Maybe speculative stocks that have a pattern of disappointments are just more likely to disappoint again. When they report has nothing to do with it.
I wonder if the replacement of Moffit was as a result of a "look for an acquirer" vs. "go it alone" disagreement.
If NSPH can get to the point where they can support themselves on their own income before they dilute everyone into oblivion; there'll probably be more upside for investors in the "go it alone" scenario.
Right now though, if $75 milllion in revenue is still their break even point, it seems a long way off.
In March of 2013 the company stated they thought is was possible to likely they'd be profitable within one year. They said they'd need $75 Million in Revenue to be profitable and they thought they could do this with 400 - 600 placements; at the time their annual revenue was around $5 - 6 million.
So a year and half later they're projecting $20 million annual revenue, about a quarter of what they stated they'd need to be profitable. Yet placements are now pretty much in the range they thought they'd need to generate $75 million. So their placements are not generating the revenue they thought they would, possible because of the lengthy months long testing period required after installation. Let's hope it's not because customers aren't using the tests.
Setting high expectations (from $5 Million to $75 Million in one year?! wow!) and then failing to even come close to meeting them is a sure way to crater your share price.
To me the pivotal event will be profitability/ positive cash flow. The dark cloud hanging over this stock is the uncertainty as to how much more dilution will be necessary until the company can support itself.
Once the market is convinced that issuing shares will not be the company's only recourse for staying afloat the price will adjust more toward earnings and revenue expectations.
As long as the denominator in forward looking calculations of Earnings Per Share is unknown and keeps getting bigger the market's not going to jump on this stock.
There were too many overly optimistic timelines released by the company about when profitability would be achieved. It's taking much longer than expected and no one feels they can trust management estimates for this anymore.
Hold news that's material to the company's performance or timing the release of news to when you feel it most benefits the company's stock is a good way to get in a lot of trouble fast.
The drag here is business execution and probably weak management.
Good products; good track record of FDA approvals, the science-side seems solid... poor business execution.
Volume is low? Not really, it's average volume.
There was a spike in volume during the downdraft from mid March to mid May with 5 big spike days that have driven the 3 mo average up. The volume we're seeing now has returned to slightly above the average levels before that.
Gosh! I should probably do everything you do so I can be a big Wiener, just like you!
Froth-mouthed shorts are a good sign of future upside potential methinks.
These things aren't scheduled. GS says an average of 167 days after Advisory Committee, if that holds it would put the date around Sept 10th.
So you think he's making this point to encourage people to buy, or at least hold their shares? If you believed this version of things, would you do that?
I'm gotten pretty suspicious of "longs' on this board offering an altruistic "warning of imminent doom" to other longs.
Benefit of the doubt: Maybe he's gaming the worst case... OK.
What do I make of it? It's very far-fetched.
So all this boils down to, sell your shares because:
= There's a secret product out there that no one knows anything about and there's no information on... but it's better than cologuard and it will steal its market.
= There's a secret conspiracy going on funded by super-wealthy and super-smart investors that we don't really know the particulars of, and we don't know who's involved, but they can't lose because they've employed some super-hedge you can't understand, but you will lose if you stay long.
If I wanted to answer the question: How can I scare people out of their shares when there's really no logical basis for selling? I think I'd come up with something like this.
Is there a way to find out if the short shares are mostly held by one or two firms; or whether they're fairly evenly distributed among many firms/investors?
If their are a broad range of holders of short shares with no really heavy concentrations with any single player, I'd argue that it's probably just bears who felt Biotech was due a fall and went after the biggest gainers or Biotech ETF's. Conspiring to spring some patent trespass trap and keep it secret would require a small number of players IMO.
This schedule is heavy in highlighting the huge advantages Cologuard affords:
● Serrated polyp: Some 20 - 30% of polyps are serrated, Cologuard is better at detecting this than colonoscopy
● IBD/Chron's disease: Cologuard is really the only option for these 1 million plus patients with inflamed colons
● Barret's esophagus/ Pancreatic cancer/Upper GI: This is the new frontier where Cologuard may develop over time into a comprehensive Total GI tract cancer screen, which will have huge implications.