I tried to open a small short position in IBB today and it wouldn't fill. It seems to me that I was able to short it ahead of the February selloff.
I think you overestimate the importance of posts from the smalltime options players who infest the boards of widely traded stocks. Your thinly veiled hint that I am "one of them" is equally silly. If you followed my posts closely enough to opine that I am "certain of everything"(?), you should have noticed that, until very recently, I have been an ardent GILD long. The overwhelming sentiment on this board is still long. Are we to assume that some of these posters are also tools of hedge funds?
What nonsense. It seems obvious to me that most of the "bashers" here are smalltime players gambling on a few cheap puts. I have suggested in the past that many longs here are overinvested in this stock, which has led at least one poster to block me. This is a silly way to respond to an unwelcome opinion. Besides, I don't find posts such as "THIS POS GOING TO 70!!!" particularly persuasive. Surely a hedge fund could muster a more telling argument than those offered by most of the posters you cite.
Biotechs have been very good to me over recent years, but I am reducing my stake in them here for a number of macrofactors. GILD, at this point, is a fairly mature company which should probably buy back fewer shares and begin paying a dividend. In any case, the overhang of Jan100 calls means that it's not going anywhere right away.
I didn't see a lot of fear here yesterday when I argues that this was no longer King of the Biotechs. Perhaps that was the time to sell the greed.
Yes, the call options are wiped out for good, I believe; but the substantial overhang of 100puts should help the longs by Friday.
I sold out of GILD this morning and will be lowering my stake in biotech for a number of reasons: (1) The ESRX deal with ABBV was a watershed moment, with the PBM's taking a lot of the pricing power out of the category. Today it was announced that while Anthem has made Harvoni their preferred HepC drug, Express Scripts negotiated the price for them. Obviously, they were in a great position to do so, since they alone knew the price they'd established for the ABBV combo drug. Eli Lily today announced that the PBM's were now balking at covering multiple diabetes drugs, which will negatively impact their earnings. The camel ha shis nose under the tent, I think. (2) The FDA's unanimous 14-0 approval for the biosimilar to Neupogen last week opens another area of vulnerability for drug patents. (3) The growing public outcry over unrealistic drug prices (note last Sunday's "Sixty Minutes" piece) and the realization that Obamacare means the taxpayers are picking up more of the tab will drive the discussion.
Note that while Anthem has chosen Harvoni as their HepC drug, they had Express Scripts negotiate the price. The net effect of this is that a lot of the profit which we envisioned flowing to GILD will flow instead to ESRX and the other PBM's.
Unfortunately, I don't think this will make any difference. The issue now is not scripts, but the scale of the discounts on Harvoni. And I don't think anyone will know the answer to that question until earnings are out.
Unfortunately, I don't think anything the GILD exec's say will outweigh the statement of the Prime exec that he had never seen drug prices in a category "plummet" as HepC drug prices have done. Earnings estimates and pt's are probably being lowered as we speak.
The IBB is surging today, but, even though GILD is about 8% of the IBB, it's dropping. The Prime exec's comments about HepC drug prices "plummeting" will change some earnings estimates, I believe.
PS Key points to me: (1) Linzess is now profitable, and (2) It is taking share not only from other prescription drugs, but from over-the-counter laxatives, which is a much bigger potential market.
Peter Wickersham, a Senior V.P. at Prime in charge of specialty drugs is quoted:
"Wickersham said in his 20 years in the industry he had never seen prices for a brand-name drug category plummet so quickly after a competing drug was introduced. "
"Plummet" is disconcerting and one wonders if analysts' estimates need to be changed.
...which can be accessed on the Ironwood corporate site.
I note the unanimous "thumbs ups" to this post as an affirmation of my statement that many here have all - or virtually all - of their assets tied to this one stock. However, it has been demonstrated repeatedly to my satisfaction that you have to hold 20 - 40 stocks in your portfolio to mitigate the risk of any one stock tanking. Some will say, "But look at the incredible gain you would have had by just holding GILD!" Not so incredible, I think, when you look at the whole spectrum of pharma stocks. During the period I cited - Jan 1 2014 to the present - only 6 of the 20 pharma stocks I held in 2014 have done worse than GILD. Two of these - ECYT and XOMA - were small trial positions which I abandoned early in the year. Two - CLDX and IMMU - are relatively small recent buys. The two major positions which have underperformed GILD - PCYC and IRWD - have not underperformed it by much. Two stocks - CELG and NPSP - have done about as well as GILD (until today, when the tender offer for NPSP moved it ahead). And the 10 remaining stocks have outperformed GILD over that period - some dramatically. 3 of the 10 - AVNR, CBST, and ITMN - were acquired in 2014; that possibility seems to argue for holding some smaller pharma stocks in your portfolio.
Of course, the question of how much risk you can handle depends to some degree on your age, wealth, tax status, and intestinal fortitude. I, for one, would submit that having 65% of your portfolio in GILD is too much risk for anyone. Just looking at closing prices (disregarding the intraday highs and lows) from 2/25 of 2014 to 4/10, this stock lost 22% of its value. From 10/30 to 12/23, it lost 21.7% of its value. Having 65% of your assets in those moves would concentrate the mind wonderfully.
Yes. And it would have taken a real contrarian to buy into Gilead on the day they bought Pharmasset, since it was widely viewed as a risky acquisition for which they had overpaid. In fact, if you had owned Gilead on the day BEFORE they bought Pharmasset, you would have instantly lost about 15% of your investment. Of course, with the use of margin, you could have lost a great deal more.
Agree. i think a good time to overweight is in the wake of a general biotech selloff (e.g. Last February/March). The old principle being that when they raid the house of ill repute (bowdlerizing here to avoid the Yahoo! Censors), they take the good girls away with the bad girls.
I am always surprised at the number of investors here who have virtually all of their investable capital in this one stock, essentially tying their financial future to it. I have owned GILD for a few years, and at times have had an overweight position in it ... which I would consider as 10% of assets. If we look at the period from the beginning of 2014 to the present, we will note that GILD has dramatically outperformed the S&P. However, IBB, the widely held biotech ETF, has done slightly better over that same timeframe. In fact, investing in biotech in 2014 was like shooting fish in a barrel... It was hard to lose. Some of us remember years when it was hard to lose investing in e commerce. There are factors coming into play here - the increasing awareness of the cost of exotic drugs, the growing power of the PBM's, the arrival of biosimilars, etc. - which may make biopharm investing less of a slam dunk. I now expect to hear from some who have held GILD from a split-adjusted basis of 2 or 3, to whom I extend congratulations. When I was growing up in Boston, whenever anyone seemed to be doing very well, the rumor was always that they had invested all of their money in Polaroid, DEC, or Xerox.
The large position in Jan100 calls should pin this at that price by the close next Friday. No reason to add - or sell - until the real script counts are in.