% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Валгрин Ко. Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • scoville8 scoville8 Nov 11, 2003 11:55 AM Flag

    missing 1 bil

    Is it still missing?

    "looked at monthly sales. cvs, up and down."

    Concerning isn't it.

    "wag, amazingly consistent."

    Yep. For 28 years now. Wag is breaking the records month after month, quarter after quarter, year after year. Set your clock by it.

    "cvs stated pharmacy sales are effected by cheaper generics."

    Excuse after excuse. Remember the one about Easter falling on an inappropriate day? That's my all time favorite.

    "wag didn't mention it."

    Didn't need to.

    "big drug companies profits are down due to gererics"

    That's a wonderful little sentence. How it relates to Walgreens I fail to comprehend.
    You see, stupid, Walgreens is a DRUG RETAILER.
    The big drug companies are manufacturers. Can you say "manufacturers"?

    Walgreens also sells batteries. I suppose if one of the battery companies is having a bad year, you will somehow relate that to Walgreens as well. You're just not too bright, are you.

    "wag still cranking out good numbers"

    Yeah. Still. Since 1901.

    "sounds too good to be true, maybe too good?"

    Stop signs are red. They are also red.

    That's how your last sentence reads. Did you mean for that to happen, or were you just frustrated because CVS got their ass kicked by, OF ALL COMPANIES, RITE AID. To me, that sounds TOO BAD TO BE TRUE, MAYBE TOO BAD.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • usally is, stupid
      lets see, drug makers sales hurt by cheaper generics, other drug retailers hurt by cheaper generics, but wag doesn't even mention them.

      • 2 Replies to negfeedback2000
      • >>lets see, drug makers sales hurt by cheaper generics, other drug retailers hurt by cheaper generics, but wag doesn't even mention them.<<

        It's really very simple. Drug companies are hurt by generic competition because those are sales lost to the competition.

        Retailers like WAG (and CVS) actually BENEFIT from generics becasue they get higher margins on the generic drugs. Rx SALES figures (but not income) can be adversely affected by the lower generic prices. CSFB estimated that generics cost WAG 110 basis points in SSS (1.1%) in October.

        Why doesn't WAG make a big deal of this in its conference calls? Because they don't have to. If your Rx SSS are up 14.8% and well ahead of your competitors, it would be unseemly to talk about how they "would have been up 15.9%" but for the impact of generics. It would sound like they were trying to pump up the stock by making excuses when none are needed. Better to let the earnings results speak for themselves.

        Besides, the whole notion that there is a generics impact to sales is questionable in an environment of 7% inflation in drug prices INCLUDING the impact of generics.

        Now, if you're CVS or RAD and your Rx SSS are up only 8.0% or 6.8%, barely keeping pace with inflation and well behind your larger and faster growing competitor, you're going to feel pressure to make "woulda coulda shoulda" excuses and claim that sales would have been higher but for the new generics. They want to emphasize to their investors that Rx profits will be a bit higher than the SSS figures would indicate because they understand that the SSS figures are disappointing.

      • Didn't need too. Walgreens doesn't need excuses. They just produce RESULTS.

        CVS definitely needs excuses.

76.05-0.74(-0.96%)Dec 30 4:01 PMEST