On 10/14/14, Canacord Genuity raised it's price target for Exact Sciences from $23 to $32.
Today you say they reduced that to $30. The only source I see citing a downgrade from $32 to $30 is on Schaeffer's research blog. If we assume it is true, then a $30 price target is 25% above our current market price, vs. $32 which is 33% above our current market price. I don't consider that a negative, just a slightly smaller positive.
I was not suggesting that the tests would be run in the same beaker, only that the tests would be run from the same sample. It would not make sense to require a separate sample for each screen. Much of the COGS comes from the collection kit and reagents. Using the same sample saves a lot in terms of COGS.
By 2017, Exact will likely have another cancer included in the screen. The new screen is likely to add little to the cost of goods sold, but is likely to add significantly to the cost-benefit value of the overall screen. The pipeline may support the $502 price for a long time to come.
Demand alone is not enough reason. Even the brokerages don't want their companies to dilute without reason. Their reasoning is the same as mine - as an owner of a piece of the pie, I don't want my piece to shrink.
One sales rep signing 90 physicians before a single hold-out does not mean this is typical. Other reps may have signed only 50 before a single hold-out. Just keeping it real : )
Go ahead and post your pages of notes. I mean to, but first must listen to the CC again, so tonight or tomorrow.
I liked that KC said they are working on which cancer (or two) to screen for next. I'm voting for a screen for lung cancer, since it is the most common cancer and treatments are well established.
Ours is a board for serious investors, once you have the garbage posters on ignore.
Especially annoying are the choice of low-contrast color scheme, the overlap of price and volume data and the lack of units on the volume data. Upgrade or retrograde?
Since you say "No diagnostic company spends...", then you must have seen others spend less. Point us to examples of diagnostics companies launching a screening product with lower sales and marketing costs that we can use for comparison.
Agreed. There was a lot of information delivered in a short time. I think everyone should listen to it twice.
"ADVERTISED BUT NOT ENDORSED"
Deceptive paragraph title. What about FDA approval and ACS guidelines?
"The best measure of a screening test's worth is whether it lowers the risk of death from a disease, and it's too soon to know whether Cologuard will."
Technically true, but the removal of precancerous polyps and cancerous lesions has been show to reduce risk. The mode of detection is secondary.
"Cologuard was not directly tested against colonoscopy for screening but now is being marketed as an alternative."
Cologuard was directly tested against colonoscopy in the DeeP-C study.
I believe Cologuard is not overtly marketed as an alternative to colonscopy.
"...detected...42 percent of advanced precancerous growths"
More important, it detected 66% of precancerous polyps = 2 cm, the ones more likely to become cancerous.
"It correctly ruled out colon cancer only 87 percent of the time..."
89.8% if you consider only clean colons as false positive.
""you don't know whether you need to take it every year — intervals have not been tested,""
"Cologuard was FDA approved for a three year screening interval, with a follow-up FDA study to verify.
Please tell us what payments Exact Sciences makes to MDx Health, and if you think that would make MDX Health a good investment.
For the first time last night, I got ads on YMB and Facebook. Since I was on the Exact Sciences YMB and I have liked Exact Sciences on Facebook, they are preaching to the choir, but the advertising campaign has clearly started.
I told her about it over a year ago. She said the arena could use a better test and thought the company would do well, but she doubted the test could have much sensitivity to precancerous polyps. The staff nurse replied to my query about Cologuard, so I suspect I am getting the policy of the practice.
Reply from my doctor's office (paraphrased):
Schedule a physical. If doctor determines CRC screening is necessary, you get a referral to gastro for a colonoscopy.
Disappointing. I may have to show up with a completed form, like ottiwellian.
I have not, but I have completed the online gymnastics required to sign up for online access to my PCP's practice, allowing me to ask questions online. I have asked if they prescribe Cologuard, and provided them with contact information to Exact Sciences. Once I know they do prescribe the test, I will schedule a physical exam to get a script for Cologuard.
There is no excuse for investors to not be screened with Cologuard. Merely posting on a message board about early adoption, ramp-up rates, revenues and eradicating CRC, is meaningless compared to actually getting tested as a means of driving those things. There is no more direct way to assess the company's operations and the value of the product. Being screened will bring in a physician who may otherwise have not yet been a prescriber of Cologuard. Your physician may then prescribe it to other patients in his/her practice, and may tell other doctors about it. Given the number of posters on this board, screening is likely to find several precancerous polyps, or possibly CRC.
I am harping on this point because I have read from only one poster who has pursued screening with Cologuard. If there are to be any laments regarding the ramp-up of Cologuard, they should start in the mirror.