Or filter by symbol:
AA
AAPL
ABK
ABT
AIG
ALK
ALNY
ALXN
AMGN
AMLN
AMR
AMTD
ARNA
AXP
AZN
BA
BAC
BAIRY.PK
BBH
BIIB
BMRN
BMY
BNI
C
CAL
CAT
CFC
CHH
COST
CPA
CRIS
CS
CSX
DAI
DAL
DHI
DIA
DIS
DNA
EGB
EMC
ERE
ERO
ETFC
EU
F
FDX
FRNT
FWLT
FXB
FXE
FXF
GBB
GE
GENZ
GM
GOOG
GS
GSK
HD
HMC
HON
IBB
IDMCQ.PK
ISIS
IVGN
IXJ
JBLU
JNJ
JWN
KRE
LCC
LEH
LLY
LUV
M
MA
MER
MMM
MRK
MS
MSFT
NOVN
NSANY
NVS
NWA
NWACQ
PBR
PFE
PG
PJB
QQQQ
RHHBY.PK
RKH
ROG
RYAAY
SCHW
SGP
SHLD
SJT...
[+ show more]
BioInvestor's Comments Stream Stats
- 127 Comments, 0
, 0 
- Total Comment Stream rating - = 0
- Free E-Newsletters
- About Seeking Alpha
- About Us
- Contact Us
- What's New
- Readers Feedback
- Advertise With Us
- Contributors
- Contribute an Article
- Feature Your Book
- Our Contributors
- Anonymous Contributions
- Dispute an Article?
- Legal
- Terms of Use
- Privacy
- Copyright
Isis Pharmaceuticals' Obesity Buster an Enormous Finding
- 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.
>
>
>
>
>
GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another
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?
The US Auto Crisis
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.
The US Auto Crisis
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?
The US Auto Crisis
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.
The US Auto Crisis
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.
The US Auto Crisis
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?
Biotech Buying Binge About to Begin?
GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another
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.
GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another
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.
Roche Bids for Genentech: The Timing's Right
GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another
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.
GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another
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.
A Fat Yield at Pfizer
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.
GM Slashes Benefits: One Bad Decision After Another
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.