With out a merger, Bard is looking at similar
valuation for next year (12/2001) 15 - 18 PE on estimated
2001 earnings/share $3.10 = $45 - $55/share and a 2%
dividend. Not a compelling investment. What will Bard do to
catch up with its peers? What would likely happen if
someone did buy Bard? It might be a good idea to borrow
from the philosophy of Mr. John F. Welch at GE and DYB
-- that's Destroy Your Business before someone else
Having read several of your postings, I can't
agree more Zhoot. Granted, a LOT of R&D projects start,
then die. Its the nature of the beast, kissing frogs
so to speak. But BCR's penchant for starting
projects and letting them run ad nauseum, well past the
point they should have been killed, is legend. I NEVER
saw an actual study of the needs of my division's
market and its needs. So, all we ever seemed to do was
to pursue line extensions and pet projects. This IS
NOT a technology company. This is not a good company.
It is, unfortunately, a company like most others,
wallowing in uncertainty, lacking direction, but still
managing to pay a premium price for their so called
management. Step down, Bill, and let a pro take the reins!
BTW, Bill Agee would NOT be a good choice.
TYC would be good for the BCR shareholders in the
short term but a TYC/BCR marriage would yeild little
competitive advantage. Just what do you think TYC will do
beyond their initial investment? Do you really think a
company as diversified as TCY (ADT security, electronics,
etc.)would drive this business. NO WAY! Ya'll are concerned
with BCR's willingness to rely on purchasing new
technologies to grow the business. TYC simply buys whole
companies to psuedo-fuel their growth. US Surg hasn't lit
it up since their takeover by TYC. The optimal
merger/takeover would be by a medical device focused company.
Yes, from what I have seen they could be but
Baxter would be better. If anybody gets hold of Bard
they need to take the various product groups and meld
them with other like groups to make better sense of
what Bard have got. Baxter could also be a great fit
since they are in many of the same areas that Bard are.
and out is where this company is
If any of you know their history and know what has
happened to this once powerhouse will understand that in
todays world there is absolutely no chance they will
survive in their current form.
Even if Bard did
everything perfectly from now on ( which they do not have
the people or products to do )they would still have
to deal with an extremely competitive market
Coupled with the fact that their international business
is shrinking faster than I can type,I just cannot
see this company lasting.
Longfield's aversion to technology is the real
problem. He doesn't have one direct report who is in
charge of R&D. Until the top dawg sees the importance of
this area of the business lack of new product asset
allocation will continue to put Bard behind the competition.
Yes new products! Vital R&D, you are singing to
the choir. For the near term I think JLcfa (msg 1120
and 1122) summarizes some new and near term
opportunities. I also understand that other incremental
improvements are close to release -- OK, sometime this year or
early next so the story is not as hopeless as it may
seem. The follow through and replenishment is critical.
My first overture to this board was to draw
attention to this. It is not just a single function at
fault it is a culture defect and functional role
confusion. Granted R&D are feeble as a group but there are
many very talented people in that group. Leadership,
support and clarification of an expanded role are what is
lacking and needed. If the right people aren't in place
now then they need to be put there quickly and if
other people are in the way they need to be moved. It
is the end of the 1st qtr 2000 now. Time is running
out and we are still talking about the problem and
looking for evidence of the solution. You may be right,
it might be hopeless.