Cruise without a vaccine

[Mary229]

2 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

When we used to meet with Pharm reps at my job (I worked as a State regulator and payor of healthcare) we would always hear the "research" word when we would ask why they charged a lot less for the same drugs sold to Canada.  While research is expensive lets assume there was $50 million spent by a firm on the COVID vaccine (that is a generous amount).  Now consider that they sell the vaccine for about $7.00 a dose (wholesale) and only sell a half billion doses (enough for 250 million folks) because of competition.  That would be about 3.5 Billion dollars revenue.  Take out that $50 million in research and you have $3.45 Billion left!  There is a reason why Moderna stock went from $17.68 to over $95 per share (over 500 percent increase) in 2020.  And there is a reason why nearly all the top folks at Moderna have pocketed a small fortune before they have received approval of even 1 gram (or milliliter) of an approved vaccine.

 

If you choose to believe the press about "status" then I have a bridge between the earth and moon I can sell you cheap :).

 

Hank

The problem is this all assumes they have no competition.  As it turns out every pharmaceutical company is actively developing a vaccine. Vaccines are a known technology so that reduces exclusivity even more.    The big bucks are when you have an exclusive.  

[Hlitner]

1 minute ago, Hlitner said:

When we used to meet with Pharm reps at my job (I worked as a State regulator and payor of healthcare) we would always hear the "research" word when we would ask why they charged a lot less for the same drugs sold to Canada.  While research is expensive lets assume there was $50 million spent by a firm on the COVID vaccine (that is a generous amount).  Now consider that they sell the vaccine for about $7.00 a dose (wholesale) and only sell a half billion doses (enough for 250 million folks) because of competition.  That would be about 3.5 Billion dollars revenue.  Take out that $50 million in research and you have $3.45 Billion left!  There is a reason why Moderna stock went from $17.68 to over $95 per share (over 500 percent increase) in 2020.  And there is a reason why nearly all the top folks at Moderna have pocketed a small fortune before they have received approval of even 1 gram (or milliliter) of an approved vaccine.

 

If you choose to believe the press about "status" then I have a bridge between the earth and moon I can sell you cheap :).  You might also wonder why Pfizer's CEO (Albert Bourla) sold a majority of his stock (132,508 shares) today just after reporting "good news" about its vaccine candidate?  I guess it was just a coincidence (as Mr Bourla pockets $5.6 million).  So yes, I guess its all about status  LOL

 

Hank

 

[CruiserBruce]

@Hlitner, you missed the cost of production of those many doses. And the fact most of these Covid vaccines require extremely cold storage and transit. Given your scenario,  its totally wrong and hyperbolic to say they are going to make that sort of profit margin.

[2wheelin]

5 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

 

First, let's acknowledge that 90% efficacy in a trial may not necessarily equate to 90% efficacy in "real world" conditions. But even if it is accurate, as you say around 150 passengers will not be protected and could well become infected by others while traveling to the port, staying in a hotel for a night or more before cruising, etc.  And if that happens, a test prior to boarding the ship is unlikely to pick it up.

 

Just given general circulation patterns and relatively close quarters aboard ship, anyone infected IS likely to come into contact with at least a few of the remaining "unprotected" passengers, who may then contact yet others...  

 

While I may or may not feel confident that I am one of the 90% protected by the vaccine, I also do not see any point to cruising given the relatively good chance that I could end up confined to my stateroom along with everyone else and headed for an early end of the cruise and departure (best case) or quarantine onboard for a longer period while arrangements are made...

 

Just look at what has just happened with SeaDream's start-up, apparently despite at least two separate pre-boarding COVID tests:

 

"Passengers were required to take a COVID-19 test at home before flying to the island and test negative within 72 hours of travel. They then were given another PCR test by the cruise line's ship doctor at the dock before boarding."

 

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5727/

 

And yet today, with yet another round of COVID testing required by Barbados, a passenger tested positive AND is symptomatic (so unlikely it is a false positive).

 

Granted, being quarantined onboard because of anothers illness would be the biggest concern but the theoretical discussion was about likelihood of a particular individual contracting the disease. Yes someone could pick it up on the way to the ship but the likelihood of that would also be decreased. If everyone onboard was required to be vaccinated, a very large percentage of the general traveling public would also be vaccinated and not spreading the virus.

As for an infected person coming in contact with any of the theoretical 150 for an exposure time, that is also very small. I’m sure that on a normal cruise, I do not have exposure to 90% of the passengers. 

[broberts]

3 hours ago, Mary229 said:

They have had huge research, development and production costs and by no means are they going to supply the world.  The Chinese and Russians already have their vaccines in production and if some reports are to believed in distribution. Then there are the other western pharmaceutical companies.  They have pledged free vaccines also.   The race was for status not money 

 

Sure some companies are not going to recoup their investments. But the reason almost 100 companies jumped into the hunt for covid-19 vaccines was the potential profit. Probably the largest drug sale ever.

 

At $15 a dose that Moderna is getting for 100 million US doses The company would have to be run by monkeys to lose money on the project.

[broberts]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

@Hlitner, you missed the cost of production of those many doses. And the fact most of these Covid vaccines require extremely cold storage and transit. Given your scenario,  its totally wrong and hyperbolic to say they are going to make that sort of profit margin.

 

For large sales the price typically does not include shipping and handling.

 

The U.S. Army has been collecting and storing the current vaccine production. Ready for immediate delivery once the FDA has approved use.

[ontheweb]

12 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Here is what bugs me.  When there was all the talk of the Moderna vaccine (most of the talk was via Moderna press conferences) I posted how the top management of Moderna had made a small fortune by selling stock that had risen from a low of $17.68 to over $95 a share (in less then a year)!  Moderna has never brought any drug/vaccine to market, but their senior executives have all made a lot of money by simply holding press conferences.  So now we hear that Pfizer's CEO sold a large block of stock on Monday right after they released the positive info regarding their Phase 3 testing of their COVID vaccine.  Again, we have top executives making a small fortune by simply having a press conference and issuing press releases.  This does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling although I truly pray that both Moderna and Pfizer quickly bring excellent COVID vaccines to market.  But for the top managment of both companies it probably does no make a lot of difference since they have already cashed out a substantial amount of their stock options.  Just this evening (on the news) they mentioned that Moderna has expressed optimisim about their drug.  Go figure.

 

And then there is another thought.  Why cash out now?  If they do bring a good vaccine to market their is potential to sell billions of doses.  Why not wait?  

 

Hank

That Modena has never brought a successful vaccine or even drug to market is something to give one pause. However, Pfizer is a different story. I heard Dr. Fauci when being interviewed mention that Pfizer has been successful at bringing vaccines to market.

[Hlitner]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

That Modena has never brought a successful vaccine or even drug to market is something to give one pause. However, Pfizer is a different story. I heard Dr. Fauci when being interviewed mention that Pfizer has been successful at bringing vaccines to market.

Yep, they are a big giant within the industry with plenty of past success.  What is troubling is that their CEO unloads 60% of his Pfizer stock holdings within hours of his company announcing progress with their vaccine.  It is all quite legal...but still troubling.   

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

12 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Yep, they are a big giant within the industry with plenty of past success.  What is troubling is that their CEO unloads 60% of his Pfizer stock holdings within hours of his company announcing progress with their vaccine.  It is all quite legal...but still troubling.   

 

Hank

If it was part of a pre-planned, scheduled sale - which many insiders do - what is troubling about it?  Alternatively, if it had not been pre-planned  but had been simply based upon that day’s rising market price, what would then  be troubling ?

 

I can see being concerned if he had purchased more stock before the good news came out;  or if he had sold before some bad news came out — but simply being an insider does not mean there is anything wrong.  Not being personally invested in a company one runs is, in fact, grounds for being troubled.

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

If it was part of a pre-planned, scheduled sale - which many insiders do - what is troubling about it?  Alternatively, if it had not been pre-planned  but had been simply based upon that day’s rising market price, what would then  be troubling ?

 

I can see being concerned if he had purchased more stock before the good news came out;  or if he had sold before some bad news came out — but simply being an insider does not mean there is anything wrong.  Not being personally invested in a company one runs is, in fact, grounds for being troubled.

This is not about purchasing anything but rather 10b5-1 sales which have become a joke in the pharm industry.  Under the SEC 10b5-1 rules key executives must disclose (in advance) their own plans to buy/sell stock.  The rule was intended to give key executives a way to trade in their own company's stock without tripping insider trading rules.  But in the pharm industry it is very easy for a CEO to control their stock prices by simply issuing press releases or even leaking information (which might be true or false).   So, if  key executive has a 10b5-1 plan that allows him/her to sell X number of shares next week, they can simply make a statement like "preliminary Phase 3 data looks promising" which will drive up their stock price in advance of the sale.  Whether or not that "promising" drug ever gets to market does not ultimately matter as the executive has already made a personal killing by cashing out of stock (generally acquired as stock options).    The joke is that while insider trading is buying/selling based on inside (not public) info....this is trading after making public statements which is quite legal.  Another interesting facet is that even if the information is completely true (such as really having promising data) it is the timing of the announcement that can benefit key executives.  

 

Hank

 

Hank

[navybankerteacher]

9 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

....  But in the pharm industry it is very easy for a CEO to control their stock prices by simply issuing press releases or even leaking information (which might be true or false). ...

Of course this applies to many industries.  Permitting managers to have interests in the companies they run is an effective way to incentivize:  they will profit if the managers do a good job of generating returns for the owners of those businesses.  Obviously the timing of their investment decisions is significant - that is why there are the rules which do exist.

[c-boy]

Now wait !  your saying this guy, Dr, Bourla the ceo of moderna pharmaceuticals made a statement to the world just to manipulate the stock price in his favor, He lied ?  Well this really screwed up my morning coffee routine. As if I don't have enough to worry about, now this.  Thanks Hank !

Edited November 12, 2020 by c-boy

[Toofarfromthesea]

5 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Of course this applies to many industries.  Permitting managers to have interests in the companies they run is an effective way to incentivize:  they will profit if the managers do a good job of generating returns for the owners of those businesses.  Obviously the timing of their investment decisions is significant - that is why there are the rules which do exist.

 

But just because there are rules ostensibly to restrain bad behavior doesn't mean they will actually restrain bad behavior.  More likely they will provide a safe pathway for allowing the functional equivalent to the bad behavior.  

[navybankerteacher]

4 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

But just because there are rules ostensibly to restrain bad behavior doesn't mean they will actually restrain bad behavior.  More likely they will provide a safe pathway for allowing the functional equivalent to the bad behavior.  

If the “bad” behavior is “bad” or common enough, it is up to government agencies to define and proscribe it.  Obviously senior management has a fiduciary obligation to all their share-holders, and anyone should behave with transparency - but intelligently maximizing one’s own interest without damaging others is simply common sense.    

[broberts]

19 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

If the “bad” behavior is “bad” or common enough, it is up to government agencies to define and proscribe it.  Obviously senior management has a fiduciary obligation to all their share-holders, and anyone should behave with transparency - but intelligently maximizing one’s own interest without damaging others is simply common sense.    

 

The stock market is zero sum.

[navybankerteacher]

58 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

The stock market is zero sum.

What does this statement pretend to say?

[broberts]

11 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

What does this statement pretend to say?

 

I was suggesting that " ... intelligently maximizing one’s own interest without damaging others ..." is an oxymoron when it comes to the stock market.

[chipmaster]

2 hours ago, broberts said:

 

The stock market is zero sum.

 

For everyone buying there is someone else who is sure it's topped out.    One think's he's in easy money and the other is thinking sucker, LOL

[navybankerteacher]

52 minutes ago, chipmaster said:

 

For everyone buying there is someone else who is sure it's topped out.    One think's he's in easy money and the other is thinking sucker, LOL

The world is bigger than two people doing a deal.

[Toofarfromthesea]

4 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

If the “bad” behavior is “bad” or common enough, it is up to government agencies to define and proscribe it.  Obviously senior management has a fiduciary obligation to all their share-holders, and anyone should behave with transparency - but intelligently maximizing one’s own interest without damaging others is simply common sense.    

 

Yes.  "Intelligently maximizing one's own interest" is exactly what the big boys get to do, while unsophisticated schlubs like Martha Stewart get sent to prison.  Let's not pretend that morally reprehensible actions can be justified by lobbied for loopholes.

[iancal]

We thought Canadian drug prices were high.  Then I read some numbers on what those drugs would cost in the US.  We were shocked.  Most especially drugs that are required for life such as insulin.

 

Then we had occasion to buy prescription drugs in Europe, Malaysia, and Thailand.  We were shocked again....at how much less they were than in Canada.

 

A hospital buying group in Canada threated a manufacturer/distributor because they could buy the product from a New Zealand firm for thirty percent less than they paid for the identical product sourced in Canada.  It was a tender situation.  The drug firm was forced to lower their pricing.

[navybankerteacher]

13 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Yes.  "Intelligently maximizing one's own interest" is exactly what the big boys get to do, while unsophisticated schlubs like Martha Stewart get sent to prison.  Let's not pretend that morally reprehensible actions can be justified by lobbied for loopholes.

Martha Stewart, as a CEO of a successful media and marketing corporation, should have known what she was doing.  The "big boys"( as you put them) know and play by the rules for the most part,  and they profit from their knowledge and their efforts.

 

Of course the real "unsophisticated schlubs" (again, your term) simply complain about people who are more successful.

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

On 11/11/2020 at 11:25 AM, 2wheelin said:

Not sure I follow your thinking. In this theoretical situation we are discussing, all 1500 would be vaccinated and 90% of them would be protected. Exposure for them would be a moot point. Therefore, travel to the port would be just as disease protective as being on the ship. And, no, I do not believe they would be transporting virus on their clothing which could transfer to another person later in the week.

 

[navybankerteacher]

20 hours ago, broberts said:

 

The stock market is zero sum.

When a seller of stock decides to liquidate a holding (perhaps at a substantial profit over his purchase cost) because he has a use for cash in mind, he is benefitting.  At the same time a purchaser of that same stock who has cash which he wants to put to some better use than to earn next to no interest in a savings account is also benefitting.  

 

A transaction in which both parties benefit cannot be called zero sum. The fact that the market price might be higher or lower the following day neither hurts nor benefits either - as long as neither makes a trade that day, each has achieved his intended transaction.

[cruising cockroach]

17 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Yes.  "Intelligently maximizing one's own interest" is exactly what the big boys get to do, while unsophisticated schlubs like Martha Stewart get sent to prison.

 

Martha Stewart had a U.S. broker's licence so she would have had to pass SEC exams, which would have dealt with insider trading.  What's more, she was a director on the board of the New York Stock Exchange at the time she committed the offence.  Yep, unsophisticated.