BioInvestor's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/182011/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/82981-isis-pharmaceuticals-obesity-buster-an-enormous-finding?source=feed#comment-274143 274143
- The benefits of Mipomersen aren't the issue. The issue is the delivery mechanism. Oral drugs have a better market uptake than do injectables, at least in North America and parts of Europe.

- I don't argue that ISIS has an interesting and potentially lucrative platform. Antisense is a technology that should, in principle, work well. Delivery to the point of pain is key. ISIS also has a very strong IP position in the area, IMHO one of its best acquisition strategies.


On Jun 30 11:31 AM southshorein vestor wrote:

> Re: Bioinvestor. Actually, big pharma invests in most promising new
> platforms in a rather unique way - in a press release, with a transfer
> of money, rights to regional distribution, and in exchange for a
> percentage of the company they're investing in. So they do share
> in the profits of the successful ventures, and they also lose their
> investment in those platforms that are not viable. Even the big pharma's
> were taken during dot.com bubble.
>
> As you correctly said, upstart biotechs must partner away early products
> in order to build a revenue stream that will power growth of their
> future pipeline. Most fail. Also, AMGN and DNA are now struggling
> as they've picked most of the low hanging fruit.
>
> A non-oral form of Mipomersen will discourage its wide spread use,
> but if the formulation can be produced in an extended release form
> or packaged in a pen-style injection similar to AMLN's Byetta, then
> this might change.
> --------
> Specifically regarding Mipomersen, a reversal of plaque would be
> a significant benefit and would provide ISIS with an expanded use.
> Prevention of cardiac disease surgeries would be a significant savings
> to the HMO system (not to mention the impact on patients and families).
>
> --------
> Generally regarding ISIS, they have a potential platform that applies
> a new drug type to old and new disease targets. The old targets are
> the most promising since these are already validated, have probably
> come off patent, and are abundant. Plus, ISIS will not have to spend
> much money or time on early-phase discovery or legal. Targeting PTP-1b
> with small molecules for instance was tried to death by every pharma
> and is the poster child for each new drug platform. The platform
> for ISIS is the bull case for investing here. Mipomersen is the proof-of-principle
> product.
>
> Toxic side effects, drug-delivery issues, competition, and production
> costs are the bear points.
>
> Long-term, ISIS is a speculative buy - to me. IMO.
>
>
>
>
> ]]> Sun, 05 Oct 2008 15:45:03 -0400
- The benefits of Mipomersen aren't the issue. The issue is the delivery mechanism. Oral drugs have a better market uptake than do injectables, at least in North America and parts of Europe.

- I don't argue that ISIS has an interesting and potentially lucrative platform. Antisense is a technology that should, in principle, work well. Delivery to the point of pain is key. ISIS also has a very strong IP position in the area, IMHO one of its best acquisition strategies.


On Jun 30 11:31 AM southshorein vestor wrote:

> Re: Bioinvestor. Actually, big pharma invests in most promising new
> platforms in a rather unique way - in a press release, with a transfer
> of money, rights to regional distribution, and in exchange for a
> percentage of the company they're investing in. So they do share
> in the profits of the successful ventures, and they also lose their
> investment in those platforms that are not viable. Even the big pharma's
> were taken during dot.com bubble.
>
> As you correctly said, upstart biotechs must partner away early products
> in order to build a revenue stream that will power growth of their
> future pipeline. Most fail. Also, AMGN and DNA are now struggling
> as they've picked most of the low hanging fruit.
>
> A non-oral form of Mipomersen will discourage its wide spread use,
> but if the formulation can be produced in an extended release form
> or packaged in a pen-style injection similar to AMLN's Byetta, then
> this might change.
> --------
> Specifically regarding Mipomersen, a reversal of plaque would be
> a significant benefit and would provide ISIS with an expanded use.
> Prevention of cardiac disease surgeries would be a significant savings
> to the HMO system (not to mention the impact on patients and families).
>
> --------
> Generally regarding ISIS, they have a potential platform that applies
> a new drug type to old and new disease targets. The old targets are
> the most promising since these are already validated, have probably
> come off patent, and are abundant. Plus, ISIS will not have to spend
> much money or time on early-phase discovery or legal. Targeting PTP-1b
> with small molecules for instance was tried to death by every pharma
> and is the poster child for each new drug platform. The platform
> for ISIS is the bull case for investing here. Mipomersen is the proof-of-principle
> product.
>
> Toxic side effects, drug-delivery issues, competition, and production
> costs are the bear points.
>
> Long-term, ISIS is a speculative buy - to me. IMO.
>
>
>
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85437-gm-slashes-benefits-one-bad-decision-after-another?source=feed#comment-220675 220675
I won't take your word for it that GM will survive--that's meaningless. I buy arguments, not personal opinions.

I believe GM will have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy: costs continue to rise; GM is burning through cash; the company has problems generating revenues. It's easy to connect the dots and realize what will happen within the next 12 to 18 months.

No one can know for sure if the company will survive. Lower oil prices could help. I'd like to see the company do well, but based on the track record of current management, I don't hold out much hope for a major turnaround. Bankruptcy isn't a pleasant experience, but if it's coupled by a culling of the top management of GM, I'd be in favor.

You certainly do invest capital where products are sold, but the challenge in Asian markets is that margins will be smaller. Asian and European manufacturers arrived in the US markets with high end products because they were highly profitable margins. It's a pity that GM has ceded that market to foreign competition.

I agree with the argument you appear to be making about CEOs. I am not as interested in the salary as with performance: it a management team isn't performing, it should be removed. The problem at GM is management.

I do agree that people lower down in the ranks suffer from the incompetence of senior management. I would like to see some mechanism to remove management. I am not sure what that could be--boards should be more accountable.


On Jul 23 08:09 AM Rocky_08 wrote:

> Bio ... I think you should set your interests outside GM. Mark my
> word, GM will survive. GM has and will continue to downsize untill
> they have themselves right-sized for U.S. market conditions. Will
> GM go broke? I don't think so. They have partnered themselves with
> in other Auto corporations here in the US and abroad as well. GM
> does well in other markets. CEO management has never been good at
> multi-managing all their markets. GM has a habit of letting one market
> founder while investing in another. This has not served them well
> but the U.S. is not really a surging market anyway. In this business,
> you invest capitol and build your best products where your products
> can be sold. The market here is flooded... so it makes sense that
> all vehicle manufacturing will take a hit. GM being the largest is
> taking it on the chin. GM could have done a lot better.... but who
> says it really matters to them? People are just a casulty of war
> in big business competition. Nothing will change till CEO's are held
> accountable. When they continue to get paid 10 million a year to
> run corporations in the red, then they see themselves as doing all
> the right things. It's like committing a crime and never getting
> punished for it.
>
> Maybe we can agree on this: The pattern of paying CEO's for blundering
> markets will continue and the people on the lower end of these corporations
> will continue to pay for these blunders. CEO's will lose nothing.
> Their pay should be based on total performance of the Corporation.
> We know that won't happen... don't we?]]> Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:47:32 -0400
I won't take your word for it that GM will survive--that's meaningless. I buy arguments, not personal opinions.

I believe GM will have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy: costs continue to rise; GM is burning through cash; the company has problems generating revenues. It's easy to connect the dots and realize what will happen within the next 12 to 18 months.

No one can know for sure if the company will survive. Lower oil prices could help. I'd like to see the company do well, but based on the track record of current management, I don't hold out much hope for a major turnaround. Bankruptcy isn't a pleasant experience, but if it's coupled by a culling of the top management of GM, I'd be in favor.

You certainly do invest capital where products are sold, but the challenge in Asian markets is that margins will be smaller. Asian and European manufacturers arrived in the US markets with high end products because they were highly profitable margins. It's a pity that GM has ceded that market to foreign competition.

I agree with the argument you appear to be making about CEOs. I am not as interested in the salary as with performance: it a management team isn't performing, it should be removed. The problem at GM is management.

I do agree that people lower down in the ranks suffer from the incompetence of senior management. I would like to see some mechanism to remove management. I am not sure what that could be--boards should be more accountable.


On Jul 23 08:09 AM Rocky_08 wrote:

> Bio ... I think you should set your interests outside GM. Mark my
> word, GM will survive. GM has and will continue to downsize untill
> they have themselves right-sized for U.S. market conditions. Will
> GM go broke? I don't think so. They have partnered themselves with
> in other Auto corporations here in the US and abroad as well. GM
> does well in other markets. CEO management has never been good at
> multi-managing all their markets. GM has a habit of letting one market
> founder while investing in another. This has not served them well
> but the U.S. is not really a surging market anyway. In this business,
> you invest capitol and build your best products where your products
> can be sold. The market here is flooded... so it makes sense that
> all vehicle manufacturing will take a hit. GM being the largest is
> taking it on the chin. GM could have done a lot better.... but who
> says it really matters to them? People are just a casulty of war
> in big business competition. Nothing will change till CEO's are held
> accountable. When they continue to get paid 10 million a year to
> run corporations in the red, then they see themselves as doing all
> the right things. It's like committing a crime and never getting
> punished for it.
>
> Maybe we can agree on this: The pattern of paying CEO's for blundering
> markets will continue and the people on the lower end of these corporations
> will continue to pay for these blunders. CEO's will lose nothing.
> Their pay should be based on total performance of the Corporation.
> We know that won't happen... don't we?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85916-the-us-auto-crisis?source=feed#comment-220669 220669

On Jul 24 12:32 PM Gino Lattarulo wrote:

> Bio Investor, "Factual Documented Information" as released by the
> media is just that. I am giving you information based on 15 years
> of working inside these companies. Take from it what you do or do
> not wish to believe. In any case, I applaud your convictions.]]> Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:38:48 -0400

On Jul 24 12:32 PM Gino Lattarulo wrote:

> Bio Investor, "Factual Documented Information" as released by the
> media is just that. I am giving you information based on 15 years
> of working inside these companies. Take from it what you do or do
> not wish to believe. In any case, I applaud your convictions.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85916-the-us-auto-crisis?source=feed#comment-220668 220668
As for the discussion about people in women's dresses, what a minimalist argument to make. State something substantive; something meaningful; something relevant! Please. This is a site for investors.


On Jul 24 11:09 PM Joey wrote:

> BioInvester, women were fired. Check your records. It was several
> contractors in the advertising field across the country that were
> fired or demoted. The RDMMs made the recommendations. Also, if women
> do not make a difference, then why did you have the engineers at
> GM be forced to dress up in women's dresses to experience the Acadia
> from a woman's point of view?]]> Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:38:13 -0400
As for the discussion about people in women's dresses, what a minimalist argument to make. State something substantive; something meaningful; something relevant! Please. This is a site for investors.


On Jul 24 11:09 PM Joey wrote:

> BioInvester, women were fired. Check your records. It was several
> contractors in the advertising field across the country that were
> fired or demoted. The RDMMs made the recommendations. Also, if women
> do not make a difference, then why did you have the engineers at
> GM be forced to dress up in women's dresses to experience the Acadia
> from a woman's point of view?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85916-the-us-auto-crisis?source=feed#comment-213462 213462
The article also contains serious factual errors. The failure rates among different brands--and consumer preferences--are well documented. Companies like Honda and Toyota have consistently manufactured cars that perform better. You actually talk about the quality problems in US cars in your article; I don't see how you can conclude that there is no difference in quality among the different brands.]]> Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:20:23 -0400
The article also contains serious factual errors. The failure rates among different brands--and consumer preferences--are well documented. Companies like Honda and Toyota have consistently manufactured cars that perform better. You actually talk about the quality problems in US cars in your article; I don't see how you can conclude that there is no difference in quality among the different brands.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85916-the-us-auto-crisis?source=feed#comment-213450 213450
Your comments don't reflect women, they reflect who you are and what you attract.


On July 21, paulk8756 wrote:

Let's see...

If you were a woman being polled, you'd say you were in charge of the buying decisions. And if you were a man, and your wife and/or girlfriend was in earshot, you'd say the same thing, wouldn't you?

My former wife and present girlfriend don't know where to check the oil in a vehicle, much less make a sensible decision on which to buy or how to finance one.

I rest my case.
]]> Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:13:14 -0400
Your comments don't reflect women, they reflect who you are and what you attract.


On July 21, paulk8756 wrote:

Let's see...

If you were a woman being polled, you'd say you were in charge of the buying decisions. And if you were a man, and your wife and/or girlfriend was in earshot, you'd say the same thing, wouldn't you?

My former wife and present girlfriend don't know where to check the oil in a vehicle, much less make a sensible decision on which to buy or how to finance one.

I rest my case.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85916-the-us-auto-crisis?source=feed#comment-213447 213447
I don't buy your argument that getting rid of women has had an adverse affect on sales. In fact, I don't believe what you wrote about GM firing women.

Finally, the problems at GM aren't related to gender, they're more related to fenders. GM doesn't make cars that people want to buy. It doesn't matter who is in management, on the board, on the production line, or in sales in market: GM doesn't have a product that people want to buy.


On July 21, Joey wrote:

Well written analysis by the author. Women do represent 65% of new car buying decisions yet GM's management is over 90% men. GM should have started to change its employee makeup to accomodate for targeting their new buyer to the industry - women (this should have occurred 20+ years ago). I remember in 2006, GM took its advertising contractors and fired and demoted almost every women in the advertising field and replaced them with men. GM's men wanted to work with male advertising executives. The result, GM's sales for the brands affected by the switch dropped by more than 40%. So why are these men who made this terrible business decision still there? Is this fair to GM stockholders, especially since so many women who own GM stock? If getting rid of women decreases sales, what would getting rid of the men and adding women to GM do for sales? Would GM finally see a positively changing sales track? Would GM's stock that dropped so much so quickly finally turn around because their target market is being taken care of and their needs met? ]]> Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:11:22 -0400
I don't buy your argument that getting rid of women has had an adverse affect on sales. In fact, I don't believe what you wrote about GM firing women.

Finally, the problems at GM aren't related to gender, they're more related to fenders. GM doesn't make cars that people want to buy. It doesn't matter who is in management, on the board, on the production line, or in sales in market: GM doesn't have a product that people want to buy.


On July 21, Joey wrote:

Well written analysis by the author. Women do represent 65% of new car buying decisions yet GM's management is over 90% men. GM should have started to change its employee makeup to accomodate for targeting their new buyer to the industry - women (this should have occurred 20+ years ago). I remember in 2006, GM took its advertising contractors and fired and demoted almost every women in the advertising field and replaced them with men. GM's men wanted to work with male advertising executives. The result, GM's sales for the brands affected by the switch dropped by more than 40%. So why are these men who made this terrible business decision still there? Is this fair to GM stockholders, especially since so many women who own GM stock? If getting rid of women decreases sales, what would getting rid of the men and adding women to GM do for sales? Would GM finally see a positively changing sales track? Would GM's stock that dropped so much so quickly finally turn around because their target market is being taken care of and their needs met? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86444-biotech-buying-binge-about-to-begin?source=feed#comment-212753 212753 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:40:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/85437-gm-slashes-benefits-one-bad-decision-after-another?source=feed#comment-212070 212070

On July 22, duster/bee wrote:

all these people have one thing to think about,when you buy any article from a forieng country. That country takes in all the profit from the article. so if it is a auto that country gets the profit.They build school's, park's and infrustructure in thier country so please buy American when making a purchase. There are American products in the stores look at the product to see where it was made. Talk or call your Senator's In Washingon, tell them free trade is not working. ]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:20:38 -0400

On July 22, duster/bee wrote:

all these people have one thing to think about,when you buy any article from a forieng country. That country takes in all the profit from the article. so if it is a auto that country gets the profit.They build school's, park's and infrustructure in thier country so please buy American when making a purchase. There are American products in the stores look at the product to see where it was made. Talk or call your Senator's In Washingon, tell them free trade is not working. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85437-gm-slashes-benefits-one-bad-decision-after-another?source=feed#comment-212068 212068
Your comment about the assembly of parts is not relevant. If the parts are poor but assembled correctly, so what? If a GM car is poorly made, it's still a GM car. The company made the decision on how the car would be built, which companies to have as partners and the quality systems to employ. Regardless of how the car is constructed, it's a GM vehicle.

For what it's worth, I didn't comment on the abilities of GM employees in the plants. My concern is with management. You introduced topics that I didn't discuss.



On July 21, Rocky_08 wrote:

Bio... I would guess that you really don't know that GM employees only put the vehicles together. Many, if not almost all of the parts are supplied by way of "OUTSIDE" suppliers. Many of these parts are not GM parts at all but they are often and with hope, the best that GM can find. But also they are the in and among the lowest cost parts, via bid offerings. This often equates to cheap parts.

In that I say that the cars are built very well by GM employees with the parts GM selects which have been in past, sub standard. The line workes don't get to select the parts they install. Being forced to insytall cheap parts cannot be blamed on the workers who build the cars.

For example: I have an 04 GM pick-up with a power window in the rear that works only intermittently. That is not a manufacturing problem. GM does not build window motors, window regulators, window relays and so on.... They build cars. This is a component problem via cheap part. Incidently, the window has been used very little. No one sits back there. The mileage is low at 15k and the vehicle is out of warranty being an 04. Again... this is not a manufacturing problem. GM employees do a great job but the parts and components are another issue GM deals with. GM has had to learn the hard way that a cheap part is often not the best. I do hope that I have cleared up what you seem to think makes no sense.
]]> Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:18:51 -0400
Your comment about the assembly of parts is not relevant. If the parts are poor but assembled correctly, so what? If a GM car is poorly made, it's still a GM car. The company made the decision on how the car would be built, which companies to have as partners and the quality systems to employ. Regardless of how the car is constructed, it's a GM vehicle.

For what it's worth, I didn't comment on the abilities of GM employees in the plants. My concern is with management. You introduced topics that I didn't discuss.



On July 21, Rocky_08 wrote:

Bio... I would guess that you really don't know that GM employees only put the vehicles together. Many, if not almost all of the parts are supplied by way of "OUTSIDE" suppliers. Many of these parts are not GM parts at all but they are often and with hope, the best that GM can find. But also they are the in and among the lowest cost parts, via bid offerings. This often equates to cheap parts.

In that I say that the cars are built very well by GM employees with the parts GM selects which have been in past, sub standard. The line workes don't get to select the parts they install. Being forced to insytall cheap parts cannot be blamed on the workers who build the cars.

For example: I have an 04 GM pick-up with a power window in the rear that works only intermittently. That is not a manufacturing problem. GM does not build window motors, window regulators, window relays and so on.... They build cars. This is a component problem via cheap part. Incidently, the window has been used very little. No one sits back there. The mileage is low at 15k and the vehicle is out of warranty being an 04. Again... this is not a manufacturing problem. GM employees do a great job but the parts and components are another issue GM deals with. GM has had to learn the hard way that a cheap part is often not the best. I do hope that I have cleared up what you seem to think makes no sense.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85437-gm-slashes-benefits-one-bad-decision-after-another?source=feed#comment-210266 210266
US consumers make the ultimate vote on cars; at is stands GM isn't doing that well. I don't buy the statement that GM cars are built well.

I agree whole-heartedly that listening to consumers and responding appropriately is the way to sustained profitability. As a company GM has failed. GM has failed because management has failed.

GM does need to change, but I don't believe that it has. I don't have confidence in the current management team--based on performance.

I want to see GM succeed and thrive; I don't believe it's going to happen.



On July 20, Rocky_08 wrote:

And Bio, you are clearly motivated by your personal self-interest as well. If the business had not been allowed to flounder, everyone would be content. The employees, the share holders and most of all... the customers. The object in this business is to sell vehicles. It's nice to make money at it too but you can't make profits first and hope to get repeat buyers if you fail in the customer's demands. Our most recent GM vehicles were built well. GM's manufacturing process is very good. The floor level of GM has made leaps and bounds in improvements but we have had and still have parts and components failures in our GM vehicles. Again, GM made cuts in this area to keep profits up and in so doing frustrated the customers with trips to the dealer where often repairs were only half A## attempted. This has gone on for decades. GM has a poor track record of caring for the customer. Instead they wrapped themselves around short term profits by way internal cuts. You can't cut your business to profitability. You must meet the customer's demands. Having said that, GM would be a full contender here in North America if they had just listened to the cry of the customers and responded to that cry. I only hope they have finally changed their ignorant ways of treating the customer. We have 2 vehicles that need major work right now. One is a 04 and the other is an 03. Both are out of the warranty but still considered with low mileage in comparison to vehicles that have less issues over 100k miles. One has 15k miles on it. GM uses cheap parts. They need to get away from that. Their independant dealers have abused the customers but the GM is taking the heat for all this. We need a new car but we will buy what fits our budget and one that Consumer Reports gives high ratings to. GM has a long way to go to swoon the buyers now. It's easier to keep a customer than to try to win him back after he has been stung.]]> Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:56:24 -0400
US consumers make the ultimate vote on cars; at is stands GM isn't doing that well. I don't buy the statement that GM cars are built well.

I agree whole-heartedly that listening to consumers and responding appropriately is the way to sustained profitability. As a company GM has failed. GM has failed because management has failed.

GM does need to change, but I don't believe that it has. I don't have confidence in the current management team--based on performance.

I want to see GM succeed and thrive; I don't believe it's going to happen.



On July 20, Rocky_08 wrote:

And Bio, you are clearly motivated by your personal self-interest as well. If the business had not been allowed to flounder, everyone would be content. The employees, the share holders and most of all... the customers. The object in this business is to sell vehicles. It's nice to make money at it too but you can't make profits first and hope to get repeat buyers if you fail in the customer's demands. Our most recent GM vehicles were built well. GM's manufacturing process is very good. The floor level of GM has made leaps and bounds in improvements but we have had and still have parts and components failures in our GM vehicles. Again, GM made cuts in this area to keep profits up and in so doing frustrated the customers with trips to the dealer where often repairs were only half A## attempted. This has gone on for decades. GM has a poor track record of caring for the customer. Instead they wrapped themselves around short term profits by way internal cuts. You can't cut your business to profitability. You must meet the customer's demands. Having said that, GM would be a full contender here in North America if they had just listened to the cry of the customers and responded to that cry. I only hope they have finally changed their ignorant ways of treating the customer. We have 2 vehicles that need major work right now. One is a 04 and the other is an 03. Both are out of the warranty but still considered with low mileage in comparison to vehicles that have less issues over 100k miles. One has 15k miles on it. GM uses cheap parts. They need to get away from that. Their independant dealers have abused the customers but the GM is taking the heat for all this. We need a new car but we will buy what fits our budget and one that Consumer Reports gives high ratings to. GM has a long way to go to swoon the buyers now. It's easier to keep a customer than to try to win him back after he has been stung.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85437-gm-slashes-benefits-one-bad-decision-after-another?source=feed#comment-209412 209412


On July 18, User 228489 wrote:

As a General Motors retiree I feel they are the pits. Those worthless ASSES at the top care only for themselves,typical of american CEO`s the broom pusher is always the blame. If all these retirees say screw you from now on we buy only Toyota`s and Honda`s I wonder what kind of an affect it would have on GM. Hopefully it would get those bastards fired. ]]> Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:57:13 -0400


On July 18, User 228489 wrote:

As a General Motors retiree I feel they are the pits. Those worthless ASSES at the top care only for themselves,typical of american CEO`s the broom pusher is always the blame. If all these retirees say screw you from now on we buy only Toyota`s and Honda`s I wonder what kind of an affect it would have on GM. Hopefully it would get those bastards fired. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85027-a-fat-yield-at-pfizer?source=feed#comment-209067 209067
Agreed: Prilosec is an excellent example.


On July 16, mikehav wrote:

Could also lobby FDA make the statin drgus such as Lipitor available in low doses as a new "3rd Class of Drugs" available only after consultation with a pharmacist. Already sell Plan B emergency contraceptive and pseudoephedrine-contai... products behind-the-counter only. Prilosec OTC is a very good example of successful switch to OTC for a former Rx-only brand drug that would otherwise have very low sales now due to generics. ]]> Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:14:33 -0400
Agreed: Prilosec is an excellent example.


On July 16, mikehav wrote:

Could also lobby FDA make the statin drgus such as Lipitor available in low doses as a new "3rd Class of Drugs" available only after consultation with a pharmacist. Already sell Plan B emergency contraceptive and pseudoephedrine-contai... products behind-the-counter only. Prilosec OTC is a very good example of successful switch to OTC for a former Rx-only brand drug that would otherwise have very low sales now due to generics. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85437-gm-slashes-benefits-one-bad-decision-after-another?source=feed#comment-209064 209064
If you make big claims and want to be taken seriously, give evidence to support your position.


On July 17, Thinker notTalker wrote:

What is obscene is that we are being trained that making good on our commitments to Americans is somehow unpatriotic. The deceive and thieve conservatives have succeeded in making it logical for those who have gained the most from our nation to be the least responsible for its continued economic success, and making it look as if if Americans who have performed the labor that produced that wealth simply have no right to expect the promise of the American dream should ever be realized. ]]> Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:09:29 -0400
If you make big claims and want to be taken seriously, give evidence to support your position.


On July 17, Thinker notTalker wrote:

What is obscene is that we are being trained that making good on our commitments to Americans is somehow unpatriotic. The deceive and thieve conservatives have succeeded in making it logical for those who have gained the most from our nation to be the least responsible for its continued economic success, and making it look as if if Americans who have performed the labor that produced that wealth simply have no right to expect the promise of the American dream should ever be realized. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85437-gm-slashes-benefits-one-bad-decision-after-another?source=feed#comment-209062 209062
On July 17, BLoy wrote:

Mr Cara,
Do you have any idea how much Toyota, Honda & Nissan are paying their retirees? ]]> Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:03:25 -0400
On July 17, BLoy wrote:

Mr Cara,
Do you have any idea how much Toyota, Honda & Nissan are paying their retirees? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85027-a-fat-yield-at-pfizer?source=feed#comment-206612 206612
Now, I recognize that there are some serious adverse events associated with Lipitor--they need to be taken seriously. I also think that, from a public health perspective, there is a valid argument to be made to having statins more readily available without a prescription. To some extent packaging that would limit availability could mitigate problems with Lipitor, but certainly wouldn't entirely eliminate the risk of problems with the drug.

I throw this idea out because, from a marketing perspective, Pfizer would be in a much stronger position if it competed with prospective sellers of Atorvastatin using its Lipitor brand name. It obviously will still do it when the drug is off patent, but it will also have to contend with more people in the decision making process when it comes to which version of Atorvastatin to prescribe. I think that if the drug were OTC, Pfizer just might keep a larger fraction of its current market share if it were to compete more directly on the brand name.

Truthfully, I don't expect to see Atorvastatin to go OTC and I don't think Pfizer would push to make it happen. It’s just an interesting idea to ponder!]]> Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:38:23 -0400
Now, I recognize that there are some serious adverse events associated with Lipitor--they need to be taken seriously. I also think that, from a public health perspective, there is a valid argument to be made to having statins more readily available without a prescription. To some extent packaging that would limit availability could mitigate problems with Lipitor, but certainly wouldn't entirely eliminate the risk of problems with the drug.

I throw this idea out because, from a marketing perspective, Pfizer would be in a much stronger position if it competed with prospective sellers of Atorvastatin using its Lipitor brand name. It obviously will still do it when the drug is off patent, but it will also have to contend with more people in the decision making process when it comes to which version of Atorvastatin to prescribe. I think that if the drug were OTC, Pfizer just might keep a larger fraction of its current market share if it were to compete more directly on the brand name.

Truthfully, I don't expect to see Atorvastatin to go OTC and I don't think Pfizer would push to make it happen. It’s just an interesting idea to ponder!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85027-a-fat-yield-at-pfizer?source=feed#comment-206610 206610
In the emerging pharma sector, there are some remarkable values out there: there are many drugs in Phase II and late Phase III with companies that are not flush with cash. Many of these drugs are, unfortunately, already partnered, but there are still many opportunities for PFE. I expect the company to either continue merging into these smaller companies or to license pipeline through other deals. I am concerned that there won't be time to replace the loss in revenues from Lipitor in a few years; however, I believe that, for the most part, this loss in revenue is already priced into the stock.

I bought some Pfizer recently, but I am waiting for it to get closer to $15.]]> Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:23:43 -0400
In the emerging pharma sector, there are some remarkable values out there: there are many drugs in Phase II and late Phase III with companies that are not flush with cash. Many of these drugs are, unfortunately, already partnered, but there are still many opportunities for PFE. I expect the company to either continue merging into these smaller companies or to license pipeline through other deals. I am concerned that there won't be time to replace the loss in revenues from Lipitor in a few years; however, I believe that, for the most part, this loss in revenue is already priced into the stock.

I bought some Pfizer recently, but I am waiting for it to get closer to $15.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84870-an-open-letter-to-all-airlines-quit-whining-and-hedge-your-fuel-costs?source=feed#comment-205580 205580


On July 15, esw wrote:

Can anyone point to a reputable economist (other than the Air Transport Association's) who will credit speculation for a substantial share of the current per bbl price of oil? ]]> Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:34:40 -0400


On July 15, esw wrote:

Can anyone point to a reputable economist (other than the Air Transport Association's) who will credit speculation for a substantial share of the current per bbl price of oil? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84737-a-bullish-prognosis-for-global-healthcare-etfs?source=feed#comment-204554 204554
On July 13, BlueOkie wrote:

ETFs have their place. I prefer to buy PFE and JNJ direct thru the transfer agents. No fees!]]> Sun, 13 Jul 2008 16:07:27 -0400
On July 13, BlueOkie wrote:

ETFs have their place. I prefer to buy PFE and JNJ direct thru the transfer agents. No fees!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84686-bank-failures-due-to-spike?source=feed#comment-203719 203719 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:12:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/84255-general-motors-general-malaise?source=feed#comment-203683 203683
I don't accept that GM reacts quickly to change; at least, I don't see any evidence to support the claim.

The quality argument is a myth. For example, if you check out the JD Power website, you'll see that the big three receive the first place ranking in dependability in only five out of nineteen categories. Read the survey results from Consumers Union and you'll see that the Big Three perform much worse. The quality may have improved, but it's still not on par with competitors.

For the record, Peter Lynch may have advocated buying what you know but he insisted on looking at the financials of companies too.


On July 9, hoffman23 wrote:

When does this stupidity end? GM has a very bright future. First look at the overseas business. It's booming!!!! Next, look at how quickly this company is reacting to the current dramatic change in the market. As a veteran of 30 years in this industry, GM used to take YEARS to react. Now they can change within weeks. And PLEASE stop lumping GM and Ford together. The situations are completely different. FORD has put up the entire company including the Blue Oval as collateral on its loans!!!! GM will survive and eventually prosper. Ford and Chrysler are quite a different story. Why don't you write about Toyota and their
Tundra-Texas factory fiasco. How about how much the Europeans are losing money on their American sales due to the crappy dollar? If you went out into the marketplace and compared the quality of the various vehicles, you would have a very different tune. Try the Peter Lynch theory of actually getting out of the ivory tower and going among the masses. It will open your eyes!!! ]]> Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:53:26 -0400
I don't accept that GM reacts quickly to change; at least, I don't see any evidence to support the claim.

The quality argument is a myth. For example, if you check out the JD Power website, you'll see that the big three receive the first place ranking in dependability in only five out of nineteen categories. Read the survey results from Consumers Union and you'll see that the Big Three perform much worse. The quality may have improved, but it's still not on par with competitors.

For the record, Peter Lynch may have advocated buying what you know but he insisted on looking at the financials of companies too.


On July 9, hoffman23 wrote:

When does this stupidity end? GM has a very bright future. First look at the overseas business. It's booming!!!! Next, look at how quickly this company is reacting to the current dramatic change in the market. As a veteran of 30 years in this industry, GM used to take YEARS to react. Now they can change within weeks. And PLEASE stop lumping GM and Ford together. The situations are completely different. FORD has put up the entire company including the Blue Oval as collateral on its loans!!!! GM will survive and eventually prosper. Ford and Chrysler are quite a different story. Why don't you write about Toyota and their
Tundra-Texas factory fiasco. How about how much the Europeans are losing money on their American sales due to the crappy dollar? If you went out into the marketplace and compared the quality of the various vehicles, you would have a very different tune. Try the Peter Lynch theory of actually getting out of the ivory tower and going among the masses. It will open your eyes!!! ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84536-big-three-automakers-recapitalization-or-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-203670 203670
The purchase of company stock by insiders is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who owns the shares; that's not the issue. The issue is cash and how GM, as an example, can repair its balance sheet. If the current trend continues, GM will have to enter C11.


On July 11, Richard Wendling wrote:

I agree with this article. It would be far better for these companies to survive then go bankrupt. I also believe that they will survive based on the internal accumulations of stock by insiders as these issues achieve their lows in the coming weeks. For more information on how those accumulations happen click on my site and read the stock reviews on these issues and the articles on how they are being manipulated.
]]> Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:38:02 -0400
The purchase of company stock by insiders is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who owns the shares; that's not the issue. The issue is cash and how GM, as an example, can repair its balance sheet. If the current trend continues, GM will have to enter C11.


On July 11, Richard Wendling wrote:

I agree with this article. It would be far better for these companies to survive then go bankrupt. I also believe that they will survive based on the internal accumulations of stock by insiders as these issues achieve their lows in the coming weeks. For more information on how those accumulations happen click on my site and read the stock reviews on these issues and the articles on how they are being manipulated.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84114-why-gm-should-embrace-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-200962 200962
GM could be unburdened from paying debtors; that could put the company in a better competitive situation.

Shareholders are last in line, as it were, during bankruptcy. It is entirely possible that shareholders will walk away with nothing. The value of the shares could go to zero. Bankruptcy isn't a good situation for shareholders.




On July 8, mags wrote:

Excuse me, I am not a bankruptcy expert.

How would GM filing for bankruptcy affect other competitors, specifically Ford? Would this hurt them, considering that GM would then have an "advantage"?

When in Chapter 11, are union contracts always renegotiated?

If GM files chapter 11 and you are a shareholder, are you always given the opportunity to convert old shares into the reorganized company shares, given they are not cancelled?

The idea of GM spinning off Chevy is very interesting. Would they be able to spin off both Chevy and Cadillac (as stated in a previous comment) and leave the other brands to die? ]]> Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:35:47 -0400
GM could be unburdened from paying debtors; that could put the company in a better competitive situation.

Shareholders are last in line, as it were, during bankruptcy. It is entirely possible that shareholders will walk away with nothing. The value of the shares could go to zero. Bankruptcy isn't a good situation for shareholders.




On July 8, mags wrote:

Excuse me, I am not a bankruptcy expert.

How would GM filing for bankruptcy affect other competitors, specifically Ford? Would this hurt them, considering that GM would then have an "advantage"?

When in Chapter 11, are union contracts always renegotiated?

If GM files chapter 11 and you are a shareholder, are you always given the opportunity to convert old shares into the reorganized company shares, given they are not cancelled?

The idea of GM spinning off Chevy is very interesting. Would they be able to spin off both Chevy and Cadillac (as stated in a previous comment) and leave the other brands to die? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84114-why-gm-should-embrace-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-200957 200957
It would be an unmitigated case of denial to claim that unions have not in some cases been responsible for problems in many industries in the US. It's also difficult to argue, on purely economic terms, that the remuneration of CEOs is, in and of itself, problematic. There are PR issues with high salaries--high salaries do lend themselves to dramatic, though reality-distorting headlines; however, when the numbers are run, they're not what create problems.

In my opinion, time and time again, the three things that are responsible for the demise of any company are management, management, management. GM, IMHO, is a classic example of the problem. The management at GM has done an excellent job of concealing competence. There are examples were unions have been less than stellar, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't see how unions can take the blame for the demise of GM. I find it unforgiveable that retirees, with the benefit packages that they earned, are often singled out as some kind of pariah! For GM at least, the problem is and has been for some time management.

The bigger problem may be governance: how to get rid of management that isn't performing. Addressing this issue could, potentially, open up the proverbial can of worms.


On July 8, nyorker wrote:

The unions are not the problem in this country, it is the greedy CEO's and their underlings who rape, pillage and plunder the corporations, employees and stockholders to line their pockets......

Or have you not been paying attention to the newspaper headlines ?]]> Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:30:53 -0400
It would be an unmitigated case of denial to claim that unions have not in some cases been responsible for problems in many industries in the US. It's also difficult to argue, on purely economic terms, that the remuneration of CEOs is, in and of itself, problematic. There are PR issues with high salaries--high salaries do lend themselves to dramatic, though reality-distorting headlines; however, when the numbers are run, they're not what create problems.

In my opinion, time and time again, the three things that are responsible for the demise of any company are management, management, management. GM, IMHO, is a classic example of the problem. The management at GM has done an excellent job of concealing competence. There are examples were unions have been less than stellar, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't see how unions can take the blame for the demise of GM. I find it unforgiveable that retirees, with the benefit packages that they earned, are often singled out as some kind of pariah! For GM at least, the problem is and has been for some time management.

The bigger problem may be governance: how to get rid of management that isn't performing. Addressing this issue could, potentially, open up the proverbial can of worms.


On July 8, nyorker wrote:

The unions are not the problem in this country, it is the greedy CEO's and their underlings who rape, pillage and plunder the corporations, employees and stockholders to line their pockets......

Or have you not been paying attention to the newspaper headlines ?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84114-why-gm-should-embrace-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-200944 200944


On July 8, paulk8756 wrote:

Don't worry, there will be a government bailout of the auto companies courtesy of the Obama administration. The unions are already lining it up through their friends in Congress. The bondholders, stockholders and we taxpayers will be the only ones who take it on the chin.

Fortunately for us, the Democrats are "experts" about everything. They know best about how to run the banks, investment houses, mortgage companies, oil companies, and all the other various components of our nation's economy. I, for one, can't wait to ride in one of the cars they turn out!]]> Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:20:30 -0400


On July 8, paulk8756 wrote:

Don't worry, there will be a government bailout of the auto companies courtesy of the Obama administration. The unions are already lining it up through their friends in Congress. The bondholders, stockholders and we taxpayers will be the only ones who take it on the chin.

Fortunately for us, the Democrats are "experts" about everything. They know best about how to run the banks, investment houses, mortgage companies, oil companies, and all the other various components of our nation's economy. I, for one, can't wait to ride in one of the cars they turn out!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84074-airline-stocks-where-value-investing-takes-flight?source=feed#comment-200939 200939

On July 8, Mark S. wrote:

AMR will be a good short-term buy - today it went up 11+%. You trade these things. You don't invest in them. I think some of these airline stocks will be good bets against oil stocks as oil prices drop. I just wouldn't put all of my eggs in one basket and I wouldn't keep my money in them for long-term. Still, if you're looking at a safer play against oil, DUG looks like a good ETF]]> Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:16:53 -0400

On July 8, Mark S. wrote:

AMR will be a good short-term buy - today it went up 11+%. You trade these things. You don't invest in them. I think some of these airline stocks will be good bets against oil stocks as oil prices drop. I just wouldn't put all of my eggs in one basket and I wouldn't keep my money in them for long-term. Still, if you're looking at a safer play against oil, DUG looks like a good ETF]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84074-airline-stocks-where-value-investing-takes-flight?source=feed#comment-200937 200937

On July 8, ProfessionalHFAnalyst wrote:

If memory serves, no US airline has ever returned its cost of capital. Even in the good times. Until there is a cartel/monopoly established where tickets can be sold at multiples of current prices, I would avoid this sector at all costs. ]]> Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:14:47 -0400

On July 8, ProfessionalHFAnalyst wrote:

If memory serves, no US airline has ever returned its cost of capital. Even in the good times. Until there is a cartel/monopoly established where tickets can be sold at multiples of current prices, I would avoid this sector at all costs. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84114-why-gm-should-embrace-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-200577 200577 Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:46:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/84074-airline-stocks-where-value-investing-takes-flight?source=feed#comment-200560 200560
While AMR has under $1 billion in cash, it has almost $4.9 in cash equivalents. The company has reduced its accounts payable by $5 billion: I am waiting to see exactly why this step occurred. The company is burning cash, but is solvent. Contrast this picture with the one five years ago, where shareholder equity was negative.

The statement that AMR is drowning in debt isn't wholly accurate, since the legacy carriers are all highly leveraged. An analysis of all the legacy carriers shows that AMR is in a better position than many of its peers.

In contrast, UAUA has weaker cash (and cash equivalent) position than AMR. Looking at income, the company performed worse than AMR in the latest quarter. Just like AMR, UAUA is bleeding cash.

Overall, AMR is in a better position than is UAUA.

LCC is an interesting case as it definitely benefited from its reorganization. The company still has challenges with the US Airways/American West merger. I haven't looked at the June numbers for LCC, but its income is trending in the wrong direction. Long term, LCC has a poor hub structure. LAS and PHX are areas of growth, but PHL isn't a good international gateway; PIT is a problem for the airline. CLT has advantages in terms of traffic, but it too isn't a good international gateway. Long term LCC, in my opinion, isn't going to be a winner.

Just like AMR, CAL has pretty stable revenues despite current market conditions. The company has, arguably, the strongest balance sheet of any of the legacy carriers. Its EWR hub is an excellent international gateway; IAH is a strong hub for Central and South America. CLE doesn't appear to add much in the way of value for the company. CAL lacks exposure on the west coast--it needs a hub. Of course, since the company will be one of the first to take delivery of the B787s, whenever they're ready, the airline will expand into Asia from its IAH and EWR hubs. CAL leases most of its fleet--it owns some regional jets. It's more difficult for CAL to park aircraft. It also can't raise funds against equipment as easily as, say, UAUA could. CAL is unlikely to enter C11, but leasing poses some downsides. CAL also owns many of the aircraft used by Express Jet (XJT), a company spun off from CAL a few years ago. Like CAL, XJT looks to have a strong balance sheet and relatively stable income; however, the company has very serious cash flow problems. Its stock price has collapsed (bigcharts.marketwatch....); the company should be delisted from the NYSE later this month or early in August. If XJT fails, CAL will be stuck with a number of non-performing assets: Embraer regional jets, which won't be helpful to its cause. CAL is, IMHO, still the strongest of the major, legacy carriers.

ALK has a weakening cash position; it does have relatively stable income and a relatively healthy balance sheet. Its cash position is actually weaker than many of the legacies. ALK is in a relatively good market where it has been able to compete quite successfully with LUV. It has done well and will likely continue to do well in the future.

The lesson learned from XJT, which is a great lesson for the airline industry, is to take a look at cash flow. The balance sheet is the past; the statement of cash flows is the future. I don't think that any of the legacy carriers represents a good investment opportunity right now. None of them is safe. At current oil prices--and the trend in oil prices--each carrier is in peril. My suggestion is to wait for the first legacy carrier to enter C11 (it would well be LCC), which would be good for the rest. Of the three listed in the article, only ALK and CAL are worth consideration from a committed investor. I wouldn't buy either right now; I would wait for major calamity in the industry, then purchase.]]> Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:34:36 -0400
While AMR has under $1 billion in cash, it has almost $4.9 in cash equivalents. The company has reduced its accounts payable by $5 billion: I am waiting to see exactly why this step occurred. The company is burning cash, but is solvent. Contrast this picture with the one five years ago, where shareholder equity was negative.

The statement that AMR is drowning in debt isn't wholly accurate, since the legacy carriers are all highly leveraged. An analysis of all the legacy carriers shows that AMR is in a better position than many of its peers.

In contrast, UAUA has weaker cash (and cash equivalent) position than AMR. Looking at income, the company performed worse than AMR in the latest quarter. Just like AMR, UAUA is bleeding cash.

Overall, AMR is in a better position than is UAUA.

LCC is an interesting case as it definitely benefited from its reorganization. The company still has challenges with the US Airways/American West merger. I haven't looked at the June numbers for LCC, but its income is trending in the wrong direction. Long term, LCC has a poor hub structure. LAS and PHX are areas of growth, but PHL isn't a good international gateway; PIT is a problem for the airline. CLT has advantages in terms of traffic, but it too isn't a good international gateway. Long term LCC, in my opinion, isn't going to be a winner.

Just like AMR, CAL has pretty stable revenues despite current market conditions. The company has, arguably, the strongest balance sheet of any of the legacy carriers. Its EWR hub is an excellent international gateway; IAH is a strong hub for Central and South America. CLE doesn't appear to add much in the way of value for the company. CAL lacks exposure on the west coast--it needs a hub. Of course, since the company will be one of the first to take delivery of the B787s, whenever they're ready, the airline will expand into Asia from its IAH and EWR hubs. CAL leases most of its fleet--it owns some regional jets. It's more difficult for CAL to park aircraft. It also can't raise funds against equipment as easily as, say, UAUA could. CAL is unlikely to enter C11, but leasing poses some downsides. CAL also owns many of the aircraft used by Express Jet (XJT), a company spun off from CAL a few years ago. Like CAL, XJT looks to have a strong balance sheet and relatively stable income; however, the company has very serious cash flow problems. Its stock price has collapsed (bigcharts.marketwatch....); the company should be delisted from the NYSE later this month or early in August. If XJT fails, CAL will be stuck with a number of non-performing assets: Embraer regional jets, which won't be helpful to its cause. CAL is, IMHO, still the strongest of the major, legacy carriers.

ALK has a weakening cash position; it does have relatively stable income and a relatively healthy balance sheet. Its cash position is actually weaker than many of the legacies. ALK is in a relatively good market where it has been able to compete quite successfully with LUV. It has done well and will likely continue to do well in the future.

The lesson learned from XJT, which is a great lesson for the airline industry, is to take a look at cash flow. The balance sheet is the past; the statement of cash flows is the future. I don't think that any of the legacy carriers represents a good investment opportunity right now. None of them is safe. At current oil prices--and the trend in oil prices--each carrier is in peril. My suggestion is to wait for the first legacy carrier to enter C11 (it would well be LCC), which would be good for the rest. Of the three listed in the article, only ALK and CAL are worth consideration from a committed investor. I wouldn't buy either right now; I would wait for major calamity in the industry, then purchase.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83724-challenge-for-ford-and-gm-to-stay-in-business?source=feed#comment-199524 199524 online.wsj.com/article...

The full story requires a subscription, but the synopsis is that GM is laying off even more white collar workers in an effort to reduce costs.]]> Mon, 07 Jul 2008 01:20:07 -0400 online.wsj.com/article...

The full story requires a subscription, but the synopsis is that GM is laying off even more white collar workers in an effort to reduce costs.]]>