RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The Comapny Performed, Management disappointed. This is how the question was raised and addressed for those who may not have heard the call.
Prakash Gowd from CIBC asked: "Of the 60 product launches over the next three years, just on a proportion basis, how many of those launches would be based on existing drugs versus the launch of new chemicals that are not currently in your market portfolio?" Edward Borkowski responded "We are not going to give that kind of detail because our competititor is trying to figure out what we are going to launch." Prakash was asking about the number of new formulas on "a proportion basis" This was not out of line as another poster on this board has said. This is a public company. When Bowskowski refused to answer the question that speaks volumes to the company's transparency. Look for a downward reivison from CIBC in the coming weeks.
This pharma sector is different from Apple but I thought it was an example that members of the board could relate the importance of PR. Patent protection is not an excuse to be holding this specific information asked by Proakash and another analyst in a previous question in secrecy. The lingo may be different from Apple (I have scanned the newswire for some random announcements today and here are some phrases that have come up in pharma announcements: "invervention success" "new drugs" "clinical trial succeeds" "vaccines" "going to screening phase" "efficiency confirmation" "three more phase trials expected" ... ) GW Pharma stock went up 125% after the Reuters announcement: "Drug succeeds in epilepsy trial..." The announcement "3 more phase III trials" got my attention! (Just an example here, my intention is not to pump)
Borkowski's response "we are not going to give out this kind of detail" is not acceptable for a public company. I won't be surprised when we get a downward revision from CIBC in the coming weeks. Prakash didn't like Ed's response nor did he like Wayne's response to the second question he asked about Nefopam stocking in Q1. And the market didn't like what they heard given the 13% dump. Certain people on this site can continue to blame the share price decline on MMS, wanting to do in the shorts, etc etc etc etc ..... investors should be taking a hard, critical look at the forward-making statements that were made in the CC and deciding for themselves what may be fluff.
adamchess wrote: Hardly a valid comparison Concordia to Apple who has major product recognition and patent protections.
Health123 wrote: TickerTwit wrote: "New products and updated products are built (Secret #1), a marketing plan is created (Secret #2) and a launch date is decided on (Secret #3)." Umm ..... Someone should let Apple in on this wisdom and tell them to keep the iphone7 a secret, and oh yeah don't mention the launch date. Yah, what is Apple doing blabbing all the time? They should take a cue from Concordia and just keep everything a secret and have their investors guessing. Markets just love uncertainty. Saw that today with the 13% share drop for those who cared to have their eyes open.
sunshine7 wrote: TickerTwit wrote: select1011 wrote: Good post Health123. I found it bizzare that the management of a publically traded company, with a plan to roll out 60 "product launches" in 3 years, wouldn't name one.
New products and updated products are built (secret #1), a marketing plan is created (secret #2), and a launch date is decided on (secret #3).
The LAST thing a retailer wants to see is a competitor scooping them on a launch and disrupting it. For a while I did statistical support for a product marketing in a large telecom, and I will confirm that CXR's refusal to discuss product launch specifics is quite appropriate and quite necessary. The analysts who asked were out of line.
Secrecy is paramount in the drug industry, more important than the efficacy of the drug itself.
.