VRX - Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.

[Guest Schwab711]

Schwab man, you are killing me, makes me want to cry with your short thesis resting on this level of analysis (first the indication / $7.5B EBITDA thing, now this):

 

Slide 30 prior to slide 31 defines the categories on slide 31. There is more than EM in the $3.1B, its EM, OTC and some other fuckin' thing. The real projection is on slide 27 and its $2.6B.

 

You then say Hey, where did that billion go (they projected $3.1 and only got $2.1) so to meet their guidance for 2014 clearly that came from price increases in US and other drug markets!!

 

First off, your numbers are all wrong.

 

Secondly, even if your numbers on EM were right, practically how exactly would they do that? Presentation in late April, they find out in late May something is wrong in EM and plan to hike prices across the board by 1 July. So they gotta hike at a $2 billion annualized rate over 6 months to make up for that fictitious $1billion annual short-fall you came up with. Holy fuck man?!? And you say Hempton did a shit analysis?

 

2014 annual report for Valeant, in the section "Revenues by Segment" (p.34) states "In the Developed Markets, the majority of growth was driven by price...".

 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/885590/000088559015000015/valeant2014form10-k.htm

 

---

 

On June 17th, 2014, Pearson stated that they would probably start including price and volume increase breakouts for organic growth.

"I think the other thing we will probably start doing again is price volume... we will report... the volume and price parts of our organic growth."

As some background in case you don't look at my source provided, "again" refers to his comment immediately preceding the above quote, "I think the one thing we'll probably start doing is disclosing our to 10 products, our top 15 products and how we're doing."

 

You'll recall that they included the descriptive phrases "price", "volume", "price + volume", "flat", "declined" next to the the top 20 products in the 2Q14 and 3Q14 presentations. They dropped this disclosure starting with the 4Q14 presentation, immediately after the AGN merger failed. If figures were and continued to be provided we may have had enough information to analyze Andrew Left's Valeant pricing website. This information is not omitted because of Andrew Left/Citron.

 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/850693/000119312514267131/d754755dex991.htm (p.4); If anyone has the actual audio source for VRX's comments on 06/17/2014 and can share it, I'd really appreciate it.

[Liberty]

Schwab, do you still think IBS-D was included in Q1 guidance? You didn't address that.

 

I have no doubt that in 2014 it's possible that price was more than half of developed market organic growth. That's totally fine. They had some big tail products (which are pretty much all in developed markets) that year and that's where they take the most pricing. If growth was 14% in there and they took slightly more than 7% on average (probably under 5% for the durable part, and more for the 10% of portfolio in neuro and others), that makes sense to me, and seems to be consistent with what others in the industry do. And since pricing was around flat in rest of the world, they had much better organic growth based on volume there mostly because they have fewer of those big tail assets skewing the average.

 

I wish they disclosed more about everything, but they're already doing more than most pharmas. Many (most?) don't even break out organic growth... Even less about price vs. volume. They still disclose some info about price vs volume, but don't always do it product by product (they already do top 20 products with 5 quarters of revenue for each, maybe didn't want to add 2 more pages to presentations -- again, haven't seen other pharmas do this). Last Q they had a general statement (about half from volume, half price).

 

Anyone complaining about VRX lack of disclosure should have a look at a Pfizer presentation:

 

http://www.pfizer.com/system/files/presentation/Q2_2015_Earnings_Charts.pdf

[Guest Schwab711]

IBS-D = Xifaxan, which is already their #1 product. Its definitely included in 2Q15 guidance.

 

This was literally what I wrote originally, which was correct. I was extremely specific. I was obviously correct and it was misinterpreted as applying to 1Q15 guidance for some unknown reason. I can't control that. Is it not reasonable to discuss the most recent guidance? Generally, if a company does not update guidance it's because the # is still relevant (1Q15 EBITDA guidance was not updated so we assume it's unchanged). Complain to VRX about any uncertainty, not me.

 

2014 EM revenue missed by $600m-$1,000m for rev ($500m-$900m w/ fx). I am pretty sure it is the $1b ($900m) amount since that explanation matches the 10-K definition of EM revenue. I really don't want to discuss what if situations since it might appear like I'm agreeing with those numbers. I am confident with my original 2014 summary at this time.

 

I don't think it's going to help VRX's situation to compare them to other pharmas. Pfizer has a short presentation because all their numbers are in their SEC filings, like a normal company. Pfizer's 10-K has more than you could ever want to know about the company. I don't think you can prove your organic growth and price/volume claims about other major pharmas so I'd rather stick to discussing VRX.

 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/78003/000007800315000014/0000078003-15-000014-index.htm

[Liberty]

IBS-D = Xifaxan, which is already their #1 product. Its definitely included in 2Q15 guidance.

 

This was literally what I wrote originally, which was correct. I was extremely specific. I was obviously correct and it was misinterpreted as applying to 1Q15 guidance for some unknown reason. I can't control that. Is it not reasonable to discuss the most recent guidance? Generally, if a company does not update guidance it's because the # is still relevant (1Q15 EBITDA guidance was not updated so we assume it's unchanged). Complain to VRX about any uncertainty, not me.

 

Wrong. As I already said, IBS-D is a specific indication for Xifaxan (irritable bowel syndrome - diarrhea) that they didn't have approval for from the FDA at the time in Q1 so it was most definitely not included in the overall Xifaxan guidance that is part of the 7.5bn EBITDA 2016 number. Management at the time would not even say how much they thought that indication would add to peak sales, much less include it in the guidance.

 

In short: Xifaxan without IBS-D was in guidance, Xifaxan with IBS-D (which is a big deal) wasn't, unlike what you said.

 

In other words, if we think in balistic terms, Xifaxan was on a certain trajectory before the IBS-D indication was approved. The Q1 guidance modeled that trajectory. After the IBS-D approval, the trajectory changed (growth more than doubled, from memory), but the Q1 guidance doesn't take into account that new trajectory.

 

Pfizer doesn't seem to break out organic growth (they acquire less, but pretty sure they do tuck ins), and while it breaks down its biggest products, I don't see anything on pricing vs volume.

 

btw, I think part of the reason why Valeant wasn't breaking out top products before is that none of them are that material to the company, unlike the blockbusters that most other big pharmas have. But it's good to have so I'm glad they do it now.

 

For example, Pfizer's top 10 biotech products (getting a billion or more in revenue each) represent 54% of sales for that division (which itself is more than 90% of total). I don't think Valeant's top 20 products crack 30% of total (from memory), much less the top 10. Very different diversification profile, which can lead to different choices for disclosure.

[Guest Schwab711]

Take this whole message as a big white flag. My intended tone is genuine interest in learning more about VRX with a legal approach of factual discovery and case building. I just want to have productive and intelligent discussion. If anything comes across as rude or seems like a personal attack, it is truly not intended.

 

I do think that concerns about PFE's disclosure seems a bit like a straw man argument since it doesn't seem immediately relevant to VRX, to me. Maybe you are attempting to show that VRX is providing a fairly normal level of disclosure relative to their peers? If so, I can understand that but it seems like more evidence should have been provided (please don't take this in the wrong way; again, I'm just trying to discover the facts of VRX, not attack you personally). Either way, I've already done this research so I can quickly address this claim. However, I think this sets a bad example in case I can't address future straw man arguments. Hopefully you can understand my reservations.

 

How to calculate Pfizer price/volume breakdown of [organic] growth:

p.20 (below link) has a breakdown of the "Major Biopharmaceutical Products". This provides sufficient information to calculate the "organic growth". They also breakdown their drugs into 3 categories and provide the classifications in the top products table to know what goes where. Thus, you can calculate price/volume breakdown of organic growth for their individual divisions as well. Pfizer's top 10 drugs account for ~50% of total revenue, yet they still provide detailed info on 46 specific drugs in the table linked (which accounts for >83% of total revenue). Prescription data by product is available through IMS Health or Symphony Health. Sell-side analysts look up each product to determine the average price/prescription and track this data over time. This is how NYT was able to write about PFE's price increases. So we have 1) detailed classification breakdown, 2) sufficient product sales data, 3) product sales data over time, and 4) prescription data. Thus, we have all the necessary data to calculate growth specifically due to price and volume for Pfizer (the same is true for all the other traditional large-cap pharmas in the US; which is all I can speak for). I can explain in more detail if this doesn't sufficient. However, a pharmaceutical industry report will be able to explain it in more detail than I ever could.

 

Pfizer's 2014 financial report:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/78003/000007800315000014/pfe-12312014xex13.htm

 

Technically, companies are supposed to report revenue on their Income Statement with the same breakdown (based on reasonableness) as how they manage their business internally. I don't know why VRX gets a pass on this since it seems extremely likely that VRX internally measures their business with more detail then DM vs. EM (especially since they always comment on revenue breakdowns by country, sub-industry such as dermatology, and former stand-alone businesses such as B&L). AZ_Value pointed this out in his blog post and it is another disclosure red flag (imo).

 

Even with prescription data, the reason we can't adequately measure VRX's growth breakdown is due to (I think this list is sufficient [in the math proof sense of the word]; if it's wrong, let me know):

1) their broad revenue divisions

2) unclear product classifications (such as EM, on-patent/off-patent Rx, ect)

3) frequent reclassification of existing products (often times without disclosure of the change - so it can only be assumed through context clues)

4) they provide almost zero sales information for specific products outside the top 20 (not every product has LT sales data such as products that drop off the top 20).

 

The top 20 only details <40% of total revenue, which is the lowest among large pharmas and by a significant margin. Many of VRX's products are not prescribed, so in those cases we are completely reliant on what VRX provides us (which is basically nothing).

 

I also think JNJ would be a more apt comparison anyway, but they also have excellent disclosure. VRX also promised to provide price/volume data to breakdown growth but they never have (they did temporarily gave broad descriptions which provided false clarity since nothing could be determined from them; another red flag).

[Liberty]

Don't take my tone to be anything other than genuine interest in finding out more about the company too. We're just discussing our findings, no need for white flags.

 

I'll take you not mentioning the 2016 EBITDA guidance and IBS-D as agreeing with my take on it.

 

I didn't mean to make this about Pfizer, I just thought they were an interesting piece of context after the recent media attention paid to their price increases.

 

Pfizer doesn't break out pricing data. It's possible to calculate it using third party data, as you've said, and they make it easier because they provide data on more products, but they still don't do it. That's all I was saying. Blaming VRX for not doing it when others also don't do it just seems a bit unfair to me.

 

As for the top 20 products representing a smaller portion of total, as I said, that's because they are much more diversified than most other pharmas and they have a smaller portion in RX. I don't think they necessarily want to break out every one of their OTC and branded generic and medical device separately for competitive reasons. If they can avoid giving all that data to competitors, especially on unpatented and/or cash pay products, they probably will (big Pfizer products are pretty much all patent protected afaik, so competitive dynamic with disclosure is different IMO -- I wonder how many products get broken out by other branded generic/OTC companies/device comapnies... Something I need to re-check).

 

I agree that VRX has changed how it reports different divisions rapidly. But then, the company grew from basically a small cap into the #1-2 biggest company in Canada in a few years, acquiring almost 150 businesses. I think that makes explaining some organisational changes pretty easy (in fact, it would be weird if they had kept everything the same), but we can each have our standards and expectations.

 

Their 10K is over 500 pages long, so I suppose that's few people's definition of "thin" :)

 

Oh, one more thing. I don't think that what you call guidance for the EM revenue (which, as OM has pointed out, wasn't just EM revenue: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/valeant-pharmaceutilcals-international-inc-(vrx)/msg237845/#msg237845 ) was really guidance. Their official guidance is only for Revenue, Cash EPS, and Adjusted Cashflow from Operations and that's what they compare against when the year has passed, as you can see here for example:

 

http://ir.valeant.com/files/doc_presentations/2014/Guidance%20presentation%20Jan%202014%20Final%20Final2.pdf

 

When they update guidance, they only update those things.

 

They then give the assumptions that go into that model, and sometimes they'll say how much they think will come from where (ie. x% from EM, y% from developed). I guess that's kind of soft guidance, but I wouldn't really consider that "a miss" if their predictions don't turn out to be exactly correct. If one part of the business does better than expected and another one does worse (FX big factor) and you still land in the middle of your guidance range, is that missing guidance when your guidance in the first place wasn't really for the split but about the rev/cash/ccfo numbers?

[original mungerville]

 

2014 EM revenue missed by $600m-$1,000m for rev ($500m-$900m w/ fx). I am pretty sure it is the $1b ($900m) amount since that explanation matches the 10-K definition of EM revenue.

 

Schwab,

 

You are still saying they missed by $1B after I made clear to you that you misread the slide deck (you chose to focus on slide 31 because it fit your "thesis", you did not look at slide 30 and totally neglected slide 27 which is the slide you should have focused on) - and now you are referring to a 10-K randomly? 

 

Frankly, I have no idea why I responded to another one of your idiotic posts.

 

[original mungerville]

Take this whole message as a big white flag. My intended tone is genuine interest in learning more about VRX with a legal approach of factual discovery and case building. I just want to have productive and intelligent discussion. If anything comes across as rude or seems like a personal attack, it is truly not intended.

 

No way, you are a big white flag: you are definitely trying to come across as genuine and not rude, but the problem is that you are not genuine and you are rudely wasting this board's time. You get the IBS-D / guidance thing wrong and the EM "miss" of $1 billion wrong and don't admit to your two major mistakes. Rather you keep posting responses trying to skirt around them and obfuscate. 

 

On the other hand, I am coming across as rude because I do not think its fair for you to waste the board's time - even if you do it "politely".

 

When a normal person makes the type of mistakes you've made, they say "oh, sorry for that, I misread the slide deck - you know it did say EM on slide 31 and I did not notice slide 27" or something along those lines. And you know, had you responded that way, you would have still had some credibility. But you did not, you still want to say they missed EM by $1B. And you still don't want to admit that you got the IBS-D / guidance thing wrong.

 

Completely ridiculous.

[100 Shares]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/business/valeants-drug-price-strategy-enriches-it-but-infuriates-patients-and-lawmakers.html

[Liberty]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/03/new-york-times-doesnt-understand-the-economics-of-valeant/

 

spending $36 billion on buying drugs that have been developed is economically similar to spending $36 billion on developing drugs. For who ends up with the money? The people who have developed the drugs? Therefore it’s the same thing, isn’t it?

 

If, at the beginning, there’s a pile of money belonging to shareholders over here and there’s some starving pharma researchers over there, and at the end of the process the money’s moved from the shareholders to the researchers and drugs have been created then that is the same thing. Which order it happens in doesn’t change that economic story at all. The researchers have been paid, drugs have been developed: thus money has been spent upon developing drugs.

[LC]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/10/03/new-york-times-doesnt-understand-the-economics-of-valeant/

 

spending $36 billion on buying drugs that have been developed is economically similar to spending $36 billion on developing drugs. For who ends up with the money? The people who have developed the drugs? Therefore it’s the same thing, isn’t it?

 

If, at the beginning, there’s a pile of money belonging to shareholders over here and there’s some starving pharma researchers over there, and at the end of the process the money’s moved from the shareholders to the researchers and drugs have been created then that is the same thing. Which order it happens in doesn’t change that economic story at all. The researchers have been paid, drugs have been developed: thus money has been spent upon developing drugs.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with the link I am about to make, but I want to raise it as counterpoint for argument's sake:

 

Many people argue that the increasing levels of securitization of mortgage loans was an underlying cause of the financial crisis. Back in the "good ole days", neighborhood banks made a mortgage loan and held it on their books. They were fundamentally aware of the risks they were assuming (because they knew, or at least knew of, the borrower) and were incentivized to properly manage this risk (because they held the loans). As we moved away from this as a society, every layer in the eventual process was removed from risk and accountability.

 

Is the same thing happening here? I'm not sure. But I personally think there is some equilibrium in the economic process (for any product--mortgage loans to pharmaceuticals) where risk and reward are optimized for all parties. Obviously we overshot that process in the market for mortgage loans. I'm not sure where we are relative to that equilibrium point in pharma. But it seems we are moving away from managing risk and more towards maximizing reward.

[Picasso]

I'm not sure I see the similarities between holding mortgages on the book and VRX buying up existing R&D.  Someone care to graph total R&D spend over the past ten years and show me how it's plummeted in value?

[jay21]

I think the originate and sell process was in effect before securitization through wholesale, correspondent, etc.

 

And there were banking crises that did not involve securitization.

 

I guess I don't fully understand the point.

[Liberty]

LC, I don't really see the similarity either.

 

To me, this is more like junior miners doing risky exploration work, and those who find something will often be bought by a big producer.

 

This M&A has replaced some exploration activity at the seniors, no doubt, but the exploration is still happening and it is indirectly funded by the seniors, and it might be executed more efficiently at the small companies because they are more nimble, less bureaucratic, less risk-averse, are headed by steely-eyed entrepreneurs rather than career-focused managers, etc.

[Picasso]

http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v7/n6/fig_tab/nchembio.581_F1.html

 

Here's one recent time period as an example. I mean sure it would be nice if these big public companies act like non-profit researchers and keep spending a ton of money chasing deep out of the money call options. Maybe that's the approach they want to take, but it's not the approach everyone has to take.

 

I think people just hate Valeant. It probably means they're doing what others don't have the stomach to be doing. I'm beginning to understand why they might not get crowded out of their opportunity set for a long time.

[Guest Schwab711]

IBS-D = Xifaxan, which is already their #1 product. Its definitely included in 2Q15 guidance.

 

1) IBS-D = Xifaxan is true

2) "already their #1 product"  is true

3) "definitely included in 2Q15 guidance" is true

 

Where do you see anything about 1Q15 guidance? What specifically is incorrect in my original post? I previously assumed you both were aware of the below press release when I made this comment. Let's see what the PR from VRX says about IBS-D indication, if it is approved (there has been no other specific guidance since, which is why I still consider this PR relevant).

 

Direct quote from VRX press release (12/16/2014) regarding Xifaxan 550:

The Company does anticipate, however, that assuming XIFAXAN® 550 for the treatment of IBS-D is approved by the FDA, sales of this product in this indication during the first four full quarters following approval will be between approximately $125 million and $150 million, and related SG&A costs during that period will be between approximately $80 million and $90 million.

 

That's right. That's VRX guiding for $125-$150m total revenue and $40-$60m of EBITDA ($20-$30m EBITDA in 2H15, which we are discussing) over the first 12 months after IBS-D is approved.

 

VRX estimated the IBS-D indication would contribute roughly $32.5-$37.5m in revenue each quarter and $20-$22.5m in associated SG&A expenses. We are literally talking about $10m-$15m in EBTIDA a quarter for the first 4 quarters! Do you see why I thought this was stupid yet? That's a max $30m increase in EBITDA [guidance] due to the new IBS-D indication over the rest of 2015.

 

 

EDIT: Removed unnecessary comments and emphasis.

 

 

[Picasso]

Schwab do you have a link to that Dec 2014 press release?  That was before the Salix bid so I'm confused as to where you found that.

[Picasso]

Also, that's sales guidance following the approval. Valeant didn't know if it would be approved in May or next year. They used it as part of their model for Salix as a whole, but not for 2015 guidance. Unless there is something you can point me to Schwab, I think that's wrong.

[Liberty]

Schwab do you have a link to that Dec 2014 press release?  That was before the Salix bid so I'm confused as to where you found that.

 

I think he looked at a Salix press release from before Valeant owned it:

 

http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=1306129

 

OM has yet to provide any specific reason why I was wrong about IBS-D or EM revenue miss

 

Here's the reason he gave you: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/valeant-pharmaceutilcals-international-inc-(vrx)/msg237845/#msg237845

 

Your 3.1bn number isn't for EM. If you go back one slide, you'll see that it's for more than that.

 

I can't remember everything that you discussed with OM, but I know that I was talking about the 2016 EBITDA guidance and posted about how it didn't include IBS-D, and I recall that you disagreed, so that's my discussion with you. But at this point, I don't even dare go back and re-read all that, so I'm fine with moving on.

[ScottHall]

Will those of you who are using personal insults in their arguments please stop doing so? This isn't Reddit, or 4chan for that matter.

[Green King]

Will those of you who are using personal insults in their arguments please stop doing so? This isn't Reddit, or 4chan for that matter.

Human nature. not everyone has the ability to act in-spite of it. Consistency and commitment tendency. They are pushing it in and defending their view point.

[original mungerville]

http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v7/n6/fig_tab/nchembio.581_F1.html

 

Here's one recent time period as an example. I mean sure it would be nice if these big public companies act like non-profit researchers and keep spending a ton of money chasing deep out of the money call options. Maybe that's the approach they want to take, but it's not the approach everyone has to take.

 

I think people just hate Valeant. It probably means they're doing what others don't have the stomach to be doing. I'm beginning to understand why they might not get crowded out of their opportunity set for a long time.

 

Exactly. They are different and the incumbents hate different. They probably took some price increases too far on a small part of the portfolio - I have no idea as I know almost nothing re pharma - they may have scale that down. As for the price increases on the rest of their overall portfolio relative to other pharmas, I would suspect it is somewhat in-line. But they are more deliberate and decisive in their actions - and they are different. Nobody likes different.

 

BUT I think different is going to pay-off over time.

[merkhet]

Will those of you who are using personal insults in their arguments please stop doing so? This isn't Reddit, or 4chan for that matter.

 

At this point, is there honestly that much of a difference between this board and those?

 

This board is a fantastic case study in terms of (A) reversion to the mean and (B) what happens when you don't implement moderation in the form of banning. (i.e.. For those of us who are old enough to remember it, can you imagine if HarryLong was never banned and allowed to continue trolling and spitting vileness on these boards? It only takes a small handful of terrible posters to make a board unbearable.)

[original mungerville]

Schwab do you have a link to that Dec 2014 press release?  That was before the Salix bid so I'm confused as to where you found that.

 

I think he looked at a Salix press release from before Valeant owned it:

 

http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=1306129

 

OM has yet to provide any specific reason why I was wrong about IBS-D or EM revenue miss

 

Here's the reason he gave you: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/valeant-pharmaceutilcals-international-inc-(vrx)/msg237845/#msg237845

 

Your 3.1bn number isn't for EM. If you go back one slide, you'll see that it's for more than that.

 

I can't remember everything that you discussed with OM, but I know that I was talking about the 2016 EBITDA guidance and posted about how it didn't include IBS-D, and I recall that you disagreed, so that's my discussion with you. But at this point, I don't even dare go back and re-read all that, so I'm fine with moving on.

 

Schwab: Re IBS-D - see Picasso's post for now. Re EM - put me down for +1 on Liberty's post above. Are you afraid to go look at slide 30 for the definitions of the categories on slide 31, or are you afraid to go look at slide 27, or are you afraid of both?

[original mungerville]

 

I love the "after I made it clear to you" explanation. To OM, his opinion alone is sufficient evidence for anything. This must be what you learn in engineering school because I never learned this in science classes.

Translation, "after I made it clear" in laymen's terms, means "I think you are wrong (without stating specifically why or how you are wrong), why don't you believe me?" (but with OM's charismatic writing style). In fact, OM "made it clear" by saying he called VRX and then, called them back to say don't worry about it. When he pointed out that p.31 has a definition preceding it (p.30 has a definition for EM rev that matches the 10-K definition) and p.27 doesn't, he is correct. However, I already responded with the quote from VRX's 2014 AR that shows VRX's definition for EM revenue matches the definition on p.30 of that presentation (implying that the $3.1b estimate for EM revenue is probably the more accurate one - I'm still waiting to hear back from VRX). He still has not provided any reasoning (logical or not) for why we shouldn't be concerned about 2 contradicting EM revenue estimates in the first place (much less the substantial EM rev miss). He is right though, I do try to "fit my thesis" to indisputable facts.

 

Also, that 10-K I was "referring to randomly" is VRX's AR from 2014. I thought it seemed pretty relevant to an analysis of VRX's 2014 financial results. Maybe it's just me. I'll remember not to quote SEC filings next time.

 

Schwab, I need to apologize for my last post. Looks like you did finally read slides 27 and 30 whereas I just assumed you did not.

 

Its just that above you say "He still has not provided any reasoning (logical or not) for why we shouldn't be concerned about 2 contradicting EM revenue estimates in the first place..."

 

The point of me alerting you to slides 27 and 30 (whereas you focused only on 31 originally) is that there were never 2 contradicting EM revenue estimates (this is why my prior post assumed you hadn't read those slides). But, given you have read those slides and are still assuming there were 2 significantly contradicting EM revenue estimates just 4 slides apart (in a major presentation by Valeant to the investing public regarding their acquisition of Allergan no less), makes me think you are, well, just trying to obfuscate. I mean do you think even a fraudulent company would attempt to put out 2 estimates with a $0.5 billion difference just 4 slides apart?

 

OR, alternatively, do you think it is you that remains confused?