When reading a post with a keyboard, you can type the keys , and . to move backwards and forward between posts! You can also press 'return' to read through posts one at a time. There's freedom in Shrewd'm!
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) ❤
No. of Recommendations: 5
Pfizer is now trading below its price 10 years ago. It is down 38% for the year.
I am not sure the chart I see in Seeking Alpha is adjusted for spin-offs like Zoetis and Viatris. Zoetis has performed well since spin-off.
Pfizer, like Citi and AT&T seems to be a permanent presence on the Falling Knives board. All the COVID windfall pissed away on costly acquisitions, to fill pipelines their own R&D can’t deliver.
Anyone see light at the end of the tunnel? For the perennially optimistic, call options are fairly cheap.
No. of Recommendations: 2
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PFE/pfiz...Base case EPS?
(24' analyst consensus $3.13)
EPS growth est next 5 years? Analysts say c8% av
PE terminal value in 5 years? 20?
$3@8% EPS growth x 5 years - $4.41 x20 =$88.2. 12%ps discount rate equates to an IV of $50.
Currently trading at a discount of 42% to IV.
No. of Recommendations: 4
I wonder what the same calculation done 5 or 10 years ago would have been.
20 PE? Unlikely even if they discovered a cure for Alzheimer. Investors would have to be convinced they wouldn’t squander all the cash on expensive acquisitions.
If they actually achieved 8% EPS CAGR for 5 years, they might get a PE of 15, otherwise probably 12 or less.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Do annual reports by pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer give a breakdown of which of their patents expire in a given year? if not, is there somewhere that does list the information as I would think that would be a key factor in being able to place a value on a company like this?
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is the problem and associated lower rating. A few have done well off a few blockbusters (Eli Lilly). I don't have any Pharma stocks myself atm. Reasonable buy at 10PE though plus dividends.
No. of Recommendations: 3
If we take $3 base EPS @ 5%growth x5Yrs= 3.83 x 15PE =$57, 14.65%pa excluding 5.6% dividend. Still attractive IMO.
No. of Recommendations: 2
May I suggest before contemplating an investment in Pfizer to Google for and to read this?
Phillip-Buckhaults-SC-Senate-09122023-final.pdf
It's about Dr. Phillip Buckhaults' testimony in the South Carolina Senate about the Pfizer/Corminaty vaccine against Covid and the pollution with bacterial DNA found in that vaccine. Important: Not RNA but DNA - which can enter the cell core, becoming a fixed part there for a long time.
Theoretically it could later cause cancer, but nearly more important: A constant and permanent Autoimmune attack of the body! And such might be connected with the still unexplained phenomenon of "Long Covid".
The scandal: Pfizer used 2 different mechanisms to produce the vaccine: "Process 1 (clinical trial material)“ and „Process 2 (commercial process)“. Nearly all participants of the study used to get the permit received vaccine produced with "Process 1", with Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), without bacteria.
But for the mass production Pfizer used "Process 2", with bacteria!
If you research that and find no reason to believe successful mass lawsuits of long Covid patients against Pfizer might be thinkable, go ahead.
No. of Recommendations: 23
That's gibberish.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/10/scicheck-covid-1...This family of claims was originally inspired by a preprint posted in April, which said there was “DNA contamination that exceeds” the EMA and FDA regulatory limits in Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine vials sent anonymously to the authors in the mail without cold packs. This led to other reports of DNA in mRNA vaccine vials, including a second preprint that analyzed largely expired vaccine vials obtained at pharmacies in Canada. None of this work has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and many elements of it have been criticized.
We reached out to Kevin McKernan, an author on both preprints, to better understand his views. Rather than replying to our email, he posted a screenshot of it on X, formerly known as Twitter, and included responses there. McKernan, who has an undergraduate degree in biology, is the founder of Medicinal Genomics, a company that markets test kits and genomics-related services to the cannabis, hemp and mushroom industries.The mechanism would be
“Even if it enters the nucleus, which it probably can’t, it would still have to be integrated into DNA, which requires an integrase, which it also doesn’t have,” Offit said. An integrase is an enzyme some viruses use to insert themselves into cellular DNA.
In the event that some residual DNA did manage to insert into a person’s DNA, it would need to be exactly the wrong kind of DNA, land in exactly the wrong place or a combination of the two.I left out multiple other levels, both at the production, cellular resonse, and immune response levels. Scientists are at a disadvantage against liars and con-artists, because they speak scientifically instead of persuasively. This is bloody impossible. It is much more likely you can alter your DNA eating a hamburger or steak
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.2c0124...The consumption of foods prepared at high temperatures has been associated with numerous health risks. To date, the chief identified source of risk has been small molecules produced in trace levels by cooking and reacting with healthy DNA upon consumption. Here, we considered whether the DNA in food itself also presents a hazard. We hypothesize that high-temperature cooking may cause significant damage to the DNA in food, and this damage might find its way into cellular DNA by metabolic salvage.This is actually well known and supported by data, by the way -
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/grilling-meat-rais...Ultimately, I always strongly encourage vaccine skeptics to not take vaccines. I believe the planet is suffering from overpopulation, and that humans do not face enough selection pressure due to bad judgement or lack of intelligence. We have very few mechanisms to overcome this, but voluntarily not taking vaccines helps in both cases.
No position in Pfizer.
No. of Recommendations: 1
I can't find in your post one single argument dealing with the pollution findings and the fact that Pfizer used for mass production of it's vaccine a different process than for the scientific study production. In case that's for you also "Gibberish" I suggest you read the official "Assessment Report" of the EMA (European Drug Agency) from 19.Sep 2021.
Anyway, as you say this:
I always strongly encourage vaccine skeptics to not take vaccines.
I understand that's irrelevant for you.
Putting a dismissing label ("vaccine skeptics", "climate skeptics", "xyz skeptics") on someone whose position is contrary to one's own is an ingenious way to avoid eventual cognitive dissonance when really dealing with it and, who knows, maybe finding out that it's not "gibberish".
Btw: This "vaccine skeptic" is vaccinated. 2 shots. Both mRNA vaccines. Comirnaty & Biontech.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Can you post the link to the assessment report in question?
My links indicated pollution findings were immaterial, not whether they were true or false. They are nonexclusive to the pfizer vaccine and the mechanism for harm is implausible.
Regardless of your personal feelings on vaccines, the source material you indirectly provided (please give links, not file names) was firmly in the area of what is commonly called vaccine skeptic arguments.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Can you post the link to the assessment report in question?https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ema.europ...the source material you indirectly provided (please give links, not file names) was firmly in the area of what is commonly called vaccine skeptic arguments.I think one actually
should be sceptical when it's about a complete new type of vaccine for which contrary to the classic ones naturally they is no data regarding eventual longterm effects available.
No. of Recommendations: 7
I think one actually should be sceptical when it's about a complete new type of vaccine for which contrary to the classic ones naturally they is no data regarding eventual longterm effects available.Thank you for the link. Mrna vaccines aren't completely new and sars-covid-19 wasn't the first human mrna vaccine, although clearly it is the most widely administered -
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history...I think this gotten a bit far from PFE and falling knives for my preference, I apologize for not discussion vaccines further. It feels like PFE has been a value trap as long as I've been investing. I think they are dropping now because they have to acquire pipeline at bad rates, their patent cliff is large, and Covid has been mostly contained and the bivalent vaccine / pavlovid tailwins are going away. I don't think it requires further much further explanation. BMY performance from January 1, 2020 is almost identical.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I had a further dig into Pfizer and think it'll flat line too. It's just retreating back to pre pandemic levels IMO. Ie where we see EPS between $2.50 and $3 over the next 5 years and a low multiple of earnings which reflects this. Quality of earnings and growth are of paramount importance to avoid value traps and something I'm concentrating more on now when scrutinizing super investor buys.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I feel like PFE is less of a R&D pharma at this point than a LBO shop pretending to be one, similarly to how Broadcom/AVGO pretends to be a technology company. Their "competency" is harvesting cash flow from acquisitions towards future acquisitions. Unlike AVGO, they have a ticking patent clock before Mylan / Teva / Reddy et al are nipping at their heels. They fill a niche in the economic ecosystem, but I'd rather do basket plays on development stage companies (things like
https://twitter.com/adamfeuerstein discusses much better than myself).. and I avoid those, too. The Buffett "too hard pile" principle.
No. of Recommendations: 10
If we take $3 base EPS @ 5%growth x5Yrs= 3.83 x 15PE =$57, 14.65%pa excluding 5.6% dividend. Still attractive IMO.
Just found this board and by chance was looking at Pfizer. These numbers are very close to what I had as a base case, but the bear case is also alarming...
Base Bull Bear
EPS : $3.50 $3.50 $2.25
Growth : 5% 7% 3%
Multiple : 15x 18x 12x
Target : $65 $80 $30
Return : 18% 23% 2%
The stock seems priced as if they are a declining business - which would require reviewing their drug portfolio. In the years leading up to the vaccine "bump" the EPS was
2018 : $3.00
2019 : $2.95
2020 : $2.22
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 1
I came back with a follow up that I hadn't invested as I felt earnings would be flat / declining following further research and therefore the low price was justified.
No. of Recommendations: 0
PFE has a reasonable full pipeline, but you never know what will take off/succeed/fail.
I have listened to Bourla a few times, seems to know what he's doing , and their experience in mRNA might lead to new treatments , but it could still be a crap shoot.....
Thanks for the numbers summary , the past and current trend is clear - looks like a falling knife, but still a chance of scientific breakthrough or good aquisition .
https://www.ft.com/content/ba2cba41-0a13-4251-bbd7...
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks Swanny, I went back and found the thread....that you and tecmo posted in...
No. of Recommendations: 0
Thanks for the numbers summary , the past and current trend is clear - looks like a falling knife, but still a chance of scientific breakthrough or good aquisition .
Yes, I suppose anything is possible - but this seems more like a lottery ticket than an investable equity position.
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 2
PFE beat earnings today, but the upside was on their COVID vaccine.
Earnings are expected in the $2.05 to $2.25 range - which puts them firmly in the "Bear" case. Stock was down 1.5% today on the news.
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 0
No. of Recommendations: 5
It is important to put this risk in context. The overall risk of an unvaccinated person dying from a COVID-19 infection is much higher than the risk of clots from the Johnson & Johnson or AstraZeneca vaccines.
To date, the U.S. has recorded roughly 48,000,000 COVID cases and almost 68,000 deaths in persons 18 to 49 years old. Even if we assume actual infection numbers are much higher, the risk of dying from a COVID-19 infection is hundreds of times more than the risk of blood clots from these vaccines. Studies also show that the incidence of blood clots in people with COVID-19 infection is much higher than in the general population and much higher than the incidence with vaccines.More at this link...
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-ans...
No. of Recommendations: 0
Excess deaths data.
https://youtu.be/XSKT4k6Kr34?si=ifYBEbf0yEhKqbRmAny thoughts on the post pandemic sustained high excess death rates comparison with Eastern Europe vs West and Rest of Developed world?.
Found this quite convincing ie, being vaccine related given timelines and uptake.
The numbers are vast if you compute vs annual death rates eg USA 3m with excess 300,000pa, 600,000 over 2 years and will be heading towards a million by end of 2024.
Not a conspiracy theorist, something I've been following as I'm very interested in the data. I've had the Astra and Pfizer.
No. of Recommendations: 8
the risk of dying from a COVID-19 infection is hundreds of times more than the risk of blood clots from these vaccines. Studies also show that the incidence of blood clots in people with COVID-19 infection is much higher than in the general population and much higher than the incidence with vaccines.
This is the correct comparison. Yes, some people die of blood clots or pericarditis because of their vaccine. The number of deaths from a medication will never be zero, when you give it to millions of people. But in the case of covid, you can also die from the infection, so you have to count the deaths from each, to know whether taking the vaccine is a good idea or not.
In this case, the answer is crystal clear: the vaccine saves hundreds of times more lives than it takes, so vaccination is a good idea, even for young adults, with children a closer call, because death from covid is so rare.
And in fact, deaths from blood clots caused by the vaccine are so rare, there are more deaths from blood clots caused by covid itself, in people that don’t take the vaccine, than from blood clots caused by the vaccine, in people that take it. When even the worst side effect of the vaccine is more common in people that DON’T take the vaccine, that’s one safe vaccine.
dtb
No. of Recommendations: 0
So the high excess death figures are from Covid which is still in circulation and associated after effects?, so in your opinion higher excess death rates will be the new normal for sometime to come.
I can understand that the UK and US may have higher excess deaths due to obesity and other contributory factors such as diabetes for example.
I was surprised that Japan (considered healthy)had such high excess deaths compared to somewhere like Eastern Europe for example. Age demographic?
No. of Recommendations: 3
So the high excess death figures are from Covid which is still in circulation and associated after effects?, so in your opinion higher excess death rates will be the new normal for sometime to come.
I don’t really know why death rates are higher. I suppose covid is a possible cause, even with the vaccine and a less virulent strain of SARS-CoV-2. And I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that many of our exaggerated policy responses to covid are partly responsible, as people have reduced their social contacts and become more isolated, developed bad habits like eating more fast food, etc.
Some of these effects are likely to have been less pronounced in countries like Sweden with less excessive anti-covid social measures. But I am speculating, I am not familiar enough with the country to country excess deaths data to be sure, and in any case, it’s hard to quantify the ‘excessiveness’ of different countries’ responses.
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's the point really.
Shouldn't the rates be investigated?
The excess death rates are statistically significant, correlation between rates and vaccine use and the uptick in those countries and timing of vaccine issuance.
I can't imagine fast food would account for a noticeable effect, perhaps alcoholism? I doubt it.
I've checked the suicide rate in the UK and it's stable.
No. of Recommendations: 15
The excess death rates are statistically significant, correlation between rates and vaccine use and the uptick in those countries and timing of vaccine issuance.
Are you referring to some particular study?
I haven't done an exhaustive search, but looking quickly, I found this, which seems to confirm that there's a correlation, except it's a negative correlation:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10459...Excerpt from the abstract:
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between COVID-19 vaccination coverage and all-cause excess mortality in 178 nations during the first two years of the pandemic. Multiple regression analysis, after adjusting for life expectancy at birth, confirmed a significant association between higher vaccination coverage and lower all-cause mortality rates (𝛽 = −106.8, 95% CI −175.4 to −38.2, 𝑝 = 0.002). These findings underscore the importance of vaccination campaigns in reducing overall mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic.Here is another study showing the same inverse correlation, i.e. more excess deaths in countries with low vaccination rates, in Europe:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10357...Perhaps there are other credible studies that find the reverse?
However, I don't really think these kinds of studies are the best for identifying cause and effect. It could just be, for instance, that rich countries got vaccines first, and they succeeded in keeping excess deaths low, for all sorts of reasons unrelated to vaccines, like better health care for instance. I would be much more convinced by studies looking at death rates within an individual country, comparing vaccinated people to unvaccinated. And here, the data is also pretty one-sided, showing clear protection from vaccination. Here is an example, although there are many others, all showing strong protection:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-...In this study, death rates in the unvaccinated, as of March 2022, were 17 times higher in people unvaccinated, compared to people vaccinated 3 times. I think the true effect might be even stronger - these data were standardized for age, but at all ages, people particularly vulnerable to death (immunosuppressed people and people with chronic diseases) are much more likely to be vaccinated (they know they are at risk of dying and not many of them were willing to take a chance and get covid without protection*.) So the population of people who were fully vaccinated would be expected to have more mortality, not less. Vaccine protection was so effective, these sicker populations ended up having way less deaths, more than overcoming their risk from pre-existing diseases.
The other thing to mention is that the correlation will probably fade, and maybe disappear, now that almost everyone has natural immunity (from getting infected), which is probably stronger immunity than what you get from the vaccine, anyways (not everyone will agree, but I believe this is true.) It is much safer to get the vaccine and THEN get infected by covid, and you can save a lot of lives that way. But once you have survived covid, as most will, whether they are vaccinated or not, the vaccinated and unvaccinated end up having relatively similar immunity against covid. In fact, you are probably safer to have no vaccine and a survived infection than having just vaccination with no natural immunity. So in the first year or two after vaccination, we see more deaths in unvaccinated people, but in vaccinated people who have not yet been infected, they still have to face the danger of covid, which is a smaller danger than if they weren't vaccinated, but will still kill plenty of people. So there should be a big excess of deaths in the unvaccinated for a year or two, and then a small excess of deaths in the unvaccinated, not because of the vaccine, but just because they got their infection later on in the pandemic than the unvaccinated who likely got infected quite quickly. I haven't seen any study that confirms my hunch, but I suspect it is true.
Regards, DTB
*I must have seen 200 patients getting chemotherapy in the last few years, and I can't remember a single person declining the covid vaccine. If you are young and healthy, you can scoff at covid: it really is a small risk. But if you are getting on in years, or have cancer, or MS, or Crohn's disease, you have to really have a powerful philosophical objection to vaccination to turn down a chance at saving your life.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Great post, thanks.
No. of Recommendations: 0
In terms of data I've not read any studies myself. I'm just referring to data mentioned by John Campbell in his videos on death rates, He gets his figures from our world in data. I'm not interested enough to read 100 page reports with statistical breakdown on the matter, his arguments are quite convincing.
No. of Recommendations: 7
No. of Recommendations: 10
Do a simple Google search and you'll find extensive resources that have fact checked and analyzed Campbell's data and found them misleading.
Campbell has been at it for a long time, and is very good at marshalling the occasional evidence against vaccines and ignoring the mountain of evidence for vaccines. Among his many tricks is cherry-picking the countries that go counter to the general tendency showing vaccines to be safe and effective.
And one of the things he can do now is take just recent data (2023, for instance), where the benefits of vaccines seem to have largely disappeared. But you would expect this, right? The vaccinated
80 year-old who didn’t die from covid in 2021, and who thus contributed to the evidence showing less deaths in vaccinated people, is not going to live forever just because of the vaccine. Some time over the next 5-10-15 years, she will die and contribute to an EXCESS of deaths in vaccinated period, unless you include the year when the vaccine saved a lot of lives, mostly 2021.
In other words, if half the USA was vaccinated in 2021 and there were 100,000 excess deaths in the unvaccinated, you would expect maybe 10,000 excess deaths in the vaccinated every year for 10 years or so. Everyone will die eventually, but vaccines POSTPONED a lot of deaths until people died of other causes.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I am surrounded by people who do research in healthcare (family members, friends, colleagues). They are scientists who pay careful attention to the actual data and are not loose about how the draw conclusions from it. The amount of shade thrown at John Campbell is pretty high. He is not someone to follow if your interest is in actually understanding how things are working.
No. of Recommendations: 0
What I'd be really interested in is open debate about the vaccines, lockdowns and impacts post event.
A bit like Question time on the BBC when key political figures and scientists attend.
