% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Nanosphere, Inc. Message Board

roboklerk 6 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 12, 2016 12:33 PM Member since: Feb 2, 2009
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Habert increases stake to 505K shares

    by chrismoore2525 Jun 29, 2016 11:13 AM
    roboklerk roboklerk Jul 5, 2016 11:56 AM Flag

    To be fair, the other legitimate take on all this is that the reporting persons have pretty much "scrubbed" all the alternatives available w/other shareholders, competitor companies, industry analysts, investor professionals and......nothing has come of it. No one is stepping up to take out the company. Now, of course, it would be formally up to the Board of Directors to decide to explore strategic alternatives and we have no announcement of that, only that discussions w/the reporting persons have been constructive. If they could really sell the company, why wouldn't they just do it, or at least announce they are exploring various alternatives to enhance shareholder value. The sentiment remains that executive management and the BOD may have to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into an alternative solution that enhances value for its shareholder owners. The pressure to do so has definitely been turned up a notch, but after two decades of fumbling the ball on the goal line time after time we'll have to just wait and see.

  • Reply to

    Habert increases stake to 505K shares

    by chrismoore2525 Jun 29, 2016 11:13 AM
    roboklerk roboklerk Jul 5, 2016 2:31 PM Flag

    The time for "constructive" discussion is over. It has been at least four months since Moab acquired its initial stake. Stop diddling around. The Reporting Persons need to get on w/the coup. Marz and the BOD will never cede control. Just go about the business of removing them before more shareholder value is lost.

  • Never seen that before, by any company. Geezus, six weeks from now they will have to announce it again because everyone will have forgotten about it. Maybe they just wanted to assure everyone they will still be around in two months, they will report the quarter as per usual, they will not be pushed around, nobody is going to take control of the company or their entrenched positions and they wanted to make that perfectly clear. Of course that would be just about the worst outcome for shareholders. These are the last guys you want driving the bus. The technology has always been great. The management infrastructure (or lack thereof) and Board oversight has been at the other end of the continuum. What's the gross margin on the new business awarded? Orders mean little unless you know the profit embedded in them.

  • roboklerk roboklerk Jul 11, 2016 4:16 PM Flag

    This is garbage, put it out curbside overnight for pickup

  • Reply to

    AWLCF Frustration

    by juanruiz1330 Jul 8, 2016 4:18 PM
    roboklerk roboklerk Jul 12, 2016 9:59 AM Flag

    It's tough being tied to the commodity cycle. It's tough playing small cap home run type stocks. Look at a company like VZ instead, from $38 to $55 and still paying a Divvy over 4%. No one turns off the taps on VZ, unless everyone stops using their phone for text, call and data.

  • come early-to-mid November, if institutional holders don't move quickly. The tax loss selling season coincides w/PRCP's reporting of its normally seasonally weakest Fiscal Q1, and it is often a loss for the quarter. Look at the margins. They do not make a profit. They are giving away business to stay alive. No wonder they win contracts. I'd buy from the guy offering 29% gross margins instead of the guys doing 55%-78% gross margins (FARO and CGNX).

1.690.00(0.00%)Jun 30 4:00 PMEDT