Well, dudes, the PBM war has commenced, with Caremark taking a decisive battle in Texas with rival Medco. The collateral loser, surely, is Walgreens who will see CVS capture virtually all of the $.5B/Y pharmacy biz generated by Texas State employees and covered retirees.
Lot's more of these PBM battles yet to come. If you follow WAG as an investment, better do your DD and start watching "The Biggest Loser."
When reimbursement rates are lowered they are lowered across the board." Duuuuuhhhhh! That's exactly what I said when I stated Caremark had two plateaus from which to earn a modest profit.
But, relax, dude, because you just make my position on WAG's economic morbidity all the more topical. The more that WAG cannot accept low margins and backs out of PBM-reimbursed prescriptions, the more their market share collapses and the lower ROI investors get on all those cookie-cutter little small-box stores that Walgreens has been mindlessly opening for years.
As for your views on mailorder... you certainly are CLUELESS about the economics of this channel, the likely cost imperatives of the incoming Administration or the dynamic interplay currently taking place at levels above your ability to comprehend which inevitably will shape public healthcare policy.
But you just keep reveling in childish name calling... BM = bowel movement... and enjoy your scatalogical weekend watching Ron Jeremy perform while sharing the moment with your favorite, Lucy Latex.
Ivan has never posted a message on this board with any content or intellectual value. He is just one of a small number of Walgreens employees that bought shares for a reduced price from their employer, Walgreens, and... having no concept of investing or equity ownership, mindlessly march like the Frankenstein monster into the next investment cycle with the adolescent and Utopian aspirations that somehow Walgreens S/P will grow, split and bestow huge gains to them.
This isn't Warren Buffet you are attempting to have an intelligent dialog with!
So, don't take it all very seriously. The Institutional guys obviously didn't, today! They dumped this l'il piggie like everything else. And there's lot's more to come! Believe me.
I said it before, it was good advice, and I offer it again. "Take an economist to dinner" if you want to know how to invest for the next 5 years. Forget Bernanke... he is largely a "monetarist." Learn how Economics shapes policy... and vice versa.
If you are a serious investor, heed the warning!
And, if you have money to burn... buy Walgreens! Or get a wood stove. You choose. Either will burn up your money in nothing flat!
The Wisconsin plans were dropped by WAG last quarter and the impact won't even be fully reported for another 90 days. You do seem to have a problem with "facts" when you exit the "safe zone" of what you knew when you once worked at CMX, and then must move on to the realm of contemporary thinking and evaluation since you left.
"Nuff said." Boy, there's bananarugism if ever I heard one. No. It's not enough said. Walgreens can continue to buy market share by opening more and more small box pill villages... as they have been doing for the last 7 years...and because the prescription market is growing both in customers and scripts/customer show growth in market share. But at what cost to shareholders?
If there's a 7/11 on one corner and another one opens across the street, 7/11's volume goes up because traffic patterns will favor the new location for some new customers. And if 7/11 opens a third store on another side of the same intersection, once again some new customers will find access/egress more convenient and shop there. And if 7/11 captures a key spot on that 4th corner of the same intersection, guess what happens. Dah, dah! Some new customers, again, shop there, because it is convenient for their commuting route.
So, yes, you can enhance market share through gross stupidity in new store expansion. And the parlay from my example to Walgreens is really not that big a stretch!
Universal healthcare is part of the platform of every surviving Presidential candidate except Mike Huckabee who is already mathematically eliminated from contending. So get used to the idea. It is unavoidable, inevitable and WILL help redefine health and pharmacare in America. The endgame result is not likely to favor a highcost retailer like Walgreens. That's just my simple opinion. But at least it comes from someone that doesn't spend lot's of time picking up wheelbarrow-sized turd bundles from a defficating Great Dane.
No, dude, the "ouch" is for those losers that ignored the "Two Trains Running" discussion I initiated and which commenced, early last Fall, when both Walgreens and Walmart's S/P's were almost identical.
What's the divergence, now?
Hope you have lots of xylocaine and PrepH because you will surely need both with this type ofmisguided reasoning. My WMT is doing just fine!
What a hoot.
WAG gets killed by a falling dollar. THEY HAVE NO OVERSEAS HOLDINGS. Hello? Anybody there? The only thing WAG gets from a falling dollar is a hugely higher cost on all the frontend crap they try and sell versus WalMart and the dollar stores that already have the same or better stuff for less, and can afford to work on lower margins. Their competitors, on the other hand, who have already internationalized, earn profits in strengthening currencies... Yuan, euros, peso's, loonies.
Falling real estate prices? Boy, there's a boon to the balance sheet. NOT!
"True growth" and "infrastructure" really do need to be married in the same statement. Increasing a small increment (under 5% SSS) of prescription sales by employing HUGE increments of investment capital for inane new stores is nothing more than a shill's pyramid scheme.
Compared to the apparent strategy I sense at Walgreens, which you apparently support, yes I would strongly prefer the portection of TBills as a quality investment in a period of recessionary uncertainty.