Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Gilead Sciences: The Anti-Valeant  [View article]
    HepLiver, you might want to consider that the weaker argument is always marked by compensatory adjectives and compensatory emotion. Strong and convincing arguments don't require such added embellishments, the logic speaks for itself. So the more you use the phrases 'childish' 'reactionary' or 'spasm' or 'shameless' or 'obscene' or 'wallowing' etc., the more clear it is you have a weak position.

    Too bad, you might have something to say. But spin words like 'trumpeted' and 'bloated' 'ill-gotten' and 'urge' etc., reveals you don't have enough faith in your own position to simply make the case.

    One of the ironies of online debate.
    Oct 30, 2015. 12:56 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Anti-Valeant  [View article]
    It's not the pill that costs $84,000.
    Oct 30, 2015. 12:43 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Anti-Valeant  [View article]
    HepLiver, you lost me on vaccines. Do you have any idea the absurdity, uselessness, and untested dangers of injecting a newborn baby, hours old, with a HepB vaccine?

    If ever there was an argument to keep government out of medicine, the current vaccine debacle in the US leads the pack.
    Oct 25, 2015. 11:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Amazon, Headless Horsemen And Toothless FANGs  [View article]
    Yes, Amazon earnings are getting worse.

    As Gary will tell you, it's good to own Amazon. But the reason is not for earnings, and certainly not an 'earnings beat.'

    Check any projection from two years ago to ten years ago, Amazon profits were projected to be anywhere from $2-$20 per year by now. And that is with all the tricky accounting they can get away with. 17 cents is an huge earnings miss ... unless you lower the target.

    That doesn't mean skip the stock.

    Ten years from now Amazon will again have projected earnings of 23 cents, they will beat this by 50% (34 cents!) so the headlines will scream 'earnings beat' and the stock will add 50 billion in market cap and be worth $3400 per share.

    It is fundamental to the business model that earnings will never be great. But revenues will grow and the stock price will follow.
    Oct 23, 2015. 07:00 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Anti-Valeant  [View article]
    Ptatty, I like your answers and respect your perspective and enjoy your writing style and tone. You're obviously well informed and present a convincing argument.

    But --

    >> Investors who bought in before Sovaldi's approval when the risk was
    >> greatest have been extremely well rewarded. How much reward is
    >> enough?

    You are asking my question back to me. I get from the context of your answer that whatever way you quantify risk, in this case some value has been exceeded. Can you show your math?

    Do you include cross collateralization of failed efforts? Do you account for required future expenditures, not just current profits?

    I appreciate medicine is not widgets. Just to put a gross number on it, Apple computer sells products at a 50% margin. I presume you'll want Gilead to make less.

    What is your upper limit on medicine -- 10%? 20%? And is that number inclusive of failed efforts, after taxes, and after R&D for future products? Then we can see just how far off and greedy this company is.

    (For me, if your target is 20% and Gilead is at 35%, I'm not all that outraged, given the high risk field of medicine. Now if your target is 5% and you think Gilead is at 75%, then I could see your point.)
    Oct 22, 2015. 07:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Anti-Valeant  [View article]
    "Psychotic greed of Gilead executives."

    Sorry, I'm with the company that is treating AIDs and curing Hep C, with the money they make going to creating new cures, to investors, employees, plenty to taxes, and to charitable efforts.

    I understand you believe that human need creates obligations in those with the ability to address the need. True. In addition, I believe it creates a greater obligation for those with the need. So earn the money, save the money, borrow the money, raise the money through charitable requests, even get a discount if you are truly poor, or yes, get the government to pay most or all of it for you, or have an insurance plan in place. All fine.

    I might agree regarding your greed angle if the treatment cost a million dollars. But for me, I would spend $50,000 (or get the government to spend it on my behalf, or my insurance company) to be cured of Hep C. A portion of that goes to expenses, a portion to taxes, let's just say that means Gilead clears $30,000, of which some is going to go to investors and some is going to go to research, some will subsidize free treatments around the world and some will go to development on new drugs.

    Point to me exactly where the above scenario goes wrong, to the point where the company leaders are psychotic, oh, exactly what part of the above is delusional? Looks to me like wins all around, if anything, we want more companies just like this one.
    Oct 22, 2015. 07:11 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Anti-Valeant  [View article]
    Ptatty -- what about risk? How do you quantify that? If you ignore risk, your position is the same as criticizing someone who grossly benefited from the low cost of auto insurance when they got paid a large amount from an auto accident.

    Beyond risk, have you computed any ongoing costs? Distribution? Marketing? The costs of trials for updated versions of the drug?

    Also, once the majority of the patients are cured, do you account for the company's need for money to find, acquire, or invent other useful and life saving drugs, to keep the company an ongoing enterprise?

    Finally, do you have any opinion regarding all the pension funds and individual retirement accounts which need successful companies like Gilead in order to grow, and all the lives that are improved from that, because the majority of those gross profits are going out to common folk all across the country, most of whom need the money?
    Oct 21, 2015. 05:31 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Anti-Valeant  [View article]
    >> Price gouging is price gouging.

    And fair prices are fair prices.

    >> What Gilead is doing is price gouging.

    Or, what Gilead is doing is lowering the overall cost to patients, providing a better tolerated cure, recovering their investment (which also involved a lot of risk, they could spend a billion dollars to acquire a company and then have a competitor beat them to market the next day), also making a profit for investors, and also making a profit for many other risk-filled ventures that may save and improve many more lives.

    >> It kills people.

    Actually, Gilead's products save lives.

    >> They may put a more demure public face on it, but they're just as
    >> rotten as the sleaze that runs Valeant. And, among other crimes,
    >> evading taxes by hiding them in Ireland makes them just a culpable
    >> as criminals.

    Nonsense. You don't get their money just because you want it, that makes you the criminal. You want more of their money -- not that you deserve it -- then change the tax laws. Gilead, like other law abiding corporations, will pay exactly as much as legally required.

    Ironic. Criminals break laws and take money from others without a claim to it. Kind of like what you want to do to Gilead.

    >> Though I find killing and harming people by their greed to be a far worse
    >> crime.

    The desire to create and run a profitable business actually saves lives. Not to mention create jobs, not to mention reward investors. You can slap the greed label down, but that doesn't negate the huge positive benefits Gilead, and companies like them, bring to the world.

    >> It never ceases to amaze how much greed can blind people to such a
    >> simple fact.

    Agree with you that many people are blind. Rational thought seems to be in short supply as well.
    Oct 21, 2015. 05:15 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sell These 3 'Most Overvalued' Growth Traps  [View article]
    What moves a particular stock is what matters not what moves a particular investor.

    I read that somewhere.
    Oct 19, 2015. 06:21 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Subscription Growth Disappoints... Now What?  [View article]
    >> Again, fundamentals don't matter, even though you want them to.

    Michael, if NFLX had reported a per share loss this quarter of (-$3.00) per share, instead of a profit of ($0.07), on subscriber growth that was in line with expectations, do you think the stock would react upwards or downwards?
    Oct 19, 2015. 01:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Netflix Subscription Growth Disappoints... Now What?  [View article]
    I'm going to steal that line. There is more wisdom those 14 words than in reams of analysis.
    Oct 16, 2015. 02:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Final commercial drone rules expected by next June  [View news story]
    Oh, no, I didn't realize Amazon had a problem with deadly delivery truck crashes!

    Can you elaborate on this?

    Bring on the drones, drones save lives!
    Oct 16, 2015. 02:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Final commercial drone rules expected by next June  [View news story]
    How does that sound, Gary?

    >> "Those rules required drones to fly during daylight hours only,
    >> remain within an operator's visual line of sight and stay at a 500
    >> foot ceiling."

    So you've got an operator from Amazon putting a small box in a drone, maneuvering into the air, and then walking along beneath it, until the destination is reached, then land the drone and walk or fly it back to the factory.

    Sounds about right.

    (BTW congrats to you on Amazon stock price, you were right and continue to be right, AMZN trades on increasing sales volume ONLY and no other metric. Kudos to you!) (But that doesn't mean commercial drone delivery could ever work, even in theory.)
    Sep 30, 2015. 08:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Final commercial drone rules expected by next June  [View news story]
    Fixed how, Gary?

    And now we can all play a game, "How will Gary evade." Make
    your choice!

    a.) no answer at at (cue the crickets)
    b.) personal attack
    c.) point out what a good deal it was to buy AMZN in the past
    d.) claim to be bored
    e.) duck the topic by posting an irrelevant link
    f.) BMW reference

    I suppose I should include 'g' (actually provide details to his claim as to how the drones can evade maintenance, crashes, or mistaken programming) but I don't think anyone will vote for it.
    Jun 20, 2015. 06:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Final commercial drone rules expected by next June  [View news story]
    >> This is the future, doesn't matter how much you don't want it.

    Except that it's not the future, no matter how much you want it.

    Each drone requires its own operator. Each drone requires maintenance. Each drone has the potential to crash or be mis-programmed. One problem among your 15 deliveries and now the driver is dealing with a missing drone and can't continue on the route.

    The amount of effort to make drones work is ten times the effort of the current system, and we don't live in a world where cheap gets replaced with expensive, with no added value.
    Jun 19, 2015. 11:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment