Per the tape and volume on Friday and Monday it seems new buyers stepped in versus just short covering. I believe the low volume today supports this thesis. I personally initiated a position on Friday. As, I assume others did. I now await news about the limited controlled roll-out to substantiate merit of tests from physician groups and patients. Regarding the noise on insiders needing to buy more. This team has been compensated with shares and options as part of there compensation package. As, all bio start up teams off set the more modest salaries and risk by upside in ownership. So, why would they go spend their cash to by more shares ? they don´t need too. Regarding the roll-out it seems like it methodical and strategic to ultimately capture a big foot print in this 15bb market. I´m personally going to remain patient and excited to be involved with these guys. Per all my Due Diligence , I believe TROV could have a 2 handle on it in the 12 months. All the above is my very humble opinion. Blessings.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I make investments based on market opportunity. Which led me to get involved here. Yet, as my posts highlight i use technical indicators to enter and exit. After, thinking through the different sides of this opportunity this weekend. I believe MGMT might be priming this for acquisition in the near term. I was led to this believe by their quasi undefined macro roll out strategy , including there lack of ramp up of sales reps. Thus, it leads me to consider they want to team up with a company that has an established and creditable sales infrastructure in place. Thereby; allowing them to add their product on someones menu. They have been kinda cagey about disclosing REV model and very adamant about data, data which also tells me they´re not focused on making money but focused on building the barriers to entry ( IP ) and getting proof of concept and willingness of adoption that all lends itself to getting the best deal possible. As, the matrix of valuation will not be based on current or historical sales but future sales. thus, it comes down to IP and Adoption. My gut tells me they are talking to potential buyers now .... All the above is my humble often naive opinion.
regarding the offering great question. My gut answer based on experience is that you can never count on a buy out even if its your end game or a viable exit. thus, you need to be prepared for a deal not going , secondly, a depleting war chest can weaken your leverage - stance in a protracted negotiation as the acquiring party can use it against you if when negotiating in good faith. The more i ponder a buy out the more makes it makes sense from a mass global roll out approach. potential candidates , usually suspects all have synergistic tie ins. whether it be relationships with doctors, sales teams, lab scalability and ins with the reimbursers.
restructuring eminent . new owners will restructure dept as they will not be able to walk away from it as there are asset liens on intellectual property or future cash flows. writ of attachment. nevertheless, this is toxic now. liquidate and move to sidelines. my HUMBLE 2 CENTS
watching the tape. waiting for the whack. yet,early volume is high. new buyers or short covering fake melt up to walk it down ... interesting case study here.
Upon listening to CC last night again: I tuned out enthusiasm and was surprised at the dodging of questions. Such as the number of groups or doc signed up in pre commercial roll-out as they only would state it was oversubscribed by 500% . the same type of slippery elusiveness was highlighted about the number of reps planned or how they would ramp up roll-out and any type of rev or break-even model based on testing. the CC left me with more questions then answers. it was like a roadshow that served only appetizers. i¨m just thinking out loud in my humble and often ill informed process.
Jrdelane. I was about to post my take on technicals. The daily chart is showing the MACDwith a touch of positive divergence as the RSI is in oversold territory. NIce little reverse hammer showed as well. albeit on the late surge. Stoch look curled up and ready to turn. I believe we see 6 plus by next week.
the other big question is the time to get approved for reimbursements as this will greatly stymie the commercial roll-out. patients will be less likely to use this disruptive and potentially out performing platform if they have to pay for it. just leads me to believe we have a long way to go before this model is bringing in meaningful revenue. dont get me wrong love the story but alot of patience is going to be required perhaps more then i wanted to admit.
my point was simply they need the reimbursement contracts in place prior to mass rollout. which could take a lot more time then anticipated as it layered with bureaucracies. I've been there as a CEO of a health care start up. it was brutal.
aplogize for mis communication , they have proof of concept now need proof of adoption. no need to be hostile . just sharing humble opinions. praise jesus
they will need proof of adoption not just concept. buy out possible but the can needs to be kicked way down the road for both side of a deal. yet, very viable exit strategy for trov shareholders.
great points Bio. Alot of my thesis on a buy out is based on my own jaded experiences of getting products to market .I just think they see the leverage and economies of scale by walking in a established foot print versus trying to cut out there own. regarding reimbursements, i believe this will come yet not without resistance. Yet, I agree with MGMT strategy of letting the data due the talking. albeit with out it in place any roll-out will be limited. but, lets say that TROV turns on the facet of testing with a discount prior to reimbursement approval therby establishing the market then just change the billing model post approval. now , imagine a established testing company behind them durig the beta roll out . just challenging conventional thinking. as, my own start up days are behind me.
Does anyone have any clarity on this issue. I believe the FDA's blood sub committee agreed 16 to 1 that it was prudent to pass new requirements yet the FDA governing body rejected the committee's recommendation. Please advise. blessings. RG