is a negative propaganda machine for a significant short position in BSX that is held by the investment group(s) that own/invested in the development of the site. All IMO...
It's obvious and laughable...God Bless America! Don't buy the B.S. from the Fool...
Good grief - you must spend all of your time copying and pasting others thoughts and using them as your own. I've seen this type of plagurism before but not so well done. You do provide a huge amount of amusement to me however so I can't come down on you too hard. Are there any thoughts of your own you would like to air or are you going to continue on your present course and pretend you know what you're talking about?
I believe that the FTC would only POTENTIALLY put the kabosh on a sale of BSC rhythm management business elements to MDT.
However I am on the side that believes that MDT would not be the primary party involved in a full-business purchase of BSC.
Lay off the 'shrooms man. ALL BSX divisions overlap with MDT except for endosurgery and BSX is not going to sell endosurgery. FTC will not approve of anything going to MDT except for endosurgery, and like I said before, that division is not for sale.
Responding to the thoughtful query on why MDT would duplicate the expensive BSX clinical study on CRT-D if MDT was going to acquire BSX.
The brief answer is the two studies are different with varying clinical end-points and especially a different randomization protocol (BTW how these items are implemented makes all the difference in a "Successful outcome").
Not mentioning the differences in product materials between BSX and MDT lines, software implementation or the preferred device removal protocols (In the case of electrical failures) the two devices are indeed different. Users might prefer one over the other for small reasons. For example, choosing surgical carotid endarterectomy over carotid stenting is mostly a point of smallish dimensions, even though the two underlying clinical studies finished virtually tied in important areas.
It isn't known if MDT will retain the BSX division implementing CRT-D but what is apparent: MDT will assimilate the better part of SCI-MED and take other appropriate surgical divisional capacities to buttress the stalled Salient Surgical Technologies group. Mr. Ellis has been quite active over there trying to boost the once-leading technology advantages and certainly won't want to miss a beat.
Indeed, BSX has a wild range of capabilities and seems to be looking for more that could fit nicely with several "Partners". Without too much effort, the players can be seen operating in a kind of accelerating synchrony.
I think you blend up a mix of this story, with a dash of Pelican Brief, and some racy stuff, and you are getting awards.
Hey, if you end up accurate, you'll get to acknowledge it here. I don't see your view for now. Too much forming of the info. We'll see.
OK on a serious note now that I had my fun.
For the readers to decide. Look at today's headlines all over Medtronic's yahoo news page. and Boston Scientific's yahoo news headlines.
Notice the headlines about the study that Medtronic just completed. The headlines that will eventually give Medtronic devices labeling to implant its cardiac resynchronizations device in mild to moderate heart failure patients.
Why did Medtronic have to do this study. Boston Scientific already had done this study. It is because Boston Scientific devices already have this labeling from the MADIT CRT study. It was an exclusive labeling to Boston Scientific devices. Since Boston Scientific was sole sponsor to the MADIT CRT study and supplied the devices. When the labeling for device use was changed by the FDA for BSX devices only. Since that was the only device studied.
So in order to keep pace Medtronic has to do the same study to get the same labeling that BSX already has.
SO if Medtronic was going to buy BSX. "Why would it spend Millions and millions of dollars doing the same study if it was going to buy BSX and get those rights in the acquisition.
Traaader It's not happening MDT is not buying BSX.
BSX's price is going up on its own merit not some secret acquisition in the works.
Call me a critic I don't care.
It's your money.Do not listen to the Motley Fool Website. Do your own DD about the BSX. As I Recently saw they did a good job on earnings..etc.. I give them a BUY instead of a HOLD in my text book..GLTA
The pro-MDT, anti BSX theme at Motley Fool has been obvious for some time. Buying editorial content is as easy as buying an expensive corn dog.
There is a reason for this biased Motley Fool stance: MDT is deep into a takeover of BSX where BSX divisions will be parceled out to others to defray the expense. SCI-MED is located in Minneapolis and is a perfect gem for MDT to acquire.
Lots of secrecy here due to the threat of JNJ again harming the deal as they harmed BSX with the Guidant bidding war.
It won't be long...Perhaps one MDT share for two BSX, netting BSX holders $17.50. MDT is really a long-term$43 stock–so the offer would carry more potential.
HA HA HA HA - you should write science fantasy fiction. You're very good at dreaming up concoctions that will never be. MDT buying BSX - cmon - you can do better than that. How about this one. IBM taking over Hewlett Packard and then MDT buying them both out. That one is as far fetched as your idea of MDT buying BSX. Man..........some people!
FTC would never allow that. Medtronic buying BSX. It would give 1 corporation approximately 73% percent of an 8 billion dollar plus market. (pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronizations devices)or otherwise know as BSX CRM division combined with Medtonic CRM division.
When BSX bought Guidant JNJ was working with the FTC trying to make the deal fly for almost a year. (because they had the same problem on the stent side (cypher plus the Everolimus stent that Guidant had under clinical trials))That is what gave Boston Scientific the time to evaluate the situation and get into a bidding war with JNJ. That is also why BSX had to sell off the stent division of Guidant to abott to satisfy the FTC. BSX was smart enough to ratain right to everolimus though.
FTC would never allow medtonic to buy Boston Scientific. They (the FTC) wants competition in these marketplaces.
Everything that motley fool has ever written about BSX is a total lie. BSX should sue motley fool for at least 30 billion dollars, since their defamation against BSX has resulted in tens of billions in lost market cap. How come motley fool never mentions that BSX is the world's largest medical device company with 80% market share of CRM and DES, with the most bulletproof and reliable devices in the market. Even the FDA has warning letters on STJ and MDT, while there are none on BSX. When FDA shuts down STJ and MDT and BSX gets a monopoly on medical devices, motley fool will be out of business. BSX should be $75 right now because of the addition of Guidant, but the propagandist liars at motley fool and other fake newspapers have spewed all these lies about BSX which has ruined BSX reputation.
I wouldn't say everything written is a lie however it's slanted and biased reporting at minimum. It's a catch-22 scenario...if you're short BSX, were fired from BSX, or have lost a boat load of $ investing in BSX you probably enjoy the negative spin. If you're on the long side the biased and negative reporting doesn't help support the current positive fundamental developments. I own the stock at these levels. I believe the underlying fundamental situation is turning around. I pity the Fool who reads sham articles about BSX and makes trading decisions based on bogus and biased reporting. That's why I preach due dilligence, due dilligence, due dilligence!
It is interesting you should mention that in your post, as I was wondering what the deal was between The Motley Fool and BSX. I have been reading Motley Fool articles for the past few years and notice that they constantly single out BSX for bashing or look for ways to mention the company in a negative way when writing about some other company that they want to promote (not that the bashing hasn't been earned in some cases!). It is a good example of the fact that much of what is reported on the internet is nothing more than a vehicle for promoting bias and hidden agendas under guise of "news" reporting.