Ackman already said that debt level of the company is a problem, and I guess we had that discussion yesterday already just go to leave it at that.
man, this was ugly
If it were that simple this stock wouldn't have fallen so much and they would give some 2016 guidance if not much is changing. So we going to have to disagree on this. Ackman pretty much said himself that the debt level is not ideal which seem to suggest he is going to push the company for asset sales. That will impact earnings. And with so much political pressure on product pricing, that game is going to be shut down or slowed down. That will impact earnings. And the leverage game to continue to buy up companies and jack up pricing is over. How much of growth was expected to derive from that ongoing strategy that is stopped on its tracks? what does that do to valuation multiple on the stock? and all this is before legal, regulatory and other potential negative financial shenanigans uncovered at the firm..then this will really take a dive. I'm a former long sold at 170'ish at a loss when Hillary opened her mouth.
what happened to the statement Pearson sees little or no impact to the revenues in 2015? how does one ever believe anything Pearson says.
not how the real world works, public company typically has D&O insurance that pays for legal representation of their officers and board members during time of crisis will cover him regardless of whether he is with the company or not. Without that coverage, all directors will quit on the spot. However, if he committed fraud and violated company policy, he will be on his own defending himself and maybe even Valeant will sue him.
by paying ex-employees to talk to them only. So when you don't trust mgmt at Valeant, you search for the truth and see how bad it is. That is crazy billion dollar investments hanging on a thread and Sequoia paid insiders at Philidor to talk and thought about keeping them quiet? this is absolutely crazy what is coming out in the press. Shows you how much confidence they have in Pearson and mgmt - not much.
Yeah, I bought into that exact same concept that Ackman and Pearson were like a dynamic duo. I actually thought Ackman's cowboy ways of doing things on the fringe was interesting and profitable. Combined with Pearson aggressive M&A style in this hot space, I thought this was a must investment at the time. Yes, I bought into the story and did well, until campaign 2016 rolled in and Hillary made biotech her bad boy story when I sold nearly all my biotech stocks and that is I think one has to recognize the fundamental landscape has changed for biotech - price gouging might be a thing of the past. And now both side of the parties are asking for investigation so even if Dems don't take 2016, the issues remain. And that is before all the internal issues at VRX are taken into account. Too much headline risk still in this stock.
more like asset sales, but doubt whole company will be sold. The issue is Ackman and other investors, ironically, would stand in a way of a deal even if offer is 50% above current prices because his cost is $188/shr. Unless public sources of his costs are incorrect, then i doubt Ackman would accept a deal that puts him in deep red. Then again, in the past, Ackman have used potential deal info and traded on it so maybe he will buy a lot more before the deal gets announced to make it worth his while - just better hope SEC watchdogs are still asleep.
Another example of Ackman buying in front of a deal that VRX eventually buys out at an obscene price. Just some very shady stuff and now news is out that female viagra product from Sprout is a complete dud.
what are the catalyst to drive this stock higher? big funds are the ones who can move this thing and you think any big fund wants to own this thing on their books before year end and show their clients the toxic investment name on their books? I doubt it. I'm a former long, sold at 170ish at a loss, but never sit and wait for more bad news to drop. If a big fund like Trowe or Sequoia decides to move on, this thing will go to $50, and I think that is a real possibility.
When it rains, it pours. I guess the good part is that you might as well throw all the bad news out now. Ackman getting insider info from Valeant? you don't say.
100% agree if he was hedged, although we have to disagree on that one. Now that you mention it, given Ackman has such inside reach and owned over 5% of VRX, I'm wondering if SEC disclosures are necessary for his derivative positions, if he had any. And if he was a 5% holder, I think that would trigger disclosure on form 3 or form 4s. I could be wrong.
looks like GS did Pearson a favor here and thank die hard longs here for taking it off his hands.
I don't think so - they talk to an ex-employee and consider paying that person for exclusive info on Philidor. Do you know what "exclusive" means? keep your mouth shut except to tell us.
drift lower and lower, then now and again a little pop. But the downtrend to low 70's probably by month end... think this sort of action is bad for longs, no short covering to boost the price, just a stock settling in these low ranges and then drift lower from lack of significant renewed institutional interest.
Yeah, I got it alright that your panties are all twisted for being long.. why you angry little long? sure, we can play these word games because nothing of substance behind them. They can dice and slice and spin the headlines to fit whatever they think will look good, but it is all ba loney. Copy? Good, now go su k it up.