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.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Sladek who wrote (3821)	4/3/2004 2:56:24 AM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37083

I used both Merck and Pfizer as examples to show both ends of the spectrum. Of all the companies you list, only Glaxo had a return on assets to brag about, while three others are decent (>15%). High risk, high return - that is the law of the jungle. I don't see anything to indicate unfair profits. Perhaps you feel that 12.4% average return is unreasonably high for large pharmaceutical firms. I take it, however, you are not challenging my assertions that U.S. consumers pay for the lion's share of these companies' profits, or that those profits are the reason money keeps pouring in to private research. A corollary of that argument is that additional money would pour into research if Canada and Europe would end price regulation. Even higher profits would attract more risk capital. Would that be a bad thing or a good thing? My guess is that it would hurt those Canadians/Europeans that need medicines now, but would help those that will need medicines a few years down the road - and forever after. U.S. patients would probably also see a price decline. Regards, -g