Slide 31 of the JP Morgan presentation says "$100-million offering closed in December 2014".
Does this mean the offering is complete? Usually there is a press release to mark the completion.
Why would anyone short something whose price is held down artificially? If it is being held down, it seems unlikely to drop further, and remaining down relies on policy.
Hard to Borrow
Available to Short: 1,167,391
Est. Annual Interest Rate: 6.000%
Speculation of the creation of a better product is the easy part.
Have you done any research regarding what that hypothetical better product would be?
You say a scan, but have you done any research regarding the bowel prep required for scans?
Have you done any research regarding blood tests and what markers might be found in blood and in what levels compared to what can be found in a stool sample?
Have you done any research regarding the time and money required to gain FDA approval for a new cancer screening test?
Have you done any research?
I have, and that is why I am invested in Exact Sciences.
The pap test is a microscopic examination of cells sampled from the cervix. You will not find a company that profits from this test, so that model will not give any comparison. ThinPrep belongs to Hologic, so you could look at them. The most direct comparison would be with the DNA screen for HPV. This was developed by Third Wave, which was bought by Hologic.
"even if I have to do CG every year w/o any reimbursement, I would go for it."
I don't think that is typical. I think most people do not keep CRC in mind and, in general, only do those screenings that the doctor insists upon, or those that can be performed while at an office visit. Whether it's due to fear of stool or procedure, I cannot say, but I think a large part is "whistling past the graveyard" or "It can't happen here".
The CDC cites a 70% screening rate for mammograms, about a 75% rate for cervical cancer and about 60% for CRC. Clearly there is room for improvement. Perhaps Exact Sciences can suggest to physicians that the test kit be offered as part of an office visit for those who have been prescribed the test, but did not return a sample. They get to wait in the office for their appointment until they produce.
I think that higher rates can be achieved within the medicare population by having higher Medicare premium deductions for those who have not completed their screenings - only fair since they likely cost the system more. Write your representative.
I just noticed that my model had a worst-case scenario number for the CMS rate.
$497 CMS rate recently confirmed,
$32M/qtr sales expenses cited during the 11/12/14 Stephen's conference
My model projections are:
2015: $74.3M on 149,404 tests sold, giving an EPS of $(0.87)
2016: $201.9M on 406,000 tests sold, giving an EPS of $ 0.31
A twitter post (not an infallible source) shows a microscopic image of a Canaccord release explaining a revision to their model:
2014Q4: rev of $1.5M on 4,154 tests, down from $2.1M on 5,580 tests, due to 4-6 week prescription-to-revenue lag time and expected 60% initial patient compliance.
2015Q1: 13,398 tests, down from 18,000 tests.
2015: rev of $55.8M on 129,606 tests, giving $(1.43) EPS, down from $79.4M on 180,480 tests giving $(1.32) EPS.
2016: rev of $196.1M, giving $(0.85) EPS, down from $202.4M, giving $(0.81).
My own model has:
2015: $54.4M on 149,404 tests sold, giving an EPS of $(1.08)
2016: $148M on 406,000 tests sold, giving an EPS of $(0.28)
Possibly. KC has recently waned on talk of physician enrollments, deferring to earnings reports. He is likely to speak only of what is a done deal, and not issue any projections.
I assumed your "WHAT" was directed at my most recent post, so I re-read and see that there is a point of confusion. What I wrote could be interpreted to say that the bases are bound to the sugars by hydrogen bonds, which I believe is not the case - I was only referring to the base-base bond. While I don't know off the top of my head, I would guess that the bases are bound to the sugars by ester bonds at one of the hydroxyl groups of the sugar. Sorry for the confusion.
Individual sugar molecules are a tough nuts to crack, but chains of them, like starches and cellulose, are pretty easy to snip apart - enzymes (amylase) in saliva do it. The stomach uses other enzymes (like pepsin) to digest proteins, but the peptide bonds that form the linkages between the amino acids that make up proteins are also hydrolyzed by stomach acid. Amino acids are also tough nuts to crack. DNA does not have any of these bonds, so the fact that sugars and amino acids can survive the trip doesn't mean that DNA can.
The DNA structure is as a twisted ladder. The verticals of the ladder are the reduced form of ribose bound to their like neighbors by ester bonds with phosphate molecules. Those bonds are not too tough to crack with acid. The rungs of the ladder are bases (C, T, G, & A) bound to the deoxyribose strut and to its counterpart on the other strut by hydrogen bonds. A dose of antacids as a form of test prep might help keep more DNA intact for the upper GI tests.
Sputum would be fine and possibly preferable for the reasons you have cited. One reason to use the stool sample is because they will already have it in-house in the case of Cologuard customers. Another reason is that, with a sputum sample, you get what was hacked up at that moment, while in a stool sample, you get what was swallowed over the course of time.
Given that DNA's ladder is a chain of phosphate esther bonded sugars, I find it amazing that any of it survives the trip through the GI tract. It is slightly more conceivable to me that pancreatic DNA might survive the trip given that it gets dumped in after the stomach. Lung cells get to swim in stomach acid, making it a real surprise that they come out intact. Since they are talking about a screen for esophageal cancer, apparently it does.
The cilia lining the respiratory passages sweep the debris up to your throat, then you swallow it.
This is one reason I think a lung cancer screen would be a good choice. Lung cancer is far more prevalent than pancreatic cancer, and I believe the treatment outcomes are better too.
Good point ear, if the BRAF mutation was found in a stool sample, then it is unlikely to come from lymph or thyroid though it may still have come from the lung.
"The serrated pathway is characterized by mutations in the BRAF gene, high levels of methylation of promoter CpG islands (CIMP-high),"
Does Cologuard check for these? BRAF is also found in thyroid, lymphoma, lung and melanoma, so it is not exactly specific to CRC.
Unless I missed the news, the offering is still not complete. Seems unlikely that they have not yet placed 4.6 million shares in the 3 weeks since 12/16.