Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@Ted, any particular reason you are in FBTCX with more than twice the ER of FBIOX under the same manager? Not much difference in holdings despite the diffetent size classification.
A bit too early to start celebrating yet. It looks like a technical bounce back from technical traders front running the 200 SMA in biotech and forcing short covering. The up day volume is lower than previous down day volume.
All the major indices are just trading in the narrow channel but trending down which might indicate further correction in the markets overall.
On the other hand if the broad markets start to do well, funds will start to flow into biotech and start its recovery. A break above 242 for IBB will show this to be not just a dead cat bounce with a retrace back to 220.
That is the technical trader's interpretation. We will just have to see how this plays out.
@cman FBIOX is not offered on Morgan Stanley's fund platform. Expense ratios for C shares are generally higher than A, but the deferred load is on 1.00% instead of the 5.75% front load for A shares. Regards, Ted
In a conversation with a friend connected with health care, he mentioned that private systems are laying off employees while govt systems are hiring.
Hi John,
Seems to make "sense". How many actuaries do the likes of Blue Cross need now and how many navigators does the government need to "find" individuals to sign up. And then the scores of thousands to administer the non-ACA.
The insurance companies do need some whittling on. That's for sure.
I should have specified that the observation related to hospital systems. While the university hospital system in WA is hiring, the other non govt hospital systems are paring back. He mentioned that this is a national trend. A sign of the future? Time will tell.
for investing purposes than be distracted by political ideology colored data (on either side of spectrum).
The changes mentioned in that article above are real and powerful and much more relevant in the market place. I already see significant advertising locally here for clinics inside CVS.
The release of payment data from Medicare payments is significantly going to change how providers and drugs see the money because of public backlash on the use of Medicare funds - a bad sign for biotechs with high priced drugs that were flying under the radar until now and making large profits.
for investing purposes than be distracted by political ideology colored data (on either side of spectrum).
The changes mentioned in that article above are real and powerful and much more relevant in the market place. I already see significant advertising locally here for clinics inside CVS.
The release of payment data from Medicare payments is significantly going to change how providers and drugs see the money because of public backlash on the use of Medicare funds - a bad sign for biotechs with high priced drugs that were flying under the radar until now and making large profits.
The 1979 AMA lawsuit which let AMA hide Medicare payments to protect doctors "privacy" was just outrageous. Thanks to the WSJ reporters and lawyers for pressing a lawsuit for public release that caused a sane judge to throw out overly broad ruling. Unfortunately, most of the WSJ comments are from far-right wing nuts who believe that taxpayers are just jealous of the hard-working 1%. I'm so glad I cancelled my sub years ago. AMA already put out statement that people are taking figures out of context. Hiding data for last 35 years is not bad enough, now they are calling us stupid. Yeah, none of us can understand causal probability, correlation theory.
I don't think the $80,000 Hep C 12 week treatment was out of sight, there were Congressional hearing. The pill treatment has generally far fewer harsh side effects, so it is definitely worth it, well as long as someone else pays for it. Otherwise, could try injections and see how bad they are.
Comments
A bit too early to start celebrating yet. It looks like a technical bounce back from technical traders front running the 200 SMA in biotech and forcing short covering. The up day volume is lower than previous down day volume.
All the major indices are just trading in the narrow channel but trending down which might indicate further correction in the markets overall.
On the other hand if the broad markets start to do well, funds will start to flow into biotech and start its recovery. A break above 242 for IBB will show this to be not just a dead cat bounce with a retrace back to 220.
That is the technical trader's interpretation. We will just have to see how this plays out.
Regards,
Ted
Seems to make "sense". How many actuaries do the likes of Blue Cross need now and how many navigators does the government need to "find" individuals to sign up. And then the scores of thousands to administer the non-ACA.
Mona
The insurance companies do need some whittling on. That's for sure.
I should have specified that the observation related to hospital systems. While the university hospital system in WA is hiring, the other non govt hospital systems are paring back. He mentioned that this is a national trend. A sign of the future? Time will tell.
How technology hurts health providers
for investing purposes than be distracted by political ideology colored data (on either side of spectrum).
The changes mentioned in that article above are real and powerful and much more relevant in the market place. I already see significant advertising locally here for clinics inside CVS.
The release of payment data from Medicare payments is significantly going to change how providers and drugs see the money because of public backlash on the use of Medicare funds - a bad sign for biotechs with high priced drugs that were flying under the radar until now and making large profits.
The 1979 AMA lawsuit which let AMA hide Medicare payments to protect doctors "privacy" was just outrageous. Thanks to the WSJ reporters and lawyers for pressing a lawsuit for public release that caused a sane judge to throw out overly broad ruling. Unfortunately, most of the WSJ comments are from far-right wing nuts who believe that taxpayers are just jealous of the hard-working 1%. I'm so glad I cancelled my sub years ago. AMA already put out statement that people are taking figures out of context. Hiding data for last 35 years is not bad enough, now they are calling us stupid. Yeah, none of us can understand causal probability, correlation theory.
I don't think the $80,000 Hep C 12 week treatment was out of sight, there were Congressional hearing. The pill treatment has generally far fewer harsh side effects, so
it is definitely worth it, well as long as someone else pays for it. Otherwise, could try injections and see how bad they are.