"... they've lost the TRUST of investors."
Did they lose the trust of investors on prior offerings? If so, the trust was regained or new investors showed up. Equity financing is how businesses are funded until they generate the revenues to become self-sustaining. The last four sessions EXAS is up more than the NBI, so there are buyers, and the price is going up.
"The volume has been fairly anemic lately despite the fact that we are 30% off of our highs."
You are wrong.
11-day average volume for period ending:
8/05: 1,214,855 11-day period starts with the second day following the offering.
7/17: 1,091,127 The day before the offering.
Yahoo lists the average volume (30-day) as 1.4M, which includes the 6M+ the day of the offering, and the high-volume run into the recent peak of $32.85
"My advice to all: Boycott this company with any future purchases until such time as they at least bring the price back up to where it was before the dilution."
Don't buy until the price goes up?
You are doomed as an investor.
You're violating the planned obsolescence applied to computers through the internet. Every computer is as good as the day it was sold, but if you want to visit web pages, you're going to need a newer browser which, unfortunately won't run on your version of the operating system. You'll need to upgrade your OS, but the new OS won't run on your computer. Gotcha.
If you do look at anything on his web site, use private browsing and delete any cookies that result. He also records the IP addresses of those who visit - he has commented on visitors in the Madison area.
I am aware of it, but you needed to include that in your post.
Exact Sciences did not abandon their headquarters in Marlborough, MA, and the move was not driven by finances. The board of directors hired Kevin Conroy and Maneesh Aurora to lead the company. One of their requirements was that they move their headquarters to Madison.
"People involved in the process question why EXAS mgmt are rushing the process."
Who, exactly, is questioning the process. Give us names.
You imply that Exact's management wanted to pen the Doyle Center deal before the USPSTF rating, just in case the rating was unfavorable. Unlikely motivation. CMS has already given Exact half of its target market. That provides enough potential for them to quickly out-grow their current location. The last thing they would want is to have demand out-strip supply because being unable to ship product is bad for business. The more likely explanation is that the observed and project growth rate demonstrated the need, and the existing Doyle Center project presented the opportunity.
The offering was announced July 10, when the S&P 500 was at 2076. The S&P 500 closed yesterday at 1867, a mere 32 trading sessions later, for a drop of 10%. The NBI, Exact's containing index, dropped 12.6% in the same period. The timing of the offering turned out to be just about ideal.
$32 now would be the same market cap as $35.15 prior to the dilution.
That is a full $14 or 67% above today's price.
How soon do you think that will happen?
Short interest as of 7/31 was 23,105,130.
Total volume from 8/1 to 8/24 was 18,335,000.
Even if half of the volume was short covering, there will still be 13.9M shares short.
I doubt half the volume was short covering.
As far as a buyer's strike, the NBI is up 3.48%, EXAS is up 3.96%. If there were truly a buyer's strike, EXAS would probably not be higher than the index that contains it.
It was below $42 for only a minute or two.
I was at the vet, but I had an outstanding limit order at $46, which executed at $42.95. Close enough.
"The BEST time for the offering was and still is after the USPSTF A or B rating comes in."
Foolish comment given the turn of the market.
This is not the first time EXAS had a cash raise right before a market correction. Someone gives them good advice.
Biostigg, By any measure that matters, you are still wrong.
Those who make the decision to use CG instead of FIT are looking at the well-designed DeeP-C study data.
It is the same data that drove the unanimous FDA AdCom recommendation to approve CG.
It is the same data that the FDA used to approve CG, requiring that CG demonstrate non-inferiority to FIT.
It is the same data that drove CMS to reimburse CG at $497 per test.
It is the same data that USPSTF will use to arrive at their rating.
Yet somehow, you dismiss that data as meaningless for establishing the superiority of CG over FIT. Your argument hinges on the fact that there is no study demonstrating the performance of CG over a three year testing interval. That study (NCT02419716) is underway.
Tell us, if you will, is there a feature of the CRC/polyps missed by CG that would make them more likely to be missed by CG three year's hence? From the discussion of the markers used, CG should be equally likely to detect these as any other. This would mean that each subsequent screen will yield a higher programatic sensitivity as defined by probability theory.
CG demonstrates superior sensitivity to early-stage disease compared to FIT. There is no evidence of "ever increases in FIT compliance", giving us another example of how you adjust your burden of proof requirements to suit your argument: you shout about the lack of three-year study for CG, but then hold up two studies of FIT compliance as demonstrating a trend of increasing FIT compliance. Nonsense. No amount of FIT compliance can improve FIT's sensitivity to early-stage disease compared to CG, only compared to nothing. The compliance of CG demonstrates that people use the test.
"We all think the company has a technology that while interesting, will be rendered obsolete in the near future. Future tests are a fantasy..."
You claim CG will be made obsolete in the near future, then in the very next sentence, claim that Exact's future tests are a fantasy. So which is it? Are we to believe that the future test that you claim is not a fantasy, while Exact's future test is a fantasy? Please back that up with more of your twisted logic.
Interesting how reimbursement got added to what you say I don't think is important, though I never mentioned it. You really can't help yourself, can you. I never said compliance was unimportant, just that it has less impact on cost benefit than you suggest.
Considering the available data comparing FIT & CG, no one can make the claim that FIT has superior compliance, but everyone can claim that CG has superior performance.
Once you resort to name calling and fabricating arguments another poster never made, you expose yourself as running empty of any real argument.
Every trade has a buyer and a seller. I don't need to watch L2 to know there is plenty of selling going on.
Today's volume is above the median and the mean for August.
I can't say it's ever good to see a 14% drop under heavy volume (about 2x avg). It either foretells a dismal future, or marks capitulation at the bottom. Since we're now trading at a yield of 20%, I think the share price can weather a severe cut.
Same tired line, over and over. What effect do you expect? Anyone that would have listened, already did, long ago. BTW, today you say you have been shorting since $20. We have not seen $20 since December, below $17.30 since May, yet on 7/30 you said "Hey Larry, I'm not even short VNR...", and on 7/25 you said "I'm not long or short.". You have an agenda, and you lie about it.