No Buyout (remember the poison bill too) -- read the following, from the transcript of FRX's CC:
Your next question comes from the line of Ken Cacciatore.
Ken Cacciatore - Cowen and Company, LLC, Research Division
You've done, really, an incredible job of accumulating and bringing all these assets to market. But just wondering, as you #$%$ your strategic options, I'm guessing you need and do ask yourselves, is it more valuable for you to continue stand-alone and launch? Or is it more value-creating if you bring your assets to a player that has the ability to kind of derive some synergies? And so it looks, to many of us, that it could be more valuable bringing it to someone else and not stand-alone. So is it that there are no options? Or is that your strategic analysis continues to say you should be stand-alone? And do you have an open mind to considering clearly -- maybe a more synergistic venue, bring it to someone -- bring the assets to someone else?
Francis I. Perier - Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President of Finance & Administration and Member of Disclosure, Legal Compliance & Risk Management Committee
Ken, thanks for the question. I think that our board, in #$%$ing the business and the opportunities that are in front of us, particularly where we are with our business model -- I mean, keep in mind that 8 of the next 9 products are really primary care products that have a specialty element to them. So that the synergies that we reap, that other companies don't have, is the ability to promote multiple products across a primary care call, and products that are relevant to the individual practice, as Elaine just described. So as we #$%$ the execution of our strategy in our business model, we continue to believe that we can generate significant growth in both sales and earnings over the next 5 years and can do it with the resources and the structure that we have in
place. And keep in mind that most of our larger competitors have stated publicly that they're walking away from primary care. Mostly, in my opinion, because of a dearth of products, whereas we have a portfolio that's full and rich with primary care products, the best primary care sales force in the industry and one of the best commercial engines in the industry. So I actually don't think that there is any other company that could execute any better on this strategy than Forest and this leadership and management team. And that continues to be the board's perspective. And we certainly are not fixed in that belief. We challenge it regularly. But every time we've challenged it, we come back with the same conclusion. And we will continue to challenge it.
If you wonder why I post of my ideas, it simple allows me to think through and get others inputs.
It was Ichan attracted me to this stock. Originally, I thought better to follow the investing mogul. However, with my extensive experiences in pharmaceutics, I found that FRX's portfolio is full of risks (detailed in my posts), and its PPS has to go down significantly to meet the deficits in the company's practice. E.g., the company will post RED (negative earnings) for this quarter -- never seen in about 15 years. The PPS is about $32 today, but the EPS for the FY is expected to be $0.25 -- P/E is 128! If generics win over Bystolic case, P/E 128 may not be the worst.
In simple, a pharmaceutical prefers to have one Snow White rather than Nine or Ten Dwarfs.