Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Verizon Communications Inc. Message Board

ptk2000_00 16 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 23, 2016 9:16 AM Member since: Jan 26, 2001
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Wonder if the vote results will be published? Bet the board will not get a unanimous in-favor vote

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    I guess the red today is related to VRX today

    by blueosyster Jun 7, 2016 9:57 AM
    ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 Jun 14, 2016 4:11 PM Flag

    On Bloomberg at 4:00 pm, stocks editor Dave Wilson says that a online news source has leaked that Perrigo is in talks to be bought by a British company. Perrigo declined to comment.

  • ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 May 16, 2016 3:32 PM Flag

    Continued: AOL's ad platform, though not as effective as that of Google and Facebook, is now a critical part of Verizon's strategy to topple Google. AOL has tons of data from its wireless network customers it can use to serve its growing video library. Additionally, the deals AOL has forged with prominent broadcasting networks like ESPN and CBS, can now be used by Verizon to draw even more users to its platform. In other words, Verizon's revenue in the years ahead is poised to grow via targeted, smarter ads and wireless data. (For more see, Mobile Ad Competitors: Facebook Vs. Google.)

    The Bottom Line
    Does Alphabet want to risk Verizon becoming an even stronger foe? More critically, does Alphabet want to risk Verizon being acquired by Facebook? Imagine the problems this will pose. To avoid either scenario, Alphabet can pick up Verizon and be done with it. With Verizon's market cap of around $203 billion, its enterprise value is in the ballpark of $308 billion, when factoring its cash and debt. Alphabet can seal the deal with an offer of $350 to $370 billion, or a premium of around 20%.

  • Why Alphabet Buying Verizon Makes Sense (GOOGL, VZ) By Richard Saintvilus | February 4, 2016 — 8:26 AM EST
    SHARE TWEET
    With some $73 billion in cash (not including possible offshore holdings) on its balance sheet and another $26 billion in operating cash flow, there's not much Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL), the parent of search giant Google, can't afford.

    With its recent title as the world's most valuable company, Alphabet – which is no stranger to acquisitions – is eager to maintain that status, given the projected rise in 2016 capital expenses to fund things like Google Fiber, its data center infrastructure, and various other bets. Or Alphabet can just pick up wireless telecom giant Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ) and maximize what it expects to achieve from these projects. And the synergies with Verizon will be instant. (See also: Is Alphabet the best FANG for 2016?)

    Why Fight 'Em When You Can Buy 'Em?
    Controlling access to the Internet is something both behemoths want. Google's search dominance has allowed Alphabet to become a gatekeeper, of sorts, leveraging the company's massive global reach to serve up tons of digital video content and mobile advertising. It's for this reason Google is investing so heavily not only in Google Fi but also spending billions to outfit various U.S. cities with Google Fiber, the company's lightning-fast gigabit speed internet service.

    Why is Alphabet doing all of this? Obviously, the more users are exposed to its services, the more revenue it can generate for both mobile and display ads. At the same time, the company has looked upon Verizon, which has its own high-speed broadband FiOS service, as a formidable foe. And the fact that Verizon last year picked up AOL, which I then described as a direct attack on both Google and Facebook Inc. (FB), Verizon – thanks to AOL's strong video assets – is positioning itself to supplant YouTube as the world's most dominant video platform.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 May 16, 2016 2:28 PM Flag

    AOL's ad platform, though not as effective as that of Google and Facebook, is now a critical part of Verizon's strategy to topple Google. AOL has tons of data from its wireless network customers it can use to serve its growing video library. Additionally, the deals AOL has forged with prominent broadcasting networks like ESPN and CBS, can now be used by Verizon to draw even more users to its platform. In other words, Verizon's revenue in the years ahead is poised to grow via targeted, smarter ads and wireless data. (For more see, Mobile Ad Competitors: Facebook Vs. Google.)

    The Bottom Line
    Does Alphabet want to risk Verizon becoming an even stronger foe? More critically, does Alphabet want to risk Verizon being acquired by Facebook? Imagine the problems this will pose. To avoid either scenario, Alphabet can pick up Verizon and be done with it. With Verizon's market cap of around $203 billion, its enterprise value is in the ballpark of $308 billion, when factoring its cash and debt. Alphabet can seal the deal with an offer of $350 to $370 billion, or a premium of around 20%.

    Read more: Why Alphabet Buying Verizon Makes Sense.

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Here's an article from February published in investopedia. In the article, the author suggests that Google should buy Verizon. Do you think this could happen if Verizon can't make its digital advertisement and media aspirations a reality?
    Why Alphabet Buying Verizon Makes Sense (GOOGL, VZ) By Richard Saintvilus | February 4, 2016
    With some $73 billion in cash (not including possible offshore holdings) on its balance sheet and another $26 billion in operating cash flow, there's not much Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL), the parent of search giant Google, can't afford.

    With its recent title as the world's most valuable company, Alphabet – which is no stranger to acquisitions – is eager to maintain that status, given the projected rise in 2016 capital expenses to fund things like Google Fiber, its data center infrastructure, and various other bets. Or Alphabet can just pick up wireless telecom giant Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ) and maximize what it expects to achieve from these projects. And the synergies with Verizon will be instant. (See also: Is Alphabet the best FANG for 2016?)

    Why Fight 'Em When You Can Buy 'Em?
    Controlling access to the Internet is something both behemoths want. Google's search dominance has allowed Alphabet to become a gatekeeper, of sorts, leveraging the company's massive global reach to serve up tons of digital video content and mobile advertising. It's for this reason Google is investing so heavily not only in Google Fi but also spending billions to outfit various U.S. cities with Google Fiber, the company's lightning-fast gigabit speed internet service.

    Why is Alphabet doing all of this? Obviously, the more users are exposed to its services, the more revenue it can generate for both mobile and display ads. At the same time, the company has looked upon Verizon, which has its own high-speed broadband FiOS service, as a formidable foe. And the fact that Verizon last year picked up AOL, which I then described

    Sentiment: Buy

  • ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 May 16, 2016 8:35 AM Flag

    Pfizer may speed up its internal discussions on GEP if it wants to "merge" GEP with Mylan. GEP must be larger than Mylan. Mylan continues to buy other companies and getting larger. At some point, Mylan and GEP's size (market capitalization) will become comparable.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • From Wikipedia

    Reverse Morris Trust

    A Reverse Morris Trust is a transaction that combines a divisive reorganization (spin-off) with an acquisitive reorganization (statutory merger) to allow a tax-free transfer (in the guise of a merger) of a subsidiary under United States law.

    A Reverse Morris Trust is used when a parent company has a subsidiary (sub-company) that it wants to sell in a tax-efficient manner. The parent company completes a spin-off of a subsidiary to the parent company's shareholders. Under Internal Revenue Code section 355, this could be tax-free if certain criteria are met. The former subsidiary (now owned by the parent company's shareholders, but separate from the parent company) then merges with a target company to create a merged company. Under Internal Revenue Code section 368 (a)(1)(A), this could be largely tax-free if the former subsidiary is considered the "buyer" of the target company. The former subsidiary is the "buyer" if its shareholders (also the original parent company's shareholders) own more than 50% of the merged company. Thus, the former subsidiary will usually have a bigger market capitalization than the target company. The target company's managers rarely run the merged company.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 May 15, 2016 2:52 PM Flag

    Oops. Sorry.

    "The initial thread of my post was a section of a Motley Fool article entitled: Everything You Need to Know About Pfizer's Growth Strategy, Summed Up by Its CEO

    CEO Ian Read spills the beans on what's next for Pfizer."

    Author: Sean Williams May 13, 2016 at 2:42PM

    Look it up on the Yahoo Finance Pfizer page in the online stories for May 13th, 2016.

    It sures sounds like Read would consider a spinoff and merger (believe companies do this using the Morris trust tax section of the tax code?)

    In any case, as robolive2006 commented, it sure would be interesting if Mylan's ownership structure included Abbot, Teva, and Pfizer.

    Still don't see anyone or anything that could dislodge the 'Furher Coury' if he doesn't want to play.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Concerning the long-floating idea that Pfizer could spin off or sell its global established products (GEP) operations, Read affirms that a decision could be made by the end of this year, with a separation perhaps occurring as quickly as 2017 if that seems the most prudent course of action. Read and his management team have been suggesting for more than two years that a spinoff would occur only if the GEP could stand on its own, if value could be unlocked from a separation, and if the separation could be done in a tax-efficient way. With the Allergan deal now off the table, tax efficiencies have sort of been thrown out the window, too.

    Or have they?

    "There are many factors we'll take into account in whether we want to split or not, and one of them is of course the tax structure of the two companies if they are split," Read said. "And I think the Treasury action and the government's willingness to act in this area will make us think deeply about what are the alternatives to let part of this company, if possible, have a different tax jurisdiction."

    Read's last comment here is really interesting. Rather than merging with a company near its size, of which they are few choices, Pfizer could tinker with the idea of merging its GEP with an overseas company, where corporate income tax rates are lower, and allow the new GEP to redomicile overseas, thus saving tax dollars on a slow-growth business in the process. This is something worth keeping an eye on going forward.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Don't Understand

    by eastcoaster46 May 12, 2016 11:37 AM
    ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 May 12, 2016 12:25 PM Flag

    Negative sentiment is a reasonable guess. Perrigo published its earnings this morning. The numbers look bleak for it in the coming year. But we know about Perrigo's problems already after the company changed its outlook last week.

    Maybe Mylan investors, long and shorts, are seeing a chance that Mylan will revisit a Perrigo when it can (according to Irish law). All of us know that Mylan management is absolutely comfortable overpaying even when their target is in trouble.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 May 9, 2016 6:52 PM Flag

    Sorry. I meant 'Pfizer Would NOT Benefit from a Spinversion with Mylan

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Pfizer's last bout with the taxman left it with a black eye. But it's not giving up the fight just yet.

    The $209 billion drug giant has made no secret of the fact that it thinks the cumbersome U.S. tax system puts American companies at a disadvantage. It sought not once, but twice, to strike a mega-sized tax inversion that would move its legal address to a country with lower rates, finally finding a willing partner in Allergan. The Treasury Department had other ideas and its regulatory assault on inversions eventually thwarted that plan.
    Lost Benefits
    Allergan would have helped Pfizer prime its established products unit for a spinoff, but tax savings were perhaps the bigger draw.

    Source: Bloomberg, Company Filings
    Data reflects Pfizer's projected effective tax rate on adjusted income for 2016 and the mid-point of Pfizer's anticipated rate in the first full year after closing the Allergan deal.
    But nobody -- not even the U.S. government apparently -- puts Pfizer in a tax corner. While CEO Ian Read says he's not focused on hunting for inversions right now, he left open the possibility of doing them in the future under a different presidential administration and seemed to be shifting his thoughts to a plan B of how to structure such a deal. On a call last week to discuss Pfizer's first-quarter earnings, Read hinted at the idea of using a much-anticipated breakup as a way to move at least a chunk of the company to a more tax-friendly jurisdiction. Hey, when going big fails and going home isn't appealing, go half-way... right?It is possible to do an inversion with just a piece of Pfizer. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. It will be complicated and time-consuming. And there is the ever-present possibility that the government changes the rules yet again. Failed inversions haven't been as costly for Pfizer as they have for other companies (AbbVie being a prime example). But it should think carefully about going head to head with the Treasury again.The idea of a partial inversion or a "spinversion" (in which a company spins off a part of itself, and then merges that piece with a non-U.S. company) has been bandied about before as a way for large firms to get at least some tax benefits without all of the political ruckus that comes with mega-deals. A mini-Pfizer wouldn't need as big of a partner, which broadens out the pool of possibilities and makes it easier to structure an inversion. But like anything with taxes, it's tricky.
    $160 Billion Gap
    Health-care M&A hit at a record last year, but the volume would have been much higher if Pfizer's purchase of Allergan had gone ahead.

    Source: Bloomberg
    For one, you have to use the right piece of the company. The surviving Pfizer parent would have to wait three years after a spin-off to do an inversion, but the division that's been split off may not have the same timing issues -- as long as the unit is significantly smaller and there's a legitimate business purpose for the breakup, says tax consultant Robert Willens. That spin-co could even potentially do an inversion with a foreign company in conjunction with the breakup, says Laurence Bambino, a tax partner at Shearman & Sterling.But that mini-Pfizer has to find an absolutely perfectly sized overseas partner so that its shareholders end up with more than 50 percent but less than 60 percent of the newly combined foreign entity. Otherwise, the tax-free nature of the spinoff could be in jeopardy, or the deal could butt up against Treasury rules that make it harder for inverted companies to do things like access overseas cash. Oh, and the transaction also has to be all stock. All this, before you even think about whether that merger partner makes strategic sense. There is a third option. Pfizer could try to do a so-called naked inversion whereby it decides a piece of itself is foreign enough that it doesn't need to do a merger to move abroad. Coffee company D.E. Master Blenders was based in the Netherlands from the get-go when it was separated from Sara Lee in 2012 because it was able to prove substantial business activities in that country. To meet that standard, Pfizer would need to show that at least 25 percent of the spinoff's assets, among other things, were located in a foreign country. That wouldn't be the easiest thing for a global company of Pfizer's size.Maybe Read would be better off just focusing on the breakup -- an idea kicked around since 2011 -- without any tax shenanigans. The underlying rationale has always been to set Pfizer's higher-growth, higher-margin new drugs free from its declining established pharmaceuticals business -- and the logic is only getting stronger. Sales at the more grizzled hunk of Pfizer's business (excluding drugs from its acquisition of Hospira) fell in the first quarter, while revenue for newer products soared 23 percent.
    Passing the Torch
    Pfizer's newer drugs are outperforming its older ones, setting the stage for a potential split.

    Source: Bloomberg
    Combining the old with the new may be weighing on Pfizer’s valuation. The established business has also already been bulked up for life on its own by last year’s $17 billion acquisition of Hospira.With the accounting and operational complications of the Allergan deal off the table, a spinoff is just waiting on Read’s go-ahead. Does he really want to muddy the waters by wading back into the inversion?
    Otherwise, the assets that had been separated would still count toward Pfizer's size for the purposes of determining the ownership breakdown in an inversion -- essentially defeating the whole point of the spinoff.

    And that partner better not have done any major U.S. acquisitions in the last year or the companies will run into the same issues that felled Pfizer-Allergan.

    The company would also have to prove that at least 25 percent of the business' employees worked in the designated country, that those employees made up at least 25 percent of the overall compensation pool and that 25 percent of its income came from customers in that country. So in theory, you could have tons of mini-Pfizer's for each country that it does business in, but that doesn't make a lot of sense because the company benefits from having a global business.

    This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • May 6, 2016, 1:39 P.M. ET
    After Endo’s Plunge, These Stocks Could Be Next

    By Ben Levisohn

    Shares of Endo International (ENDP) have tumbled 40% today after it said profits would fall well short of analyst expectations thanks, in part, to plunging generic drug prices. Leerink’s Jason Gerberry and team look for specialty pharmaceutical companies that have similar business models–and find Akorn (AKRX), Perrigo (PRGO), and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA). They explain:

    Reuters
    Endo’s ’16 guidance re-basing, which comes after Perrigo (MP) provided a similar rebasing (4/25), may provide read-through for companies with high exposure to (1) significant 2014-15 US generic price hikes; (2) disproportionately high 2015 generic gross margins – another indicator of price and tough Y/Y comparable. While we expect the broader spec pharma group to trade down on the Endo (MP) print, we see the most direct read-through to Akorn (MP), Perrigo (MP) and TEVA (OP), moderate read-through to Allergan (AGN) (OP) and Mallinckrodt (MNK) (OP) and limited read-through to Mylan (MYL) (OP) and Sandoz who have already reported. Our sector view is that generic price deflation will be most acute in pockets of the market, mainly opioids and one-off niche alternative dosage products while the bigger diversified players seem relatively insulated and 1Q results for Sandoz and Mylan provide some support that view.

    US generic pricing analysis flags Akorn and Perrigo pricing practices as most comparable to Endo…we look at which companies took the most 2014-15 price increases ( 100% WAC increase) on products that represented 5% of IMS sales. While the analysis is imperfect, we believe it provides a crude indicator of pricing practices in the historical comp period that could create a tough Y/Y comparable as the FDA reduces its ANDA backlog and competition moves into these higher dollar value markets. Based on our analysis, Akorn has taken 13 price increases matching the above criteria (44% of IMS generic sales), Perrigo 8 (18% of generic IMS sales) and Endo took 17 (17% of generic IMS sales). Conversely, we only saw larger diversified companies take 20-40 price increases, however these made up only 8-9% of total IMS generic sales.

    Shares of Endo International have plunged 41% to $15.81, while Akorn has tumbled 13% to $20.71, Perrigo has fallen 4.1% to $93.09, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries has dropped 4.9% to $51.21, and Allergan is off 4% at $201.84.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 Apr 28, 2016 5:53 PM Flag

    I've almost totally forgotten about these strategic holders of Mylan shares. Abbott may be more inclined to sell now that it has the Saint Jude takeover to finance. Thank for reminding me.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • ptk2000_00 ptk2000_00 Apr 28, 2016 5:49 PM Flag

    Mylan's share price reacted poorly the moment that Mr. Papa was rumored to be heading to Valeant. The huge price drop that Perrigo's shares suffered on the day of the Valeant announcement exasperated Mylan's share price drop. My guess: Coury et al will revisit the mylan-Perrgigo hookup when allowed by Irish law. It's hard to tell given that Perrigo lowered its revenue guidance but at the RIGHT price this may not be such a bad outcome. Unfortunately, as we witnessed with Mylan's history and recent agreement to purchase of Meda, Coury has no qualms about overpaying just to get bigger.

    Sentiment: Hold

VZ
56.10+0.73(+1.32%)Jul 22 4:02 PMEDT