I have similar thoughts. The people at Walgreens who may have been indebted to Sen. Durbin and others are gone.
Walgreens has 8500 stores and they are not exactly all the same. I have been in 50-60 stores over the past 10 years and never witnessed anything like you describe. I think you are a liar.
High drug prices result from Washington's tolerance of drug manufacturers who charge what they please for patented drugs. Retail pharmacy is a low margin business which adds little to drug costs. There is plenty of competition. How about Walmart, K-Mart, Kroger, CVS, Sam's club, Costco, Medicine Shoppe, various regional chains around the country and thousands of independent pharmacies.
No way the feds will allow them to keep all the locations where the two companies operate retail stores across the street from one another.
"Somebody" knows that weak handed investors will sell at a loss when they think something is wrong because the stock moves down, while the overall market moves up. This is normal. No stock stays completely in sync with the market. Institutions and funds are constantly adjusting their holdings, and it's not uncommon for a stock to go down when a fund takes profits. It doesn't mean anything is wrong, just business as usual.
I have worked for Walgreens for 13 years and have never seen them raise a price before advertising as a BOGO. As for reducing the package size, that is a manufacturing/retail ploy which has been in existence across almost all retail for as long as I can remember. It is particularly prevalent among food items. Instead of raising the price point, you lower the package size to counter inflation. It is neither illegal nor immoral. It's called marketing. Have you never noticed Frito-Lay or Hershey's reducing the package size while maintaining the price? They do that for a few pricing cycles, then come out with a new "giant" size, which is the about the same size they marketed as standard a few years ago. You can find evidence of that at most every retail store.
SKX has had quite a run over the past year, which set it up for the shorts when there was a small miss and some uncertainty about their ability to continue high growth. It's temporary and many smart investors are now buying SKX at a great price. The longs had their day, now the shorts are enjoying some nice profits. The pendulum swings back to the longs soon.
I think the earnings beat this afternoon will soundly top the good results from UA. SKX continued to accellerate growth in the quarter, and benefitted greatly from the ports getting straightened out. They will crush estimates (at least 10 cents) and will speak with confidence about continued accellerated growth into 2016. There is some resistance to rewarding "good results" but "great results and guidance" is more difficult to ignore. I would guess we see $55-$60 soon.
You have said so many things, some bearish, some bullish. It's not too shocking that out of hundreds of posts you could recover something that turned out accurate. If anyone wanted to go to the trouble, I'm sure there are many past posts that you might find embarrassing..
"Soon" is a relative term. Since your audience is mostly interested in AMBA over the next 30-60 days, I think you chose the wrong term. "Eventually" might be more suitable.
During RAD struggles I think Walgreen & CVS both were content to take market share as opposed to buying RAD outright. Now that RAD shows some strength maybe WBA will be interested. Pessina said he is looking to acquire, but no hint what he's looking at. Margins have gotten so thin in traditional pharmacy, there must be more lucrative opportunities, but a lot of companies get hurt when they stray too far from their core competencies.
I have owned Walgreens for about 30 years, and CVS off and on for 25 years. They have both proven to be valuable holdings. I am currently out of CVS. Nothing against CVS, but I would be happier if they made a serious move internationally. The investment in Brazil is small and the currency problems there may be giving management a bad taste for international expansion.
wally, it wasn't long ago you stated $40 would be a decent entry point for this stock. Now you say it's going to $22. So, where you're from it's considered smart to buy at $40 and ride down to $22? LOL! Let's just admit you simply like to say things without regard for truth or logic. No one should heed a warning or advice from you. Sooner or later AMBA's excellent track record will provide support for the stock price. It will be soon, but it may seem like a long time to those who keep reading your drivel.
I agree with much of your post, but I see no parallel to Rite-Aid. There is no Grass family to bring down WBA. It's true there are no signs of innovation in the past few years (clearly predating and unrelated to the Alliance Boots deal). Cost cutting, primarily at the expense of their employees also predated the purchase of Boots. Mr. Pessina, as the largest stockholder of WBA and the current CEO is certainly in a position of power. As I have previously pointed out, it is unclear that he was particularly successful at Boots Alliance. He deserves though, a chance to show what he can do for the company and I don't blame him for bringing on board some of his previous executive staff. The Walgreen name is about all that remains from the original company and the years of pharmacist driven prosperity are gone. Pharmacy and pharmacists have a very unclear future in USA healthcare. Many of the bright minds who chose pharmacy as a career over the past couple of decades have some soul searching to do.