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 : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: staring who wrote (57223)	5/1/2016 6:18:50 PM
From: Graham Osborn	Respond to of 78744

Like AAPL, GILD has a core portfolio that seemed like indefinitely recurring revenue in the short term but actually was not. Add to that the blitz of congressional hearings on drug pricing over the past 6 months and it amounts to a lot of uncertainty and little moat. Frankly, I would not own any pharma company at the moment although there may be some deals in 12-18 months. The distributors lost like 5% apiece on Friday. The whole sector is turning toxic.

To: staring who wrote (57223)	5/2/2016 7:03:45 AM
From: Ditchdigger	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 78744

GILD is currently pretty dependent on their HepC drugs, in which sales have declined with providers seeking a cheaper alternative to Harvoni. The efficacy gap between the competing drugs has narrowed considerably over the past few years so price is major consideration for treatment options.(and GILD's is expensive) This field has quickly progressed with some approved drugs even almost being hopscotched such as VRTX's. While politicians scream the reality is treatment cost per patient hasn't really increased that much over the past decade. The ancillary cost savings as a result of treatment length being reduced from as much as a year down to 12 weeks add up in the over all cost of cure. Not to mention the increased % of successfully treated patients per treatment course.