Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum Concordia Healthcare Corp. T.CXR.R

TSX:CXR.R - Post Discussion

Concordia Healthcare Corp. > you must be crazy to BUY CXR now, why?
View:
Post by richardtrader on Sep 29, 2016 4:26pm

you must be crazy to BUY CXR now, why?

How Did the Presidential Debate Affect Life Science Stocks?

Drug pricing has been a hot campaign topic but the nominees said very little on the subject during the debate.

2016 presidential debate affect life science stocks

Healthcare stocks on the S&P 500 fell more than one percent just prior to the presidential debate—a sure sign of investor unease. The sector hasalready been hit hard by the campaign, which may explain why some investors seem skittish. (Consider Hillary Clinton’s tweet about price gouging, which sent biotech and pharmaceutical stocks plummeting!)

But interestingly, drug-pricing did not come up in the debate on September 26, 2016—despite being a hot topic in the months prior. Here’s what each candidate has said on the subject … plus the scoop on how Monday shook down.

Donald Trump on drug pricing

The Republican nominee has denounced the power drug companies currently hold in the United States. He’s critical of the fact that they can sell their products to the government without any kind of competitive bidding, which would bring down expenses.

To that end, Trump has been vocal about his belief that pharmaceuticals manufactured abroad should be sold domestically. He has also insisted that Medicare be empowered to negotiate drug prices, a belief his opponent shares—but not, generally speaking, his party.

“Trump is defying Republican dogma,” physician Charles D. Rosen wrote for Stat, “but he’s honestly and forthrightly calling Big Pharma on its Big Baloney.” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former policy director for John McCain’s campaign, put it more diplomatically: “He’s an extremely innovative Republican. Let’s just leave it at that,” he told Stat.

Hillary Clinton on drug pricing

The Democratic nominee became the face of this issue during the Turing Pharmaceuticals scandal. Her tweet—“Price gouging like this in a specialty drug market is outrageous. Tomorrow I’ll lay out a plan to take it on”—was followed by sharp drops in pharmaceutical and biotech stocks. In fact, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index plummeted 4.7 percent.

What does that plan entail? Clinton also advocates for Medicare bargaining power. She too supports bringing in drugs manufactured abroad, allowing Americans access to cheaper treatments still proven to be safe. And she wants to penalize drug companies for making unreasonable price hikes. Her plan includes a series of fines that will make drug companies accountable for their pricing decisions.

“It would represent a serious shift in Washington’s relationship with the pharmaceutical business,” Jordan Weissman explained in Slate, labelling the whole plan “quietly bold.”

Comment by LaticelnExile on Sep 29, 2016 4:57pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by PROtrading on Sep 29, 2016 5:09pm
No politician is going to support price gouging.  They will all support generic competition.  Both will "encourage" the FDA to continue to fast track the generics and revenues on CXR will continue to plummet. The only thing shareholders can be assured of is zero equity on common shares. Bondholders might get 50 cents on the dollar but with assets offshore and liability here ...more  
Comment by Lemerson on Sep 29, 2016 5:36pm
First of all the 72 million finder fee is a non issue that has already been addressed, it was not triggered. Second of all Cinven cannot takeover Concordia there is a clause in the purchase agreement to prevent this. If Concordia cant make the payment and has to declare bankruptcy then thats a different story. You have sure put a lot of faith in politicians to actually follow through, I guess ...more  
Comment by PROtrading on Sep 29, 2016 6:46pm
Look Lemerson, I go by facts.  The facts are: 1. there is a $72M clause in the officlal documents listed on sedar from the stink deal of AMCO from Cinven to Concordia (after the price gouging was at its max and NHS games were high). 2. Drugs were purchased from an undisclosed UK sources this summer which appears to have triggered the finders fees.  And, surprise!  the 4 drugs has ...more  
Comment by Lemerson on Sep 29, 2016 8:44pm
Okay, fact there is a 72 million finders fee. Fact IR confirmed it was not triggered, I even went out of my way to post that email for you. I'm not sure what 'fact' led you to beleive it was triggered seeing how you only go by facts. I hope you are aware they would only have to put out a press release if it was triggered,. You are a pretender, jumped on the short late and just recycle ...more  
The Market Update
{{currentVideo.title}} {{currentVideo.relativeTime}}
< Previous bulletin
Next bulletin >

At the Bell logo
A daily snapshot of everything
from market open to close.

{{currentVideo.companyName}}
{{currentVideo.intervieweeName}}{{currentVideo.intervieweeTitle}}
< Previous
Next >
Dealroom for high-potential pre-IPO opportunities