I love finding hard facts that prove popular opinion wrong. This article from Malcolm Gladwell is both a statement on drug pricing AND media bias (or at least poor reporting). Turns out that drug prices (essentially) aren't rising.
gladwell.com: The Times' Drug Problem
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
The mess over HGH just getting started
The general public is now aware of the white elephant in the room. HGH - absolutely undetectable unless blood is drawn - is now the drug of choice for baseball players.
A couple of observations about the impact of this story:
1. I hope that this crisis shines a spotlight on pitchers' use of performance enhancers. I think (and have read it suggested elsewhere) that pitchers may have actually been the bigger users of steroids.
2. Jason Grimsley has been a fringe player thru much of his career (more or less), as have been many of the other players publicly outed (R. Franklin, M. Lawton, etc.) Is this a case that fringe players are big users since they're already ont he bubble, or does this indicate that everybody (even the fringe players) were users.
3. No one is catching another big story buried in this: latin players as abundant users. Sammy (see my prior post: http://cogentpassion.blogspot.com/2006/04/juiced-baseball-players-com-articles.html ) laid out his argument, and we weren't even listening. But, considering the greater economic proposition for the latin players, I understand it (generally, the alternative to a major league job for a latin is dramtically different for a US national, thus motivating bad decisions by these players).
4. Strangely, I wonder if the one guy smiling at this episode is Barry Bonds. He stands to gain greatly if the popular opinion decides that his steroid-fueled homers do represent a record because he was hitting off steroid-fueled pitchers.
ESPN.com - MLB - Stark: The mess over HGH just getting started
A couple of observations about the impact of this story:
1. I hope that this crisis shines a spotlight on pitchers' use of performance enhancers. I think (and have read it suggested elsewhere) that pitchers may have actually been the bigger users of steroids.
2. Jason Grimsley has been a fringe player thru much of his career (more or less), as have been many of the other players publicly outed (R. Franklin, M. Lawton, etc.) Is this a case that fringe players are big users since they're already ont he bubble, or does this indicate that everybody (even the fringe players) were users.
3. No one is catching another big story buried in this: latin players as abundant users. Sammy (see my prior post: http://cogentpassion.blogspot.com/2006/04/juiced-baseball-players-com-articles.html ) laid out his argument, and we weren't even listening. But, considering the greater economic proposition for the latin players, I understand it (generally, the alternative to a major league job for a latin is dramtically different for a US national, thus motivating bad decisions by these players).
4. Strangely, I wonder if the one guy smiling at this episode is Barry Bonds. He stands to gain greatly if the popular opinion decides that his steroid-fueled homers do represent a record because he was hitting off steroid-fueled pitchers.
ESPN.com - MLB - Stark: The mess over HGH just getting started
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Other buys....
I've been remiss in mentioning other recent portfolio actions. Here's aquick summary:
I bought Vertex (VRTX) on May 22 @$29.70, as the company released stunning phase II HCV results. (read about it here: DDW: Novel HCV Protease Inhibitor Promising in Early Trial - CME Teaching Brief - MedPage Today
Happily, shares 10 days later are already up 16%!
I sold half of my Microsoft stock in order to buy twice the number of Microsoft LEAPs to expire January 2008. (I sold the MSFT shares @ $23.65 (a 15% loss) and paid $5.60 per $20 LEAP, meaning that I'll (theoretically) make money if MSFT is rises >8.2% over the next 19 months. (Or, less than 5% annualized.)
In reality, I'm counting on MSFT getting some good news over the next 2 years. Perhaps a lift from the next Windows OS, perhaps a lift from Office '07, perhaps a slip by Google.
Should MSFT grow at 10% per year, I'll have about a 41% return.
However safe this bet looks, though, consider that MSFT has pretty much been flat for 4 years now.
A few other moves that don't need much comment:
-with my '05+'06 IRA contributions, I bought 2 Fidelity overseas funds (FSCOX - overseas small caps, and FSEAX - Southeast Asia).
-I halved my FNMIX (emerging markets income) holdings in favor of more broad international exposure (EFA - the global ETF), and IWB - the Russell 1000 ETF, in order to catch a rotation to large caps.
I bought Vertex (VRTX) on May 22 @$29.70, as the company released stunning phase II HCV results. (read about it here: DDW: Novel HCV Protease Inhibitor Promising in Early Trial - CME Teaching Brief - MedPage Today
Happily, shares 10 days later are already up 16%!
I sold half of my Microsoft stock in order to buy twice the number of Microsoft LEAPs to expire January 2008. (I sold the MSFT shares @ $23.65 (a 15% loss) and paid $5.60 per $20 LEAP, meaning that I'll (theoretically) make money if MSFT is rises >8.2% over the next 19 months. (Or, less than 5% annualized.)
In reality, I'm counting on MSFT getting some good news over the next 2 years. Perhaps a lift from the next Windows OS, perhaps a lift from Office '07, perhaps a slip by Google.
Should MSFT grow at 10% per year, I'll have about a 41% return.
However safe this bet looks, though, consider that MSFT has pretty much been flat for 4 years now.
A few other moves that don't need much comment:
-with my '05+'06 IRA contributions, I bought 2 Fidelity overseas funds (FSCOX - overseas small caps, and FSEAX - Southeast Asia).
-I halved my FNMIX (emerging markets income) holdings in favor of more broad international exposure (EFA - the global ETF), and IWB - the Russell 1000 ETF, in order to catch a rotation to large caps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
With my new friends on the Great Wall of China
Click to go to my online photography