I love being "suckered" by a company that sells 3.3% of its revenues for 7.0% of its market cap. And then takes the dough and uses it to buy back their undervalued stock.
Keep on "suckering me," Pfizer - I just love it.
$25 is within a nickel of both the mean and median consensus analyst target prices for Pfizer.
Buying back their shares with the company still in single-digit multiples is the best possible use of their money. I'm getting to like this Ian Read a lot more as time passes. He's following along the same lines of Hank McKinnell who I was a big fan of.
BMY is certainly no bargain. Its stock price exceeds that of PFE by 50% and yet it doesn't even earn per share what Pfizer does. In 2013, the consensus estimate for PFE is $2.35 while for BMY it's only $1.94. Going into today, BMY sold at a whopping 17.7 times its consensus 2013 earnings estimate whereas PFE was fetching just 9.6 times its 2013 consensus estimate.
How high profit do you think the infant formula business is compared with branded drugs? It's positively amazing that this unit can fetch five times revenues when Pfizer as a whole with its high-margin drugs goes for less than three times revenues.
Last year's infant nutritionals revenues of $2.24B only amounted to 3.3% of total company revenues and yet the unit is being peddled for 7% of the company's $170B market cap.
According to AP, the winning bid is 11.85B which is almost five times the $2.4B in revenues that the unit is expected to book in 2012. By comparison, PFE sold its Consumer Products Division for 4.1 times the $4.04B in revenues that that business had.
GENEVA (AP) -- Swiss food and drink giant Nestle SA announced a deal Monday to acquire Pfizer Inc.'s infant-nutrition business for $11.85 billion in a bid to boost sales in emerging markets.
I say that you are selling NAKED puts and that you indeed opened up an account at my brokerage for the express purpose of doing just that. No - I obviously can't prove it but nevertheless I know you're doing it. So is detractor and a number of other posters here. As I said, I wasn't born yesterday. People are going to do what is in their best interests regardless of whether they happen to like me or not.
You in particular are curious enough that you would have opened up an account at Ameritrade if for no other reason than to find out for sure if my claims of outsized returns with minimal risk are really true. I refuse to believe that you wouldn't have done that.
My brother has never bothered with message boards and wonders why I "waste my time" doing so.
He is shocked that with his sales abilities he can't even talk his friends and acquaintances into trying my programs for naked puts - not even for small amounts.
As far as this board is concerned, don't fool yourself. I'm not exactly popular to be sure and nobody would admit to doing it. But a number of people here are indeed picking my brain and selling these naked puts. I have no way of proving it but it's dollars to doughnuts that YOU are one of the people doing this. Detractor is another. I wasn't born yesterday.
It is underperforming the S & P by almost ten percentage points. Nothing good about that.
Of course, utilizing superior options methods, yours truly is up by 47K or 9.8% on his Pfizer investments so far this year.
What a joke - a "born today" ID touts a video and right after that, other "born today" aliases say it's wonderful or they just joined the site.
Do you think people really fall for this crap in this day and age?
Napoleon beat Russia? That's certainly news to me and my esteemed history instructors.
Coalitions of his enemies only fought him to draws? I hardly think he would have been forced into exile if the Battle of Waterloo had merely been a draw.
The great General Washington tops my list because against all odds he won when it counted. Nobody ever called the assemblage of men that Washington commanded a "Grande Armee." It much more resembled rabble than an Army. Would you really call that pitiful group of men at Valley Forge in 1776/77 an Army?
Nor did Washington have anything resembling a Navy either. Something he shared with Napoleon as The Little Corporal didn't have much either when it came to military engagements on water.
The line connecting the intraday low of $18.15 on Nov. 25 with the intraday low of $20.75 on Feb. 27 is ascending at the rate of 83.9 cents a month. That's too sharp to be sustained and it would be healthy for the stock to give up 75 cents to a buck to get down to a line of ascent at 65 or 70 cents a month that could be sustained.
1) The British were mighty chintzy in giving Nelson just the title of Viscount. Couldn't they at least have made a Duke out of such a revered figure?
2) Napoleon is one of the most overrated Generals of all time. The great ones just don't have as many losses as he had. He had the two major naval defeats (Nile and Trafalgar) and he had land defeats that resulted in his two exiles. In addition, he lost disastrously in Russia. In my esteemed opinion, his Armee wasn't all that Grande when it came to important battles against tough foes.
The partnership drug with BMY is widely believed to be approved by the FDA on the June 28 PDUFA date three months hence.
The upcoming week is the climax to Q1 window-dressing and as one of the Dow's worst performers, I'm expecting weakness out of Pfizer this week.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder what the difference is between a Count and a Viscount.
You would think that the French would have known enough to not send out a General to try and do an Admiral's job.
I wonder how the British could be so stupid as to not recognize that? Why did the bloody Brits ever name London's most-important square Trafalgar Square instead of Nile Square?
One thing is significantly missing from that Wiki article - namely the term IONIAN SEA. At the time, those were simply placid sail-through waters - no major battles themselves occurred there. My trusty map shows me that the Nile River in Egypt isn't exactly where the Ionian Sea is. At the time, the Ionian was essentially the naval equivalent of fly-over territory.