Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Softechie who wrote (43496)	3/24/2002 10:08:56 AM
From: LTK007	Respond to of 99280

this news will not help homebuilders.(article follows. Also i read where when homebuilders get to 8-1 P/Es that in past has signalled a top. BTW, anyone know any U.S. lumber companies that would profit from this? <<< U.S. Puts Tariff on Canadian Lumber Amid Allegations of Unfair Subsidies Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government levied tariffs Friday averaging 29% on a popular type of Canadian lumber in an effort to protect American jobs and retaliate for what it says are unfair trade practices. Critics say the move could add $1,500 to the price of a new U.S. home and devastate the Canadian lumber industry, which already has suffered mill closings and job losses from U.S. tariffs imposed last year. The Commerce Department determined in its investigation that Canada subsidizes its industry by charging low fees to log public lands and allows its producers to sell their lumber in the U.S. at below-market prices, an illegal practice known as dumping. "While the final duty rates do not fully offset the amount of injury to the U.S. lumber industry, this decision substantiates the U.S. lumber industry's claim that the Canadian government subsidizes Canadian lumber mills," said Rusty Wood, U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports chairman. The ruling involves softwood lumber, commonly used in home construction. The U.S. imported $5.7 billion worth from Canada in 2001, about a third of the U.S. supply. The Commerce Department set a 19.3% duty to punish Canada for the subsidies and a second tariff averaging 9.7% for dumping. The dumping duty varies by company. Lumber from Canada's Maritime provinces was excluded from both duties. Canadian International Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew called the duties "obscene." "I am sorry that the American administration did not find the nerve to confront its protectionist softwood lumber producers," he said. The duties can't be imposed until the U.S. International Trade Commission determines if American lumber interests have been harmed by the Canadians. But the commission already has issued a preliminary ruling against the Canadians. The final ruling is expected in May. It was the in a month that the Bush administration has sought to impose tariffs to help a struggling U.S. industry. Earlier it imposed tariffs on steel imports. The trade commission and Commerce Department have been investigating Canadian softwood trade for about a year. The department last year imposed two temporary duties averaging about 32%. One of the duties expired in December. The lumber dispute is decades old. Canada and the U.S. have reached temporary truces in the past. The most recent agreement expired a year ago and both sides have since been litigating their cases while they talked. Negotiators worked long hours this week to try to reach agreement before the Commerce Department took action, but talks broke down late Thursday. "American demands were quite unreasonable," Mr. Pettigrew said. U.S. producers say they're losing revenue and jobs because of Canada's trade practices. The Canadians argue their lumber is cheaper for a variety of reasons, including production efficiency. They say it can't be replaced by a prominent U.S. product, Southern yellow pine, because that wood warps too easily. During negotiations, the U.S. asked Canada to adopt an export tax and gradually change how lumber producers buy wood from forests managed by Canada's 10 provinces. Neither side could agree on a fair tax or how those reforms would be implemented. U.S. home builders supported the Canadians because they say a tariff will increase the cost of new homes, while environmentalists sided with the U.S. industry, hoping a trade agreement would lead to less logging. Thousands of Canadians have lost their jobs since the temporary duties were imposed. Canada challenged those tariffs at the World Trade Organization, which set up a panel in December to hear the case, and has said it will do the same before North American Free Trade Agreement panels. Copyright © 2002 Associated Press Updated March 22, 2002 5:54 p.m. EST>>>>

To: Softechie who wrote (43496)	3/24/2002 10:46:10 AM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99280

reading article about Schering-Plough in trying to head-off massive income loss from Claritin definitely coming to patent expiration this fall, have created , guess what, Clarinex. And yes Clarinex is the same as Claritin except for a couple irrelevant changes in the formula. Will the FDA let them get away with scamo, will they have beautiful people leaping over tennis nets and breathing deeply and saying "i feel great now that i am now i taking Clarinex rather than that old useless Claritin!" Will public be that fooled? (yup,that's likely:) But if Schering doesn't pull off this "there's a sucker born every minute" they are in deep trouble. The crusher would be for the FDA to do the right thing and declare Clarinex to be OTC. As Allegra should be also. I took Allegra samples that my doctor gave me (8 months worth:) and i can tell you it is NOT worth the price and there is NO reason it should not be OTC. I gather Aventis is spending millions in lobbying to try to keep FDA from declaring Allegra an OTC medication. The cost of drugs in this country relative to other countries is pure and simply highway robbery of the U.S. citizen. Cripes if you wanted to really stimulate the U.S. economy, just have the pharmeuceuticals be forced to price medications at the same level they do in Canada. That would free up so much cash, hey even Broadband would succeed:) Maine runs free bus service for the elderly to go buy their medications in Canada. A few of those elderly now need not eat dog-food to stay alive, anymore. max

To: Softechie who wrote (43496)	3/24/2002 10:53:57 AM
From: LTK007	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99280

excerpt from WSJ article on Schering---<<Schering-Plough applied in October 1999 for permission to sell this successor drug, expecting approval within a year. But its relations with the FDA frayed seriously, delaying approval. FDA inspectors determined that the company's manufacturing plants in New Jersey and Puerto Rico weren't following proper procedures. Among the most worrisome findings: Schering-Plough was sometimes shipping asthma inhalers -- a critical aid for asthmatics -- without any medicine inside. For years, Schering-Plough recalled suspect asthma inhalers; for years, the FDA warned the company to clean up its act; for years, executives promised reforms. In January 2000, a top executive said Schering-Plough had resolved all the FDA's manufacturing issues. It hadn't. More than a year later, the company disclosed that regulators were refusing to approve Clarinex until it fixed its manufacturing problems. The company promised to hire hundreds of quality-control employees and spend millions in manufacturing improvements. Three months ago, it simultaneously announced two things: The FDA was levying a fine over the manufacturing mishaps, which still hasn't been determined but might be as much as $500 million; and Clarinex at last had marketing approval. Sales began in January. The delay left the company less than a year to persuade its legions of Claritin users to start using Clarinex instead. Drug companies usually need years to switch loyal users of a drug over to a follow-on product. When Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s Glucophage diabetes medicine faced generic competition, the maker had 15 months to try to switch patients to two successor versions. Even though these were more convenient, it managed to convert only about a third of the patients. Switching Markets The other blow to Schering-Plough's allergy franchise was totally unexpected. An FDA advisory committee began considering whether to switch Claritin and similar nonsedating antihistamines, such as Aventis SA's Allegra and Pfizer Inc.'s Zyrtec, to nonprescription status. Such switches normally result from requests by the drugs' makers. In this case, the makers were staunchly opposed to the switch. The impetus came from a managed-care group, Wellpoint Health Networks, which is out to curb the cost of treating allergies.>> online.wsj.com link to full article(is a pay site)