The 10-K has to identify potential pitfalls. I usually listen to the calls to try to see if competition including internal hospital testing are cutting into the re-order rate. Right now that is not apparent , but you are right to identify these concerns.
On the practical side, how many hospitals have done enough research to come up with a genomic profile to support decision making. This requires many years of research and validation studies. Having the Cleveland Clinic and Univ of Cal San Fran helps establish the test validity. The high price suggests to me that GHDX believes that Onco DX is superior to anything else out there. They can always lower the price as competition arises. it is difficult to go the other way and raise prices once you have established a lower baseline for reimbursement. The fact that the repeat order rate is high despite the pricing is encouraging (but still something to watch).
Appreciate the response, given how dead this board is.
Yesterday, the Obama Administration rolled out the Medicare pay provisions under the Affordable Care Act.
As predicted it marks a major move away from the pay for service model that has been in place forever. The new model, reimbursement will reward providers that provide better outcomes for patients . The model includes bonuses for Drs and hospitals who deliver care under budget while achieving good outcomes for patients.
If the Onco Dx prostate test enables Urologists to achieve these goals (as touted by GHDX) then it should start seeing major traction this year. No coincidence that GHDX has guided us to expect 20 to 25% Revenue growth starting this year.
Statistically, SBS has never been this oversold before. Of course this is a record 80 yr drought so we are in uncharted waters.
Report is 1.5 years old but identifies a critical need for prostate tests to aid decision making.
The Coverage and Analysis Group at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
requested that the Technology Assessment Program (TAP) of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ) conduct an update of the horizon scan of genetic tests for cancer
conditions. AHRQ assigned this project to the Tufts Medical Center Evidence-based Practice
Center (Contract Number: HHSA 290 2007 10055 I, Task Order #11).
The ongoing crisis has forced local governments to raise taxes on household water consumption.
The government of São Paulo state is considering raising taxes on household on water consumption in order to tackle the ongoing water and energy shortages, Brazilian daily newspaper Folha de São Paulo reported Friday.
The proposal aims to reduce water consumption in the city of Sao Paulo through forcing "changes in behavior 'by inflicting pain on the pocket.’”
In response to the recent announcement, the Brazilian Association of Consumer Protection organized a protest for Monday which is scheduled to take place in front of the Bandeirantes Palace, the official seat of state government.
"We do not oppose the additional surcharge just as long as it is instituted through an official decree. We want transparency. The consumer is not aware of which areas will lack water and for how long," said Maria Ines Dolci, the coordinator of the protest.
Well the close was as ugly as the rest of the day. I thought I understood the negatives and the positives here but now I'm not sure.
On the positive side
SBS is a near monopoly providing a critically necessary service (water and sanitation) in one of the wealthier areas of the Country of Brazil.
The population of Brazil is growing creating more demand;
The 2016 Olympics should guarantee that the Country will want to put its best foot forward ion this critical infrastructure.
There have been recent tariffs increases to cover increased costs.
The dividend yield is now north of 5% and is pretty well covered based on historical cash flow. I guess one could say the drought could dent the cash flow to the point where the div is at risk, b
There are alternatives being implemented to deal with the drought.(stream diversion etc.)
On the negative side
There is the drought resulting SBS being forced to offer incentives to reduce volume which reduces the revenue earned on the volume of water used;
Brazil is left leaning with socialist tendencies. I have seen Brazil nationalize parts of critical businesses in the past or dictate pricing (fairly normal for a utility even in the US).
The Olympics and the drought may be resulting in increased expenditures to improve infrastructure to minimize water loss due to leakage.
I still think SBS has the potential to be a triple or more just on the 10 year trading channel the stock has been in. I'm accumulating but want to see evidence that a bottom is in before buying more. At some point some of the negatives can turn fast.
The dollar has had a good run against emerging market currencies, this could turn around and benefit the SBS ADR's.
The drought is not breaking under near normal precipitation the bast couple of months. The rainfall has likely replenished groundwater levels which must occur before the reservoir levels can go up (i.e., slow exfiltration). The latter half of the rainy season will be critical.
I think this is an orchestrated event. SBS has been bumping up against the lower channel of long term support (like 10-15 year trend). this lower support in the 5.70 area was holding each time it was tested. Today it wooshed through this support. Looks like the selling from big holders early in the day was designed to take out the stop losses to create a good buying opportunity. If SBS rallies at the end of the day on big volume say 6 million shares or more, it should mark a bottom.
I bought some more at $5.35. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment.
I just googled to find a graphical comparison of the $ to the Real. I don't want to vouch for the site. I could not find any news anywhere. SBS has been flirting with a longterm trendline channel base (look at 10 yr or more of data). it has held each time it bumped against this trend line. This woosh through it looks like it was designed to take out stop losses to create a bottom trough buying opportunity for some unknown entity. I decided to buy some more shares at at $5.35. This is a total speculation we will see how it plays out.
Don't think so. The Real traded at .3885 US$ yesterday and is now at .38680, a pretty minor change. TSU another Brazilian ADR has barely moved. I think the new CEO was speaking. Anyone know anything. Bloomberg has nothing.
You are thinking it too deep. NVS is multinational so they sell into markets wordwide and do not necessarily convert to francs. Their costs are also spread throughout the word so they are hedged against the sudden strengthening of their currency.
The market reaction is to breaking the cap tied to the to the Euro was an approximate 17% strengthening of the Franc relative to the dollar (sse chart). Two days ago the franc was about on par with the dollar ( Franc/$=.98). it has now appreciated that to 1.17 . So Novartis shares now worth more dollars,
Longer term some of the factors you mention may come into play, right now its just lucky we hold our shares in ADRs denominated in $. The Swiss saw the opposite effec. their shares cost less francs than 2 days ago.
This article has interesting implications for GHDX.
However, this statement makes me believe that there is a place for tests such as those marketed by GHDX.
Monk, instead, views Foundation’s tests as more applicable in “desperate” situations: “We don’t profile [a tumor] for [hundreds] of genes, we profile it for what’s relevant to that tumor type and to those approved agents. And all of that other noise, I don’t know what it means.”
EXC is playing some hardball. Their PJM bid last year did not seek to be the lowest cost provider. instead when they lost (or did not get as big a piece as they may have originally wanted) they threatened to close underperforming nuclear plants (Quad Cities, etc.) and pointed out that the nuc plants operated at 95% efficiency during last years polar vortex(s) when coal, nat gas and wind all faltered. They have also pointed out that the only way Illinois meets the USEPA 2030 carbon emission guidelines is to support the nuc plants. This stance combined with the new republican administration in the State looks like it has improve their negotiating position.
I saw that article and believe it is incorrect. NVS sued the FDA a couple years ago to make a decision on the human growth hormone drug Omnitrope. I believe that it is actually the first biosimilar drug approved in the US.
Only 9.9% this time. This marks at least 5 consecutive years by my count. I think there was another midyear hike in July or August last year, as well. Teva is riding the horse hard while the FDA and Supreme Court leave MNTA-Sandoz twisting in the wind.
That can be taken as a positive or a negative depending on your perspective. The Baker Bros continue to maintain control of around 45% of the share float. I don't believe they can exceed 50% without incorporating GHDX as a subsidiary. I suspect that they have control of more than 50% of the float which would make the small shareholder irrelevant for any major decision making. Thus far it has not been a problem since their interests appear to be aligned. However, what might happen if another company they had an interest in wanted to acquire GHDX? Sure there would be a long line of Class action attorneys lining up to sign up plaintiffs. However, that is almost always a good situation for the attorneys and not the share holders.
There is 0 evidence that this is a concern, just something to keep in the back of you mind.
As I have said numerous times, this is my favorite play for a likely deflationary environment. If GHDX executes this year in the manner they have guided us to expect, then we should be off to the races. Growth will be extremely hard to find if the deflationary forces accelerate. I suspect that is why the share price has held up reasonably the past couple of days. Of course the extremely high percentage of institutional and insiders probably limit the sell side volatility.
From the 2013 An Rept
Our ability to compete and to achieve sustained profitability is impacted by our ability to protect our proprietary discoveries and technologies. We currently rely on a combination of issued patents, patent applications, copyrights, trademarks, and confidentiality, material data transfer, license and invention assignment agreements to protect our intellectual property rights. We also rely upon trade secret laws to protect unpatented know-how and continuing technological innovation. Our intellectual property strategy is intended to develop and maintain our competitive position. Patents may be granted to us jointly with other organizations, and while we may have a right of first refusal, we cannot guarantee that a joint owner will not license rights to another party, and we cannot guarantee that a joint owner will cooperate with us in the enforcement of patent rights. .....
There have been several cases involving "gene patents" and diagnostic claims that have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. In March 2012, the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Laboratories, or Prometheus, found a patented diagnostic method claim unpatentable because the relationship between a metabolite concentration and optimized dosage was a patent-ineligible "law of nature." In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in ACLU v. Myriad Genetics , or Myriad, that an isolated genomic DNA sequence is not patent eligible while cDNA is eligible. Both the Prometheus and Myriad decisions affect the legal concept of subject matter eligibility by seemingly narrowing the scope of the statute defining patentable inventions.
To me these paragraphs confirm my earlier statement, that confidentiality an maintaining strict control over the testing procedures are the primary means of protecting the intellectual property/technology.
Any thoughts about the recent Myriad ruling. In the case of the BRA or BRA2 tests the court appears to be re-affirming that MYGN can not patent the use of this genetic sequence for breast and ovarian cancer diagnostic purposes. How does this differ from GHDX's model. Sounds like the BRA sequence is well known and that the analyses of the sequence may not be exclusive to MYGN's lab facility. This is probably the result of the BRA gene test development in conjunction with the Univ. of Penn. Is GHDX's model fundamentally different by the fact that they have not specifically detailed and published the exact genomic sequence used to diagnose say prostate cancer aggressiveness? Is the intellectual property better protected by restricting the analyses of the OncoDX prostate tests to a single lab facility? My read is that if another company does its own research and comes up with a similar or the same genomic sequence they are will free to exploit it without fear of patent infringement suits. This is probably a strong reason for GHDX to restrict the number of lab facilities and to hold employees to to very strict non disclosure requirements.
I'll look through Annual Reports for more discussion.