I know that no one is listening.
But there really is no reason for the price to be so close to the buyout price.
The proxy statement says that there can be no dividend.
The settlement with the legal actions make minor changes to the factual backnground.
The only reason that there might be something is that the proxy detailed a number of interested parties over the past 3 years, although there only seemed to be one other than Akron having any real interest towards the end. Maybe there will be an earnings report soon, and maybe something will be said then, but I doubt it.
The only thing I would suggest is that we are getting close to the shareholders' meeting and it someone were to make a counter offer they would very soon. I still think the 43.50 is a little on the low side, but the history seems that no one was really anxious.
well, maybe they did cancel Christmas.
when the second quarter earnings were off, they fell as much #$%$ points. No with good earnings, putting some of the anxiety away for the holiday season, they are up barely one point.
They should be out of the woods. They should be over 44. Maybe as we work our way through the holidays. This isn't a bad buy right now. It should be over 50 a year from now.
by the way, Disney closed up one or two units dedicated to video games - many found themselves without jobs. Disney, for some reason, was tired of losing up to $200 million a year on this segment.
Have you solicited those former Disney employees?
And how about those who lost their jobs in the Schiller enterprise in RI. Did you sue the State of RI for failing to put up more money??
This has turned into a very very very nice movie to twx.
I know that a movie like this can only mean so much on the bottom line (even though I think it has a chance of worldwide gross of over $750m), but I am still surprised that the stock hasn't had a nicer bounce in the last few days.
Ask your friends again - if they say buy, don't; if they say sell, buy.
Having failed with their AV7 drug, they still have a "pipeline". But its going to take money (and they have a fair amount on hand), and success. Its speculative.
They are going to take a loss on this. Perhaps the overseas market helped a little. And they probably made good money on the product tie ins on this movie. But they will lose. It might not be as much as the 190 they put a top on, but it will be .
But the Monsters Inc. University movie is an example why this company can take a chance or two on others. They have very very strong franchises. They are almost guaranteed of two or three hits a year.
Their 2014 isn't looking as strong as it was a few days ago - they had 4 blockbusters scheduled - star wars, avengers II, pirates, and finding dora. The last two have been pushed out. But what movie studio wouldn't love having star wars and avengers II on there scorecard. And the other two will still bring in a fair amount, just a little later.
Congratulations to all those longs. I, personally, think they should have gotten more money. And the buyer's stock is up today - usually, the buyer's stock goes down a little. But we should be happy. I've had two drug companies go bad, and this makes up for it to some degree.
I will miss all the posts, except those on zolpimist.
I should add that one should always be civil. And the person at issue may not have been civil. He certainly could have handled it better. But whether that is actionable is a different issue.
Being fired is plainly an emotional trauma. But paying $150 million to employees to gross less than $50 million is also an emotional trauma for those owners of the company. Should, after many years of placing such funds into an enterprise, the owners be required to put more money in. Do the owners have an obligation to pay employees until they decide to leave.
If your office did not gross enough to pay your employees, would you continue to employ them? Do you believe the "emotional trauma" of laying them off is sufficient to pay them forever.
There are certainly times when you need to keep employees on, even if it means taking some money out of your pocket. But if an employee came to you, and told you that he/she had been offered a 30% increase in salary from another firm, would you say that you were going to suffer "emotional trauma" and their "unjustified" termination of their employment was going to result in a law suit against this (former) employee?
someone will correct me if I am wrong. There are two issues, estate taxes, and capital gain taxes.
You are limited to gifting anyone $14,000 per year (I think that or a slightly lesser amount is the correct amount - it used to be $10,000 even). If you transfer more, then, when you die, the excess is part of your estate, and taxed at the estate tax amount. If the stock is going to go up, it makes sense to transfer it now while it is under $14,000 (or whatever the amount is).
Capital gains is a different issue. the basis is at the time of transfer. the recipient pays the profit over the basis. time makes it a long term or short term gain.
it need not hold anything. it needs to come out with good results for A-7.
AF is traditionally a critical voice. It is easy to pick losers. But his last article was rather bland, only reporting others and prior comments. I find an ounce of optimism, because he could have slammed A-7 by repeating his prior analysis.
In the interim, the silent path that vical has taken has only increased the concern that the product has failed. I think that there is a fair chance of success - I think the control arm is at about 14.5 months, and A-7 will produce about 22. But the real positive for vical is that it has fewer side effects. If these wild speculations of mine hold up, then I think the fda would be doing a disservice by not approving it - it has no real side effects, and it is a new technique that should be explored (it has no side effects [again] with at least some measurable benefit).
But this slide does have me worried.
This is Olberman's last chance. As much as he enjoys pushing the envelop (and exceeding it), he better realize that he better choose his words carefully, or he'll be regulated to some blog for the rest of this life.
That said, if he does well, espn and Mr. Olbermann will be complimented. if they, fail, espn will get some credit for trying.
you have a valid point. however, given the continued delays, this might be announced to stop some of the frustrations.
Eli Lilly has stated that the it is freezing salaries because of the "onslaught" of new generics. Does this mean that hitk will share in these new generics?? More likely these are bigger approvals, but hitk has as few in the works (andas OR development). Maybe that is why the price has shown some additional support.
It may mean, also, that some products get a little less attention - what I mean is that, maybe, Roxanne is pressing for more share on flonase. Next year, when they are focusing on other generics, maybe they won't be so "competitive", and let some share go for a higher price.
I think you could see sales go to $400 million in the next two years. Maybe 500. We will see.
In the interim, get some approvals!!!!!!!!
If something goes wrong with disney, it's because there is something else wrong, and we will all be having bigger problems to deal with - so, it should be part of any long term investor.
That being said, it is a little high, but I've been saying that at 35, 40, 50 and at 60.
I was thinking a little more about this. I have speculated that this is a company that was formed by a small circle of persons, and that they were successful in coming up with a novel delivery system, were able to get some investors, and some additional interest. All this kept these original group employed or, perhaps better said, compensated for their initial efforts. Unfortunately, they ran out of money and their licenses simply didn't realize enough, so that the remaining cash flow only can support one, and the rest left.
The present deal would keep the remaining person compensated, and nothing else. The former principals, who have left, have an ax to grind, and are getting nothing. They would rather see the remaining person get nothing if they are getting nothing. They would rather see it go into bankruptcy.
Just some wild speculation.
gets more and more interesting. hitk doing well in a bad market. drugs, including generics, are often counter-cyclical, so that might explain it. It might also be that buyers are getting a little more confident as we approach earnings (I would think the conservative nature of investors would cause them to shy away a little).
But, as I've said before, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.