Sat, Jul 26, 2014, 12:11 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Abbott Laboratories Message Board

gladpick 68 posts  |  Last Activity: Jul 9, 2014 9:14 PM Member since: Jan 24, 2000
  • gladpick gladpick May 3, 2014 10:39 AM Flag

    papa,
    The quarterly report did have some positive news in the 4.5% improvement although in a small group and no info on the placebo group. Nevertheless it was positive. However, it did not do much for PPS which makes me wonder if investors, with all analysts being positive about the coming CF compounds, have not baked in the present PPS the value of such success, especially considering the bad publicity the 3 house reps created for all biotechs.

  • gladpick gladpick May 2, 2014 8:24 PM Flag

    Yahoo did not let me finish my post so here I continue:

    So it is about time for the Board to put this company with only a one drug pony and not of much a viable pipeline that has over 1000 scientists who are producing #$%$ on the auction block.

  • I would say:

    A failed past management.

    A failed present management based on a dismal quarterly report and lack of any info about what is pending in the future.

    And a management that rewards itself with gigantic salaries and stock options.

  • Reply to

    Analysts are positive on VRTX

    by thirdmeinvestor May 2, 2014 11:05 AM
    gladpick gladpick May 2, 2014 1:25 PM Flag

    Regarding VX 787 and 509:

    ".once VX 809/770 is approved and cash flow at VRTX permits expanding the R&D budget to further develop their potential."

    The question for which I do not know the answer is: Are these 2 compounds that have had no takers by big pharma have a profitable potential VS the cost of taking them through phase 3 and if, and that is a big if, successful through regulatory approval and then the cost of commercialization? I am wondering if the big pharma took a look and decided they were not worth the risk. If so maybe it is not wotrh the risk to be undertaken by VRTX also.

  • Reply to

    VRTX UPGRADED MUST READ - OMG!

    by reese_hutchings693 Apr 24, 2014 9:57 AM
    gladpick gladpick Apr 30, 2014 6:42 PM Flag

    Who in the heck is paying you bozos to post such trash on these boards?

  • Reply to

    M&A heating up.......

    by netttrunner Apr 28, 2014 1:54 PM
    gladpick gladpick Apr 28, 2014 10:54 PM Flag

    "What gives????? 8 long months and no word... "

    I would say HR is incompetent and should be fired by the Board. We have been at a stand still for a long time due his incompetency and I am getting sick and tired of any lack of movement on his part.!!

  • Reply to

    good ph3=buyout

    by bootpart Apr 25, 2014 1:37 PM
    gladpick gladpick Apr 28, 2014 10:43 PM Flag

    bootpart,

    I agree with you. I believe Joshua Boger was a visionary man with his revolutionary vision of building drugs with molecules rather than the old method of just using chemicals in a trial and error system to treat diseases.

    However, he fell very short with the execution of his vision. He operated like money was not a problem at all and that he could raise additional dollars any time because everyone was in love with his vision. This was accentuated by the fact that early on VRTX, in partnership with Glaxo, developed a drug for HIV (which it sold to Glaxo). Boger kept research going by simply issuing more shares.

    They continued their research for various drugs with not much of a success IMO. Do any of the old timers remember many failed compounds such as the HCV drug called Merimepodib with Vicky Sato as the scientific officer? Well they shelved it because it was ok but not great! Does it sound familiar like the other stuff that have recently put on shelf?

    Then they became hyped about Incivek. If you remember, Incivek initially had very good SVR and I remember Boger hyping it as a miracle drug, etc., etc. They thought Incivek was so wonderful that nothing better could ever be developed and they would be able to make billions for many years to come. Meanwhile the competitors such as Pharmacett were developing better drugs and VRTX management poo pooed their initiatives. Well we all know what happened.

    Continued…

  • Reply to

    good ph3=buyout

    by bootpart Apr 25, 2014 1:37 PM
    gladpick gladpick Apr 26, 2014 1:56 PM Flag

    qdelfan,

    I appreciate your positive outlook for VRTX's non-CF compounds and hope you are correct and that it will happen. However, based on my limited knowledge, the effectiveness of VX-787 as well as even if effective, its ability to produce significant revenues, and the lack of interest of other companies in VX-509 (maybe they think its effectiveness is a long shot?), as well as lack of any enthusiasm on the part of VRTX management about the application of 765 for HIV makes me believe VRTX management is simply satisfied being a one drug company. They figure they will continue getting their high salaries and gigantic stock options regardless.

    Sometimes I wonder what some of the over 1000 scientists getting high salaries at VRTX do. I may be wrong but in my book I don't believe they really have produced a lot that we can see. Keep in mind that these scientists did not even develop their own NUC for oral HCV drug and had to use other companies drugs (Alios and BMY) for oral HCV which does not appear to go anywhere anyway. They have multiple research centers and spending a good amount of money to build additional facilities. Keep in mind that VRTX has been in business since 1989 -- that is 25 years-- and has been profitable for only a few quarters.

    Hopefully what you are saying will happen -- that is once and if the CF drug results that should be announced soon are very good and could be used on the 28,000 patients-- management would tell us long term shareholders what its master plan is to move forward and be much more productive than in the past.

ABT
43.04+0.15(+0.35%)Jul 25 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.