Liberty

IBS-D is a new indication for Xifaxan. Before getting approval for it, I'm pretty sure that they didn't include it in their models (they included Xifaxan, but not for the IBS-D indication). For some of the impact of IBS-D, we can look at the last Q: http://i.imgur.com/9oEkM4e.png Growth about doubled when they got approved for it.

Interesting piece on Facebook's positioning: https://stratechery.com/2015/the-facebook-epoch/

Another interesting tidbit from that same call: CFO had announced he was leaving (well, staying on the board) and analyst asked him about things that he learned and that he thinks investors might not understand about the company. Here's his answer:

We've mentioned a bit earlier in this thread that management is guiding for 7.5bn in EBITDA in 2016 (saying they will "comfortably" deliver it). I was curious about what kind of scenario this was based on, so digged a bit and this is mentioned in a the Q1 Q&A: So they seem very confident that they'll do at least 7.5bn, and that assumes zero tuck-ins or acquisitions (they've already done some since), just paying down debt (which doesn't help EBITDA, obviously). That 7.5bn doesn't just assume no acquisitions at all, it also assumes nothing new from the pipeline except one small product: Wouldn't be surprised if the actual EBITDA number for 2016 was significantly higher.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/constellation-software-inc-completes-rights-offering-of-debentures-2015-09-30-17173113 Fresh cash infusion.

I still think there's a 50/50 chance that Apple buys Tesla at some point. Musk won't want to do this job full-time forever, he's going to Mars. But he really cares about his goal being accomplished (making sustainable transport mainstream) and about the products staying excellent over the long-term. Apple is much better aligned with the Tesla culture and technology than Google (which almost bought Tesla a few years ago). In fact, Musk has clearly based a lot of the Tesla approach on Apple's approach. If he sold Tesla to Apple, he'd know that the culture/products has the best chance of staying good, and he'd back his large scale goals with the best balance sheet in the world. By buying Tesla, Apple would not only buy its fiercest competitor for the high-end in EVs, but it would also combine two very good teams that would probably do better things together than apart (lots of ex-tesla employees at Apple and vice versa anyway) and get the gigafactory supply.

Pretty high if the Gigafactory works out. Cut the cost of the batteries significantly + economies of scale from manufacturing a much larger number of vehicles, and it seems pretty plausible.

Wellbutrin seems to be lasting because the generics are not bioequivalent: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm322161.htm Memory's hazy on the details, but I think newer generics might be more of a threat, which is causing the problems. Not sure, been a while since I looked at that one. They paid 510m for the rights in 2009: http://ir.valeant.com/investor-relations/news-releases/news-release-details/2009/Biovail-Announces-Acquisition-of-US-Rights-to-Wellbutrin-XLR/default.aspx And just in the past 4 quarters, revenue from it seem to have been close to 300m. I'd say that since 2009 they did pretty well with it, but I don't think it's durable in the same way that many of their other products are. Btw, be wary of lists that show percentage increases without dollar amounts:

Where do they say how much of the portfolio those repesent? http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/09/why-a-congressional-subpoena-to-valeant-about-price-gouging-on-drugs-should-be-granted/ First breakdown I've seen. Wellbutrin XL quarterly rev is down 50% since their purchase in 2009. They have increased the price by 381% since 1Q13. So Wellbutrin XL volumes are down 85%? It's nice to have another list of products to research though. This is just the citron thing that was posted previously republished on another site. Wellbutrin XL is a tail product that went generic, that's a cases where the company has been clear about pricing playing a big role. There's a generic version, this isn't exactly some orphan drug.

Elizabeth Holmes seems to have the smarts, the ambition, the work ethics.. Time will tell if she succeeds in making a mark on her industry, but at least she's working on a big problem that could help humanity, and for that I wish her the best. Elon is 44 and she's 31, so she has about a little over a decade to show her stuff.

I've never owned Tesla, I mostly follow it for the technology and products rather than for financial stuff, but I think that what the shorts are missing is the ambition gap between this company and the regular carmakers. It's a bit like those who thought that Bezos just wanted to sell books online. His ambition was so much larger than that...

I think VRX could divest the 10% of their business that relies more on pricing (tail products, orphan drugs, legacy stuff), do GDP increases on the US part, and be flat in rest of world and they'd still do great. Heck, Pearson could go donate the rights to the Marathon drugs to St-Jude's hospital on live TV tonight and it wouldn't affect IV of the whole business much. Politicians do politics, especially when elections approach. But the simple fact is: Products come from -> R&D. Valeant has lots of products. Valeant is thus either directly or indirectly funding lots of R&D. There's too much "not invented here" syndrome in big pharma. VRX is just tweaking its risk-reward profile by developing some stuff in-house and buying other stuff from others. When it buys a contact lens company in south-korea and then plugs the products into the worldwide B&L distribution network, is that worse than developing a new contact lens in-house? The argument that they buy assets and then milk them as cash cows isn't credible, as their pipeline is strong (their second biggest product was launched barely a year ago, they said they're continuing almost all of the Salix R&D) and organic growth is very strong. The argument that they are on a treadmill of acquisition to hide deteriorating fundamentals was proven wrong when they didn't acquire anything big for a year and the one-time charges proved to be one-time and fell, the synergies proved to be real, GAAP numbers rose to meet the adjusted numbers, debt was paid down, and organic growth accelerated. Naysayers also said that the acquisition of Dendreon showed that Valeant had lost its mind, that it was a terrible deal for a terrible company, etc. Yet in a very short period of time, VRX has made Dendreon profitable, increased margins by thousands of basis points and says they are headed much higher, they've already finished restructuring, and sales there have been growing 18% YoY. Not bad for a terrible deal...

Neat feature: And of course, the 17-speaker stereo goes to eleven. At least Musk is never boring 8)

I actually prefer the form factor of the 5 and 5S. The 6 feels flimsy in comparison and also feels much easier to slip out of my hands. I prefer the 5S size as well and that answers the original question. Maybe the 7 will come in three sizes. The 7, 7 plus, and 7 minus (with a 4" screen). I agree. It’s just not as comfortable in my hand, and I only upgraded from the 5s to the 6s (not the plus). I don’t think it’s flimsy (that may be the upgrades to the 6s) but I have definitely noticed a greater propensity to dropping it. I will say it’s not uncomfortable or a problem in my pocket or anything, though. It takes a bit of time to get used to the new form factor if you are coming from the 5s. But if after a while you don't get used to it, you could try a case. My wife has the Apple silicone case on her 6 and it feels very grippy and comfortable in the hand, and the case feels very high quality. There are also leather cases, but I haven't tried them.

Saw that. I'm sure he's aware that Salix was massively discounting to reduce inventory after its scandal, and that this depressed revenue temporarily. In the most recent Q transcript, Glenn Greenberg asks about Salix's Q4 run-rate and Pearson confirms that it should be ~600m, and that it's fair to annualize that. With Xifaxan growing over 30% YoY thanks to the IBS-D indication, and possibly accelerating further into the next year because of DTC ads, you easily get to the 20% figure that Hempton pretends to find high (I don't think I've seen anyone complain about Salix price increases since Valeant bought them...). Salix also has higher margins than the VRX average, so the impact on the bottom line should be proportionally higher. From what I can tell, the 90% of VRX's portfolio that isn't tail assets and such doesn't seem to have that much pricing power. More than inflation, but nothing out of the ordinary compared to what the healthcare sector as a whole has been taking lately.

https://www.macstories.net/linked/pixar-development-team-tests-ipad-pro-and-apple-pencil/ Some artists at Pixar tried the iPad Pro and Pencil, the comments are quite positive. This is a good sign for the pro and prosumer market.

The lack of a Vodafone asset swap deal (for now, they could agree later) is certainly a negative. Vodafone probably needs it more than Liberty Global does, so at least Malone has the leverage. But I don't think they need it to do well. I think what we're seeing is that this is a hedge fund favorite that gets puked out when the going gets rough and these guys blow up or have to reduce leverage.

By design, most of valeant's sales don't have government reimbursement, they are cash pay, so they are not particularly vulnerable. But if the government could somehow affect all prices across the board regardless of how products are paid for, then Valeant would be far from alone in having problems, the whole industry would be in upheaval. I'd guess those with fat SG&A, high R&D, smaller sales outside the US, and lower margins would be hit harder than Valeant, though...

You are misreading it, I believe. They mean that ±60% of rx revenues are durable, and that this 60% of rx represents ±26% of total. That's just the rx and durable, not the total durable.

Where do you get that from? Haven't we addressed this enough times already? Why do you write as if all Valeant products are patent-protected and facing generics competition? You think their branded generics will become even more generic? That generics makers will start targeting tiny drugs in foreign countries, contact lenses, skin creams, and medical devices? That no product can get expanded protection from reformulation work and line extensions? That they aren't launching many new products (with patents) every year?

Where do they say how much of the portfolio those repesent?

I'm not suggesting that. You should read the letter.

I don't think there's a growth problem. This is headline risk combined with macro (whole sector selling off). The company has a $2bn buyback authorization. It'll be interesting to see if they use it (though there might be restrictions around the end of the quarter).

News on Twitter is: "HOUSE OVERSIGHT CMTE DEMOCRATS REQUEST SUBPOENA FOR VALEANT"

Valeant's public coming out was when they tried to buy Allergan. Before that they were pretty under the radar for the mainstream. The AGN side was much better at shaping the narrative than VRX was, and a lot of what they've thrown at them has stuck. Once in a while, they try to set the record straight, like today, but that's hard because they're not particularly good at PR and they have a complex model that is different from most other pharmas and requires some time and effort to understand. So the soundbytes dominate. That's not necessarily bad since over time the performance of the business has proven the bears wrong (remember when organic growth was supposed to plummet?), but if it ends up hindering their ability to do some big acquisitions because the people on the other side misunderstand the business and mistrust it, that could be a problem.