Maybe the holders who were bellyaching over loses have already departed. If so, then the risks of holding Nanosphere have been discounted. Good news would then lift the shares.
As for short sellers, Brokerages consider NSPH "Hard to Borrow" and require filling out an agreement that imposes fees. So maybe a new stream of short sellers fail to materialize.
Earnings missed analyst estimates but Nanosphere still headed in right direction. They placed 26 systems, and have rising revenue. The $12M market cap is ridiculous cheap.
Where is all their money going? During the conference calls, why don't they tell us how many sales reps they have? Why are their operations so expensive? They need to conserve cash before they run out of it.
Losses are already discounted in stock price. They are losing money because they were developing the assay and next generation instrument, and because they are new to the market and just growing revenues. As revenues rise and development cost go down, profits will follow.
Is this a winner take all market, where only 1 or 2 companies dominate? Currently Biofire's FilmArray is winning. I'm wondering if there is room for Nanosphere's Verigene to grow significantly. Then there is Cepheid, Luminex, Alere, and other competitors. I wonder where Verigene fits in amongst all these competitors. If its too hard or expensive for Nanosphere to make headway, maybe they can be bought out. I believe they already looked into that, as strategic initiatives, but nothing came of it. Wonder at what price the public offering will get. When will the next generation Verigene (Atlas) get FDA clearance? Lots of uncertainty.
Unless you know something that I don't know, MM is doing OK as CEO. Their previous CEO was a bit bombastic. It sounds like Nanosphere is making steady progress, according to the conference call. I guess customers are holding off acquiring new systems, until the latest "Atlas" gets FDA clearance. Last Q, they only placed 20 systems. That is concerning. They need to raise cash and get Atlas FDA cleared. I wonder what price we get for the public offering. The current stock quotation vastly undervalues if Nanosphere if sales take off.
Raising cash by selling more shares is better than shutting its doors.
Do it now while Theranos is being valued at $9 billion, and investors find out that Nanosphere is a better company than Theranos.
I listened to the conference calls and Michael McGarrity sounds Ok, I think. Developing new technologies is excruciatingly slow, they have engineering problems governed by the laws of physics which no CEO alive or dead can suspend. It just takes time, hopefully before they run out of cash.
Those who got excited and bought between $2.86 and $3.64 on the FDA clearance are the bag holders. Now we are trading below $2
There was 9.7 million shares traded on the day of FDA clearance. Since then only 4 million shares have traded. The difference between those, is 5.7 million shares held by bag holders. These bag-holders can easily sell, since they are underwater and unhappy.
If revenues and Verigene placements at hospitals take off, then its a screaming buy.
If not, then the company runs out of cash and shuts down (sell).
This is one of those binary situations, either rags or riches.
ethical. How do you benefit if Nanosphere shuts down? There's only 184,000 shares sold short, so I doubt you are short. Your reward is to relieve some of your anger from the time you sold NSPH at a big loss.