Spam and the stupid yahoo way of nesting messages/responses has greatly detracted from the message board. One last pet peeve, is that it is impossible to post links to support positions. I've migrated to IHUB MB for more serious discussions.
Guess it makes sense since yesterdays Supreme Court ruling breathed some life into coal burning electricity producers. EXC is viewed as cleaner energy and therefore would not benefit and some may argue compete against coal burners.
In reality Coal burners have dropped to about 1/3 of the total power produced in the US and will continue to drop due to cheap nat gas.
I've been contemplating the move. However, I run a lot of old scientific software that the vendors don't update to new operating systems. I'm currently running Windows & but have an emulation program that allows XP software to function. I'm a little concerned to switch to 10, thinking that the emulation software and scientific programs will not function well. Guess I'll test the 10 upgrade on another lessor used computer before trying it on my business computer.
On the bright side, this model has the potential to payout better than the analyst pricing models if the drug is effective in stopping or slowing hospital re-admissions. In the big picture it is a win-win for the system and the pharma company, if it reduces the overall costs. It should result in an emphasis on effective drugs rather than me too drugs in a crowded field. This might be a critical point in this politically charged presidential election.
NVS has negotiated agreements with Express Scripts, Aetna and Cigna for coverage of Entresto. The full reimbursement rate will be contingent on the patient not being hospitalized for heart failure for a set period. Start expecting the payers to pressure other pharma companies to adopt similar payment plans. It only makes sense in an environment where doctors and hospitals are being evaluated on their ability to reduce readmission rates. I expect many other reimbursement deals to follow and the sales to ramp accordingly.
My representative at Schwab was told the same thing by CGM. They punted because they did not know the specific District plan rules, and apparently did not want to spend the time digging into it. It gets complicated quickly because the plan administrator has changed a few times and the plan rules have varied over time.
I think the plans do a dis-service by imposing any rules other than those required by the IRS. I'm sure it is an advantage to the plan administrator (who gets paid as a percentage of the funds in the plan) to make it as difficult as possible to roll funds out of the plan. Just another example of how the Wall Street retirement system has been set up to benefit those managing the money rather than those counting on funding their retirements using the plans.
We were in CGM for a long time (about 20 yrs) so we have ridden the highs as well as the lows. I underestimated how difficult it would be to exit the fund. For a long time, Heebner offered a good counterbalance to my own investing style. I tend to be more value oriented and tend to sell winners too early. I made the mistake of thinking that the CGMFX charter being as broad as it is, would allow an opportunity for the manager to go short to hedge a portion of the portfolio when rough times were immediately apparent (as they are now). I never saw Heebner execute shorts in a way to mitigate risk. The short of the long bond was yet another bullish bet. From my perspective it is apparent that Heebner is definitely a perma-bull.
They may very well be right in this matter since, my reading of the current plan is that barring employment termination or turning 59.5 yrs old, the only option provided by the current plan administrator is to roll into another 403B. Which we have done. This definitely does not take advantage of the flexibility offered by the IRS which allows roll-overs into traditional IRA accounts.
I'm not looking for legal advise on this message Board, just want other possible fund holders to think about what is your plan to mitigate risks and how fast do you think you can execute it.
My argument isn't so much that they do not offer an appropriate fund as much that they would not allow the transfer of funds to traditional IRA. They sent her a form that indicated that the only two scenarios that she could get her money out of CGM was that she reached 59-1/2 or was terminated from her district. That is a specific requirement of the current District plan administrator. However CGM decided not to become an approved services provider to this 403B plan and exited more than a decade ago. Way before these requirements were added to the plan. We were allowed to keep funds in the funds at the time of separation but could not deposit any new funds to CGM through payroll deductions. We had at least one other mutual fund provider that also separated from the district but they honored a request to transfer the funds to a traditional IRA which was at TD Ameritrade at the time. Both the 403B and the IRA tax deferred accounts so there is no IRS reason that the transfer could not be honored.
Seems Like CGM did not want to remain a services provider to the the 403B Plan due to onerous paperwork and filing requirements, but yet they are still claiming the current plan administrator separation/Transfer clauses as a reason they could not honor the request to transfer the funds to Schwab. Is it appropriate for them now to utilize the current plan transfer provision restrictions to deny the holder the ability to roll into a traditional IRA when they decided they did not want to remain a vendor to the plan and dropped it before those provisions existed? That is the primary area of disagreement.
I'm actually thinking of suing CGM. After the August 2015 collapse I convinced my wife we should get her 403B out of Focus and Realty. At the end of Sept she contacted them to roll it into a traditional IRA at Schwab and was told this was not possible. She asked if they could move her money into a money market or balanced fund that might be more risk appropriate for someone a couple of years from retirement and was told that the Fund manager did not want to offer such funds because he thought it would encourage market timing and he did not want to deal with funds sloshing between funds.
They have to realize that people have other reasons for wanting to mitigate risks other than market timing. Looking for an attorney!
Was it Fed speak from Dudley or the ISM being lower than anticipated? Anything commodity related shot up when the dollar weakened after the ISM data release.
If you looks at the path Onco DX Breast took you can see this this downgrade is BS, probably meant to create a buying opportunity.
Piper Jaffray downgraded Genomic Health Inc. (NASDAQ: GHDX) from Overweight to Neutral with a price target of $32.00 (from $36.00) as they shift their focus to 2017.
Analyst William Quirk commented: "We are downgrading Genomic Health on a contrarian call as we look beyond the 2016 reacceleration to 2017 expectations. We believe revenue growth in 2017 will slow from 2016 as Prostate and OUS face tougher comps. Specifically, we believe private payer reimbursement will be limited as we remain cautious on the test's ability to predict disease recurrence. With NICE and German ODX Breast reimbursement also comping in 2017, we anticipate it will be incrementally challenging to drive accelerated growth above 2016 levels. Finally, the stock is up 43% since the recent bottom and is trading above the peer group (2.6x FY17E EV/rev vs. peers median of 1.7x) despite ~10.1% growth in 2017 (peer median is ~38% 2017 growth). Accordingly, we believe shares are fairly valued and are downgrading to a Neutral from Overweight. Our price target is now $32 (was $36) based on 2.5x FY17E EV/Rev (was 2.75x)."The firm cut FY 2016 EPS from $0.10 to $0.00 and FY 2017 EPS from $0.31 to $0.29.
For an analyst ratings summary and ratings history on Genomic Health Inc. click here. For more ratings news on Genomic Health Inc. click here.
Shares of Genomic Health Inc. closed at $31.66 yesterday.
Not a big jump to extrapolate the cruise industry warnings to the airlines.
Market getting wacked again today. Ray Dalio was on CNBC discussing how we are in a typical debt cycle. As I have mentioned before, GHDX makes sense in this environment since they are selling into over leveraged debt carrying developed markets with older populations. These governments are desperate to reign in health care spending costs. GHDX is offering tools to make these expenditures more efficiently and hopefully save money by avoiding expensive over treatment. While GHDX may take a hit in the short term as the overall markets decline, the low float will make it hard for big institutional buyers to establish positions without driving prices up. Therefore, there are huge risks trying to trade in and out of GHDX.
I believe the same. They have had a D rating on my best performing equity GHDX . I think they totally disregard fundamental issues like new products and increasing rev growth etc.
I tend to disagree. The uptrend at the end of December correlates almost to the day that GHDX was included into the IBB. There has been a pronounced increase in volume ever since.
That said liquid biopsy is in the news and is garnering appreciable excitement. Witness the Grail news yesterday. GHDX is not looking for the proteins that are markers of an existing cancer as Grail claims to be. Rather it appears that GHDX is going to provide a genomic profile to identify potential susceptibility to cancer and also (probably more importantly) provide a pathway as to which treatment pathway is likely to be most effective.
I believe this is GHDX's strong suit. They are focused on providing actionable data.
2016 could well be a challenging year do to macro conditions. However, as I've indicated before. companies that result in health care cost savings (by aiding in selection of the best treatment options) are likely to be in a sweet spot.