Recent

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

The Blackstone Group L.P. Message Board

arts.crafts2 303 posts  |  Last Activity: 18 hours ago Member since: Aug 22, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    CCL BEATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by ldjwood Mar 30, 2016 8:29 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 30, 2016 8:50 AM Flag

    You're reporting false information. I'm turning this over.

  • arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 29, 2016 10:18 PM Flag

    SHILL SPAMMER! for ultimatestockalerts. Just get off this board with your peddled trash.

  • arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 29, 2016 11:38 AM Flag

    GREAT! OUT the_professional_trader & alias. Play hardball his way.

  • arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 28, 2016 5:35 PM Flag

    You are toally WRONG. The technicals show this on a definite upward trend where the 20 day SMA crossed above the 50 day on 3/11/2016, which is very bullish. The price has been on an upward trajectory since 2/11 as well, which correlates with the stock reaching a bottom of around 60, when there began a definite interest in buying the stock The RSI (Relative Strength Index has been rising consistently since then. Further, multiple analysts have a buy and high price targets on BABA.

  • arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 28, 2016 10:49 AM Flag

    Does anyone have a brain on this board? Downthumb and not answer a post loaded relevant information? Mental problems, maybe?

  • Reply to

    All Guilty Of Gross Misunderstanding

    by rkahn29720 Mar 25, 2016 9:13 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 26, 2016 6:59 PM Flag

    You're right. GILD didn't buy anything from MRK. But I didn't know that until Motley Fool's article came out. There has been much misunderstanding and purposeful clouding of the facts by posters and by major financial writers. But, the irony here is that if GILD didn't buy anything from MRK, than they could be found guilty of patent violation. With that said, the wrench that makes this more legally complicated is that GILD bought Pharmasset that obtained the drug components from MRK and then developed what was to become Sovaldi

    Frankly, the whole thing is convoluted and the lawyers just love this stuff, as they make untold millions on these kind of cases.

  • Reply to

    All Guilty Of Gross Misunderstanding

    by rkahn29720 Mar 25, 2016 9:13 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 26, 2016 6:54 PM Flag

    Neither are you. I encourage people to click on your name and read all the nasty posts you leave for posters. Which do you hate more, life, or yourself?

  • Reply to

    All Guilty Of Gross Misunderstanding

    by rkahn29720 Mar 25, 2016 9:13 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 26, 2016 6:50 PM Flag

    I'm posting this addendum to my "I totally agree" post, for two reasons. One, after I wrote that post, and the market closed, news came out that the jury in MRK vs. GILD greatly reduced MRK's award from 2 Billion to 200 Million, and made a preliminary reduction of MRK getting 10% of future profits to only 4%. The court will meet again, so who knows what will happen, and whether GILD will pursue this after being reduced. I believe they will, because they don't want to pay even 4% to MRK and whatever the higher percentage would be to IONS, as nothing was mentioned about that in the headlines on their decision. TWO, after reading Motley Fool's long article, I think I may have been incorrect about GILD buying drug components from MRK. Per Motley Fool, they didn't buy or make any agreement with MRK, as they bought Pharmasset, who did most of the work on the creation of Sovaldi.

    I have also posted in detail what Motley Fool's article contains, to be found presently, as the first response to the poster of this thread.

    I also want to point out that my "I totally agree" post received 8 downthumbs at this point, thanks to those on this board who are haters and continue to downthumb everything I write. What a display of immaturity and cowardness at the same time. Downthumb all you want. It simply reflects on you, and will have the opposite effect that you intend it to have.

  • Reply to

    All Guilty Of Gross Misunderstanding

    by rkahn29720 Mar 25, 2016 9:13 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 26, 2016 6:32 PM Flag

    Read Motley Fool's article - Patient Payoff? Says GILD paid nothing for the patents, & Sovaldi was developed by Pharmasset. This is in contradiction w/other articles, so are they right or wrong?.

    Here is part of Patient Payoff?:

    A jury in N. California has weighed in & decided that Gilead Sciences' mega-blockbuster drugs Sovaldi & Harvoni violate two patents co-owned by Merck & Ionis Pharmaceuticals. However, the $200M check GILD may have to write to Merck & Ionis for infringing on those patents is far shy of the multibillion dollar super-sized payday these companies were hoping for. GILD is likely to appeal the case, so let's learn more about it.

    Patent 7,105,499 was filed by Merck & Ionis back in 2001, & patent 8,481,712 was filed by Merck & Ionis Pharmaceuticals in 2007. Both patents stem from work the two companies did together in the late 1990s on the use of nucleotides to inhibit hepatitis C viral replication.....

    After determining that GILD's' HCV drugs infringed upon its patents, Merck approached GILD seeking royalties tied to Sovaldi's & Harvoni's sales. GILD refused, leading Merck to file its patent lawsuit in hopes of being awarded 10% of GILD' past hepatitis C revenue, & a similar royalty rate on GILD's future hepatitis C drug sales.

    If that 10% had been awarded, GILD would have had to hand over $2.3 billion to Merck for its historical hepatitis C sales. It could have also led to GILD paying Merck an additional $1.2 billion annually in royalties on future sales, based on last year's U.S. sales pace.

    Instead of applying Merck's/Ionis 10% figure to Sovaldi/Harvoni total sales, the jury decided on another method to calculate GILD's payment. . The jury reduced historical sales by the amount of money GILD had invested in the development of Sovaldi & Harvoni, which left them with a figure of just $5 billion to calculate what was due Merck & Ionis.

    Also, they opted on a 4% royalty rate, rather than 10%, = $200 million payment to Merck for past sale

  • Read Motley Fool's article - Patient Payoff? Says GILD paid nothing for the patents, & Sovaldi was developed by Pharmasset. This is in contradiction w/other articles, so are they right or wrong?.

    Here is part of Patient Payoff?:

    A jury in N. California has weighed in & decided that Gilead Sciences' mega-blockbuster drugs Sovaldi & Harvoni violate two patents co-owned by Merck & Ionis Pharmaceuticals. However, the $200M check GILD may have to write to Merck & Ionis for infringing on those patents is far shy of the multibillion dollar super-sized payday these companies were hoping for. GILD is likely to appeal the case, so let's learn more about it.

    Patent 7,105,499 was filed by Merck & Ionis back in 2001, & patent 8,481,712 was filed by Merck & Ionis Pharmaceuticals in 2007. Both patents stem from work the two companies did together in the late 1990s on the use of nucleotides to inhibit hepatitis C viral replication.....

    After determining that GILD's' HCV drugs infringed upon its patents, Merck approached GILD seeking royalties tied to Sovaldi's & Harvoni's sales. GILD refused, leading Merck to file its patent lawsuit in hopes of being awarded 10% of GILD' past hepatitis C revenue, & a similar royalty rate on GILD's future hepatitis C drug sales.

    If that 10% had been awarded, GILD would have had to hand over $2.3 billion to Merck for its historical hepatitis C sales. It could have also led to GILD paying Merck an additional $1.2 billion annually in royalties on future sales, based on last year's U.S. sales pace.

    Instead of applying Merck's/Ionis 10% figure to Sovaldi/Harvoni total sales, the jury decided on another method to calculate GILD's payment. . The jury reduced historical sales by the amount of money GILD had invested in the development of Sovaldi & Harvoni, which left them with a figure of just $5 billion to calculate what was due Merck & Ionis.

    Also, they opted on a 4% royalty rate, rather than 10%, = $200 million payment to Merck for past sales.....

  • Reply to

    The stock was up $2.05 for the week

    by fishart4 Mar 25, 2016 9:10 PM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 25, 2016 11:16 PM Flag

    No one is interested in your relevant comment here. They'd rather belittle and antagonize you, as responses to the_professional_trader list of your supposed alias, which he even lists me in, and then this new Jungle Jim or whatever the #$%$ he is jumps on me. Screw them all. What is it that they hate you so much? The message boards are full of sickos, and GILD's board is infested with them.

  • arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 25, 2016 4:52 PM Flag

    Ah..... that's the problem. Liberal Cailfornia socialists. Such ilk cannot be reasoned with; that is so in keeping with GILD's stubborn refusal to move their corporate office, as they want to remain "true" to the Bay Area liberal theology.

  • Reply to

    All Guilty Of Gross Misunderstanding

    by rkahn29720 Mar 25, 2016 9:13 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 25, 2016 2:22 PM Flag

    I totally agree. And, GILD will end up spending a fortune to fight this, with no clear result, as it will go to an Appeals court, who could decide to sock it to them or not. As I've said many times, this is GILD's fault. When they bought whatever you call them from MRK, that purchase should have had a stipulation in it that MRK waives any rights to any and all present and future monetary compensation. But GILD was grossly negligent in not doing so. If they had done this correctly, if MRK had the audacity to file a lawsuit, it would be fully and permanently dismissed as frivilous.

  • Reply to

    $200M and No Royalties!!

    by livermore923 Mar 24, 2016 9:21 PM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 25, 2016 2:14 PM Flag

    This whole lawsuit and the way this court has handled it doesn't smell right.

    What I cannot find any clear answer on is whether there was patent infringement or not? It seemed this court determined there was. That decision then clearly decided MRK has patent rights. If that is the case, GILD's legal team and its Board and CEO should all be fired for not stipulating a waiver in their 2002 purchase from MRK of whatever substances it bought.

    Now, I just read an article from Associated Press stating the jury has yet to decide if MRK is due royalties on future sales. What? This court had already decided, if I'm not wrong, to grant MRK 10% of future sales profits. Then, yesterday evening the news comes out the jury determined 4%. Depending on articles to present facts that don't conflict is like depending on a roulette wheel.

  • Reply to

    Both technical and fundamental looks good.

    by voclrmet Mar 23, 2016 4:16 PM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 24, 2016 11:05 AM Flag

    Well, how does it look to you today, when IONS is up almost 6%, and MRK is below yesterday's close?

  • Reply to

    WOW! Merck's Doing Real Well, Isn't It?

    by arts.crafts2 Mar 24, 2016 10:51 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 24, 2016 11:01 AM Flag

    IONS is at this time 5.65% up, while MRK is now negative for the day. Wish I had bought IONS.

  • Reply to

    WOW! Merck's Doing Real Well, Isn't It?

    by arts.crafts2 Mar 24, 2016 10:51 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 24, 2016 10:56 AM Flag

    it closed yesterday at 53.08 (High of 53.60), and it had a low, so far, of 52.72, and is sticking around 53.10. And this is a stock to make money on? Look at its performance for the year - significantly below the S&P and its sector.

  • If isn't going anywhere, and GILD is way up. I should never have listened to this garbage on their lawsuit. It has no merit, and the tape is showing it.

  • Reply to

    The Fly- GILD Downgraded by Credit Suisse

    by prowallstreet Mar 23, 2016 7:45 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 23, 2016 10:58 AM Flag

    There are a lot of liars on this board with their own agenda.

  • Reply to

    Over reaction/don't let them make you sell cheaply

    by dr_ooopha Mar 23, 2016 10:18 AM
    arts.crafts2 arts.crafts2 Mar 23, 2016 10:56 AM Flag

    Total BS. Learn how to read. Barron's had a positive article stating the same overreaction of this nonsense.

BX
26.6599-0.3801(-1.41%)11:43 AMEDT