Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Veteran Investor Sam Isaly Picks Top Biotech Stocks

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)

Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sciences fund favors big biotechs like Regeneron, AbbVie and Biogen.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Veteran+Investor+Sam+Isaly+Picks+Top+Biotech+Stocks+barron's

M* Snapshot ETHSX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/ETHSX/quote.html

Lipper Snapshot ETHSX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/ETHSX?countrycode=US

ETHSX Is Ranked #21 In The (H) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/health/eaton-vance-worldwide-health-sciences-fund/ethsx

Comments

  • edited June 2015
    Have so much in healthcare. Added to THQ yesterday (11.2% discount to NAV), AGN doing well after adding that the other day. Looking for others.

    http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-sn-more-americans-obese-than-overweight-20150620-story.html
  • Great call, Scott, when GILD was below 100. I own THQ also. If you are looking for froth, FBIO (formerly CNDO) and NVAX are Jim McCamant's picks from a while ago that I still have. No dividends, of course.
  • @Scott: THQ is way behind YTD performance curve compaired to other health care ETF's such as Tekla's HQL. In a CEF, discount to NAV means nothing, you stand or fall on Market Price. The only time NAV means anything is if the fund is liquidating.
    Regards,
    Ted
  • As I understand it, THQ is a different fund from HQL. The former pays a monthly distribution and invests in healthcare issues that produce income as well as capital appeciation. HQL is an equity fund that may invest a portion of its assets in more speculative issues, including unlisted companies. CEF investors like to buy when a fund's discount appears to be greater than normal in hopes of capturing the upside when the discount reverts to the mean. I own both THQ and HQL.
  • TedTed
    edited June 2015
    BenWP: In theory your are correct ; however, don't hold your breath waiting for the vast majority of CEF's to narrow the discount closer to the NAV. Most narrow and then widen the discount never reaching NAV. For your information here is a list of CEF's (Click On Show All) with their Market Price and NAV. Note that 99% of them sell at a discount.
    Regards,
    Ted
    http://news.morningstar.com/CELists/CEReturns.html
  • edited June 2015
    BenWP said:

    Great call, Scott, when GILD was below 100. I own THQ also. If you are looking for froth, FBIO (formerly CNDO) and NVAX are Jim McCamant's picks from a while ago that I still have. No dividends, of course.

    Thanks!:)

    Gilead ultimately didn't make sense to me from a valuation standpoint - basically the valuation had priced in a lot of bad news and basically ignored the pipeline, not to mention management's track record. While it's been frustrating it's finally taken off in the last month.

    Additionally, in terms of health care, I think it's just the place to be. As I've said previously, I like to focus on "needs over wants" and healthcare is really a core of that. I think lifestyles unfortunately aren't going to change and as a result, the obesity situation (and all of the conditions that come along with that) are only going to continue to be a large theme. There's also demographics and a number of other tailwinds. I definitely own a lot of healthcare, but I sleep well at night, given that. I said in another thread, I do worry about healthcare costs (which will probably be something like 20% of GDP within 4-5 years) becoming unsustainable, but what are we going to do about it? Probably nothing, given the government's inability to really make progress in just about any important area. So, healthcare spending will continue to crowd out other things.

    You also have had a great deal of innovation in biotech in recent years. While I do think some of the binary (has one medicine, does it work yes/no) biotech stocks are expensive, a lot of the larger companies are not.

    I've also talked about other companies lately, including CVS (which, given the Target deal, will quickly add another 1660+ locations without having to build them) and Abbott (nutritional products, considerable exposure to EM.) I still like Celgene, which has a ton of collaborations with other various companies.

    image

    Celgene is risky and a tad volatile, but I like their considerable focus on collaborations and hopefully they can meet their longer-term projections:

    "For adjusted earnings, Celgene raised 2015 guidance to the range of $4.60 to $4.75 per share, although that's below current consensus of $4.84 per share.

    In his presentation, Hugin said Celgene expects to meet or exceed previous 2017 guidance, although the company is not raising that forecast at this time. The company still expected net product sales in the $13-14 billion range and adjusted earnings per share of $7.50.

    New on Monday morning was financial guidance for 2020. Celgene expects net product sales to reach $20 billion and adjusted earnings per share of $12.50. Both forecasts top current consensus estimates, although the accurancy of estimates five years into the future is always a bit murky."

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/13007744/1/celgene-has-2020-vision-for-long-term-growth-but-plays-safe-for-2017.html

    Shire, Roche (although I hate the European one div a year instead of quarterly), Abbvie, Teva, Amgen, McKesson, Pfizer and Illumina are other things I've considered, although Illumina would be a tiny, "find it fascinating, just want to have some exposure to it" longer-term play.

    In 2012, BOA/ML said: "The fight against obesity will be a major investment trend for the next 25-50 years, a report by Bank of America/Merrill Lynch said on Tuesday, listing 50 companies in areas from healthcare and pharmaceuticals to food and sports that could benefit."

    If that's really the case, that's pretty dismaying. I'd like to hope we can be able to change en masse before 25+ years.

    As for THQ, I own THQ and HQL. I'll be happy to collect the monthly dividend from THQ which has generally traded with around a 5-6% discount. The company announced a buyback program not that long ago. Not sure where they are with that, but with THQ where it is....
  • CELG is my largest single stock position. I dare not sell lest I cross bracket barriers and trigger Medicare premium increases. Thanks for posting the very useful info on the company. HQL and THQ are anchors of a Roth where I'm glad to reinvest the distributions.

    Obesity threatens our prosperity as a nation, not merely our healthcare system. "The China Study" should be part of the Common Core reading list. I wasn't being facetious in another post where I opined that eliminating hamburger is a meaningful action anyone could take. Can't get three of my five kids to follow along, but the two youngest (24 and 17) are vegetarian since infancy. We've also eliminated dairy, but not fish. We travel and have lived abroad; unfortunately the American way of eating is taking its toll on Europeans and Asians. Okinawa is an example. End of sermon.
  • Thank you for your comments on Celgene - glad you're also quite positive on the company.

    I have a lot of respect for Vegan/Vegetarian, but I know myself and I think it would be extraordinarily difficult for me to go that route. I have moved away from burgers and the like and have focused more on lean meat. I will definitely take a look at "The China Study" next time I head over to the library, though.

    Thanks again.
Sign In or Register to comment.