Jump to content

VRX - Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.


giofranchi
[[Template core/global/global/poll is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/valeant-wall-st-darling-to-pariah.html?mid=twitter-share-di

 

Our answers to the whole Reitz drama.  Eric you can take off your Nancy Drew underwear at this point. Mystery is solved.

 

Reitz seems just as sleezy as Philidor. I personally don't buy the nice guy act. Amazing how that was the catalyst for this disaster.

 

Munger’s comments exposed a rift in the value-investing community, but didn’t affect Valeant’s stock. It continued to rise, hitting an all-time high on August 5 of $263 per share, 15 times what Sequoia had originally paid for it. A week later, a Bloomberg News article observed that, owing almost entirely to this one investment, Sequoia had outperformed both the S&P 500 and 99 percent of all other American mutual funds. Berkshire Hathaway, meanwhile, had lagged. Sequoia had sold it at just the right time.

 

Has Sequoia sold? The article makes it sound like they got out right at the top?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Munger’s comments exposed a rift in the value-investing community, but didn’t affect Valeant’s stock. It continued to rise, hitting an all-time high on August 5 of $263 per share, 15 times what Sequoia had originally paid for it. A week later, a Bloomberg News article observed that, owing almost entirely to this one investment, Sequoia had outperformed both the S&P 500 and 99 percent of all other American mutual funds. Berkshire Hathaway, meanwhile, had lagged. Sequoia had sold it at just the right time.

 

Has Sequoia sold? The article makes it sound like they got out right at the top?

 

No. They sold BRK at "just the right time".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weirdest PSQ letter ever.

 

http://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2014/09/Pershing-Square-2015-Annual-Letter-PSH-January-26-2016.pdf

 

Supposedly VRX was working on a big deal when it was trading in the mid-200's.  If that is true then Hilary Clinton and Martin Shkreli handed VRX the worlds biggest cock block.

 

Ackman would also like you guys to know that your margin calls made his performance extra shitty.

 

Perhaps the largest correlation in our portfolio is one that we have not previously considered; that is, the fact that we own large stakes in each of these companies. We have had the benefit of a “following” of investors who track and own many of our holdings. This has given us significantly greater clout than is reflected by our percentage ownership of these companies, and we believe that it is partially what has caused the “pop” in market price when we announce a new active investment. As a result, these active managers’ performance is often closely tied with ours. When Valeant’s stock price collapsed, our performance, and that of Pershing Square followers, were dramatically affected. Nearly all of these investment managers are subject to daily, monthly, and quarterly redemptions, and therefore, many were likely forced to liquidate substantial portions of their holdings which overlap with our own.

 

My distaste for Ackman seems to go up every year.  I should go back and find my comments on PSH when he did the IPO.  I recall saying this would be how the guy blows up and here it is playing out. 

 

Edit: Here's that lovely thread.  http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/pershing-square-holdings-debuts/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your a priori market justification for why Valeant is entitled to realize any increases in net prices on drugs for which there are much cheaper, chemically identical alternatives available? I would say in a functioning market, Valeant would realize significant decreases in net prices on these products. 

They took price increases because the demand was there at the higher price. Theoretically that's exactly what a corporation then should do. The problem is that their products are health-related and therefore are so important to their consumers that the decisions shouldn't be purely about the economics. For moral reasons it's important that the drugs stay affordable to patients. I think Valeant is addressing your concerns well with the Walgreens deal which makes it a lot more about volume growth than price. With that they realize significant decreases in net prices on products where generic competition is available.

 

I also think Marathon is not a tiny part of their cash flow business.

Valeant bought Marathon for $286 million not long ago if I remember correctly. To argue that it's not a tiny part of their business you would have to say that they made an incredibly good deal (just from a financial standpoint) and I really doubt you'd say that. It would already have to be worth multiples of what they paid for it.

 

We now have some actual information about the deal that Valeant made

 

http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/Memo%20on%20Valeant%20Documents0.pdf

 

Valeant got 99% gross margins on Nitropress and Isuprel

 

"On March 24, 2015, after Valeant purchased the drugs, an outside consultant sent an email to Andrew Davis, Valeant’s Senior Vice President for Business Development, writing: “Are you ok with the above assumptions? They are leading to high gross margins (more than 99%).” Mr. Davis replied: “Standard costs looks right, and I’m not surprised they are extremely profitable."

 

Nitropress and Isuprel were the top two ebitda contributors in 1q 2015 (and I wouldn't be surprised if they were second and third after Jublia got released)

 

On July 21, 2015, an investment banking advisory firm analyst emailed Laurie Little, the Senior Vice President for Investor Relations, writing: “I’ve tried to break down Valeant’s upcoming quarterly earnings into key drivers.” Describing Isuprel and Nitropress, he wrote: “These products have become a meaningful part of EBIDTA [Earnings Before Interest, Taxation, Depreciation, and Amortization] … in 1Q15, Marathon products were top 2 products for Valeant!”

 

Valeant expects competition as other generics get approved in 2016/2017

 

"A similar presentation provided by the same outside consultant almost a year later, on November 3, 2015, stated: “Valeant should prepare for several generic nitroprusside [Nitropress] approvals and at least one generic isoproterenol [isuprel] approval towards the end of 2016 and expect at least four generic players for nitroprusside and two for isoproterenol by year end 2017. With the increased staff and efficiencies finally bearing fruit at the FDA, an approval could occur earlier in 2016.”

 

So yes, Valeant did make an incredibly good business deal - they paid about  300 million for the Nitropress/Isuprel assets, and they will make almost double that just in 2015 revenues

 

"An undated presentation summarizing Valeant’s neurology business unit showed the “Top 10 brands responsible for 63% of revenue.” Isuprel, the first drug listed, had a “FY 2015 Plan Revenue” of “$279.30” million and a “Revenue Contribution” of “14.52%.” Nitropress, the third drug listed, had a “FY 2015 Plan Revenue” of “$245.52” million and a “Revenue Contribution” of “12.76%.”

 

Now, whether that will be long term good for their overall business model remains to be determined....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Berkowitz bought Valeant equity and debt per the Fairholme Funds annual reports (dated 11/30/15):

 

http://www.fairholmefunds.com/reportsmgt

 

Looks like The Fairholme Fund and The Fairholme Income Fund hold debt, and The Fairholme Allocation Fund holds equity. Wonder why the main fund doesn't hold equity. There was certainly enough volume in the last quarter for them to accumulate a position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this change your view on VRX's real revenue power down the road?

More will come?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-22/cvs-targets-valeant-s-1-000-nail-fungus-drug-with-restrictions?cmpid=yhoo.headline

 

i'm starting my position again.  with bac down significantly, i sold my vrx earlier this month to help fund my bac purchases. 

 

i'm happy to have the opportunity to buy vrx at $70 and under.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this change your view on VRX's real revenue power down the road?

More will come?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-22/cvs-targets-valeant-s-1-000-nail-fungus-drug-with-restrictions?cmpid=yhoo.headline

 

i'm starting my position again.  with bac down significantly, i sold my vrx earlier this month to help fund my bac purchases. 

 

i'm happy to have the opportunity to buy vrx at $70 and under.

 

Not Rasputin, but based on his posts, I think he did the work and is cognizant of the risks.

 

This to me looks like an obvious short or a complicated long meaning the short thesis is very simple (things are bad and going to get worse) whereas the long side requires a pretty deep understanding of a lot of points.

 

I believe the long side a little more and I am watching because this may prove to be the "Tyco" of the platform cycle. There's a lot of valuable businesses within VRX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this change your view on VRX's real revenue power down the road?

More will come?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-22/cvs-targets-valeant-s-1-000-nail-fungus-drug-with-restrictions?cmpid=yhoo.headline

 

i'm starting my position again.  with bac down significantly, i sold my vrx earlier this month to help fund my bac purchases. 

 

i'm happy to have the opportunity to buy vrx at $70 and under.

 

Hi plato,

 

My worst case scenario of $5 B ebitda/$7 fcf per share already insta-kill jublia.  I think VRX can grow over time from this baseline. 

 

In some way, this reminds me of BAC battle with Fannie Mae.  For a period, BAC only dealt with Freddie Mac. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...