I am split in BDX, with heavy FX exposure, the company will not benefit from a strong dollar. However, I found this piece http://www.bullishbankers.com/five-things-to-remember-in-2009/ that suggests BDX in the medical technology and supplies industry. Do you think it is a wise investment?
From your posts I see that you don't often talk nice, respect alternate opinion or treat others with courtesy. But I have made a commitment to answer questions. I don't get on here and bash. I only speak when spoken to and answer questions about the stock for the message board I'm on. All rules that not too many seem to follow. I have however asked a question that no one can seem to answer. As shareholders you represent the owners of this company and somebody should know enough about your company to either answer my question or counter my replies as wrong.
Basically let's keep the discussion to the stock and educate and respect the opinions and occasionally thank the other for the perspective if nothing else. We don't have to agree. In fact, it’s more entertaining when we don't. But let's pull the language up a bit and do some reading before we type.
I will answer your question. We all have reasons for being in here. Some are in here because they bought the stock and want to cheer it up. Others have bought it to say things to drive it down because they've bought it short. Others as you imply are trying to move owners over to another stock. All are the same financial motive. How can you criticize one without condemning yourself?
I got onto this message board after I saw Jim Cramer on TV say that BD would hold its value in a falling economy and a safe bet. I got on here to make sure nobody innocent fell into that stupidity without knowing more. I know this stuff forwards and backwards. I'll let people buy this stock for good reasons, but that "It's a Medical Stock" is probably doing way more harm to BD than anything else. It's when these "band wagon" owners fly off that BD will have its most serious damage. In effect you are doing this company far more damage by owning without knowing than anything I'm doing. I'm just saying "Know what you’re buying". If you can’t hold your own against me and don’t even understand the basics of what these products actually do then log onto your Scottrade or whatever and find one you do understand. I’ll be here protecting the innocent if you want to come back and say “thanks”.
IVguru are you possibly the ceo of RVP? I only ask because I can recall the ceo of Whole Foods bashing his competitors on these message boards a year or two ago. You seem to have an pathological obsession with bashing BDX. Why though? What is there to gain? BDX is a good consistent shareholder friendly company.
No problem and your right about that too! You might want to wait until Monday to post it. If my reply to your post is clear and correct and I've properly shown you what I see, you may want to sell your shares. It'd be a proper response of courtesy to you that you'd have an open market to change your ownership and get a fair price if you desire to do so. Talk with you on Monday!
We've got a good line here and some good reading between both of us but we probably should start as a new topic so others won't have to dig so far to find this. This posting was started by a publisher just trying to get people to link back to their blog site and wasn't a real question.
I'm going to say you're right in your last posting with the other companies and in fact you are 100% correct about all of them except BD and putting at the front of your list. My point and relevant to this board is your broad assumption of BDX being commodity consumables integral with healthcare delivery. Unlike Baxter, J&J, Cardinal, Stryker etc. whose product offering multiplies down the line, BDX's products are different.
Please move us to a new posting string with your last reply or a tie into this reply and I'll start up again there. Thanks in advance.
Well, that's why I'm looking to add Baxter to my portfolio next...
But there's an obvious difference to how you and I are approaching this. Like I wrote above, I take BD's current profits as $X, and conclude that because the healthcare sector will expand, BD will thus necessarily expand.
You've got two perspectives that I'm seeing. First, you're building calculations from scratch. But if you're going to do that you've got to make sure that your same figures, applied to today's world, accurately equate BD's current profits. Because if they don't, then obviously your own calculations are off.
Second, you are making some predictions about the future of healthcare, like the presumed implication that hospitals will distribute medications exclusively by IV. I don't see any basis to that prognosis. I don't see any basis to the prediction that the basics--the fundamentals--of healthcare are going to radically change.
The healthcare sectors that concern me right now are pharmaceuticals, anything elective, and to a lesser extent the big equipment sectors. Pharma because I think that's the most likely impact recipient of any reforms under Obama. Elective because of the recession. And big equipment as a secondary impact from Obama reforms. "Big equipment" is for lack of a better term incidentally. One of the stocks on my watch list is Stryker. I think there's a lot of advantages there, given their limb replacement tech, both for troops returning and older/heavier population, but I am concerned that things with that company may change under Obama.
My fav. company in healthcare for that reason is BDX, followed by BAX, followed by JNJ (for the diversity, solid management, and good ethics), followed by Stryker.
Roughly an amount corresponding with the increased use of healthcare itself...i.e., using your figure of 10% increased admissions, I'd expect around a 10% increase profit for BD. Perhaps even a little better, because compared to the big healthcare equipment industries, BD should do a bit better with outpatient care as well (although per your prior post, they're going to be most profitable from actual admissions).
Bottom line, as far as I can estimate, BDX, and perhaps secondarily BAX, will track actual use of healthcare better than any other industry. So their profits should go up with the increased role that healthcare will play in the years to come.
Let me try again and try to make my point in smaller doses.
I agree with you that there will be more patients with an older population and conditions such as obesity that are on the rise. Lets say you're right and hospital admissions go up 10%. That'd be 3.7M additional admissions.
If BD sells; a syringe for $.09, an IV needle for $3.00 and a vacutainer tube for $1.50. How much increased sales would they expect to see from these 3.7M new customers?
Thank you for the response, and I appreciate the exchange of information.
I'm going to admit that some of the figures may have gone above me, so my apologies if that hinders my own response.
A large part of your post seemed to just generate calculations from scratch, starting with the cost of syringes, multiplying that by your estimates of usage, etc. I'm not sure any of that is necessary for the argument. BDX's revenue from syringes is $X. Whatever that value may be, we know it's going to go up because we have an aging, fattening population. That's a given. I can't imagine you disagreeing with that. It's a guaranteed profit.
Your prediction for loss appears to come with your prediction of reduced hospital admissions, thus affecting BD's safety IV and safety blood collection. That would seem to be the most valuable part of what you're writing, but I have two things. First, does that tie in with your earlier point that Obama is going to reduce unnecessary tests/procedures? Second, to the extent that you think that reduced hospital admissions are going to reduce the use and thus profitability of these aspects of BD, is there really an outpatient alternative to them, and if so, is BD not involved in that angle as well?
I have of course heard of a nurse being unable to find a vein. I don't think that's generally an equipment fault. I don't see Obama, or outpatient care, changing the difficulty in finding veins on certain patients' physiologies.
So I'm not convinced.