95 a pop.
And, if the anal-ysts aren't working for the hedge guys, institutional money, then they're working for the companies they back though underwritings, mergers, acquisitions, etc., etc. That's how they make enough to stay employed.
Under current SEC regs, a company is required to disclose any matter deemed to be "material."
Taking this literally, I am left to assume that there is nothing material to report....or if there is/was and the company failed to timely disclose said information, they would be in violation of the securities laws. This leaves me to believe that what we are witnessing is either some manipulation by shorts, market-makers, potential suitors, etc.
FWIT, I added today at $6.98...I strategized that the end of the quarter, as I've previously posted, can be a time of extreme and unusual volatility. Hope I'm right.
I think the very recent selloff is primarily institutional quarter-end selling to facilitate not having to show this loser in their reports to clients/investors. If I am correct, we should soon see a reasonably strong rebound as selling is replaced by bargain hunters.
to the end of Q3 in 2015. That strongly suggests "window dressing" going on...selling by funds so as not having to show losers at quarter-end.
Shameful practice but it happens all the time.
End of quarter activity by funds, orgs. who do not want to show losers in a quarter-end reporting period. In reality, the real number is the asset value per share/unit....not the end of quarter holdings which can be easily massaged.
Once we enter Q 3, I expect bargain hunters to get back in; in fact, with a 3-day settlement, they may already be initiating or building positions in PACB.
If you will pull up a monthly chart of ILMN (a pretty direct comparison to PACB) and take a look at the former's first five to six years as a public company, you will see rather similar volatility. We have to remember that both companies were unprofitable in their early years and that probably accounts for much of the volatility.
My point is that we should be just fine but we'll have to ride out the bumps and bruises along the way. If you believe in PACB (as I do) consider what we're experiencing as the price of admission to own what should be a great investment in 2-5 years...we just have to let the shorts, or whoever chooses to play with the stock, to have their short-term fun before we get back on track which I'm sure we will do.
Last point, biotech investing is not for the meek.