The Nation's Financial Condition

[OCanada]

Lobbying is one of the reasons are healthcare system is the world’s most expensive. Lobbyists also direct or help direct campaign contributions which flow heavilybin healthcare. There was a time before big money was permitted the lobbyists did help educate but thst has long since evolved. I once was part of a video made on lobbying for the banking industry. I would not now.

[a fan]

Wrong again. Counter to what you claim I believe in, as usual, speaking again on my behalf.

No, sir, you're wrong, and forgot what you told the forum.

Quoting the conversation DIRECTLY, I asked:

What does lobbying have to do with private insurers choosing to pick up the cost for a test? I don't understand.

And YOU responded:

Mandated insurance benefits, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid.

See? You told the forum that the reason you want the Illumina monopoly is so they can lobby with more money, and FORCE private insurers to carry the test.

Clear as day. You're asking for the government to intervene, and make your stock bets pay off, instead of letting private insurers CHOOSE to use this test that you insist is so great.

Plainly, the test is NOT that great, or Old Salt wouldn't be on here, hoping the government steps in...and then when the .gov doesn't FORCE insurers to carry the test, and line your pockets, you're complaining about it.

Then IF it's a cost effective preventative, it could be mandated coverage IF insurance companies don't cover it on their own.

This is a logic fail, and a demand for the government to intervene and FORCE insurers to carry a test when it is NOT cost effective.

I've got skin in the game. I hold GRAL stock & ILMN owns 14.5% of GRAL. IF the test fails, I'll lose even more than I've already lost due to Khan's interference. What has been the upside of Khan blocking the merger ?

So you're telling me that a man who has dealt with competition and standards his whole life needs to be told how capitalism works....and what the competition for talent, ideas, capital, resources, etc. does to a free market?

If you do, let me know. But I think you get it just fine, and are just messing with me. Enjoy your Sunday.

[a fan]

Lobbying is one of the reasons are healthcare system is the world’s most expensive. Lobbyists also direct or help direct campaign contributions which flow heavilybin healthcare. There was a time before big money was permitted the lobbyists did help educate but thst has long since evolved. I once was part of a video made on lobbying for the banking industry. I would not now.

Yep.

OS is asking the .gov to step in and FORCE insurers to carry a product that OBVIOUSLY isn't cost effective.

Because if the tests were cost effective? Insurers would JUMP at the chance to lower their costs.

Instead, if it's forced on them, and Illumina has a monopoly on the product? Now patients are on the hook for lining Old Salt's pockets.

Best part is that Old Salt has unwillingly educated the forum as to how monopolies work in America, why they make, in this case, American Health Care the most expensive in the world....while at the same time, not the best outcome.

It's all about directing our money to the .01%ers on a crooked playing field.

[Typical Lax Dad]

“SAN DIEGO & MENLO PARK, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Illumina, Inc. (NASDAQ: ILMN) and GRAIL, a healthcare company whose mission is focused on multi-cancer early detection, today announced they have entered into a definitive agreement under which Illumina will acquire GRAIL for cash and stock consideration of $8 billion upon closing of the transaction. In addition, GRAIL stockholders will receive future payments representing a tiered single digit percentage of certain GRAIL-related revenues. The agreement has been approved by the Boards of Directors of Illumina and GRAIL.”

Grail’s current market cap is $394 million. Illumina has a 20x multiple on its valuation at $8.0 billion.

[Typical Lax Dad]

>> What has killed the mega-deal? One theory is that executives have learned from previous value-obliterating adventures. According to a literature review by Geoff and J. Gay Meeks of Cambridge University only a fifth of studies conclude that the average deal produces higher combined profits or increases the wealth of the acquirer’s shareholders. The purchase of Time Warner for a jawdropping $165bn by aol, an internet firm pumped up by the dotcom bubble, in 2001 is taught to business school students as an example of hubristic dealmaking par excellence. In 2007 txu, an American utility firm, was gobbled up in the largest-ever leveraged buy-out, but filed for bankruptcy less than seven years later.

This explanation underestimates the financial rewards bosses reap from running giant firms, however, and overestimates how much time they spend studying the past. Some executives are destined to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, or at least decide that the best way of correcting them is to strike even more deals. Warner Bros Discovery, an American media giant formed in April 2022 through the merger of Discovery and WarnerMedia, the heir to Time Warner, is already rumoured to be mulling a breakup. On September 5th Verizon, a telecoms giant which shares a common corporate ancestry with at&t, WarnerMedia’s previous owner, said it would pay $20bn for Frontier, acquiring assets it sold only in 2016.

A better explanation is that would-be empire builders face more scepticism from investors than they did in the past. Sprawling global conglomerates are thoroughly unfashionable. General Electric, an industrial icon, completed a split into three separate companies earlier this year. Vodafone, which pulled off another of the largest takeovers in history when it acquired Mannesmann in 2000, is today meekly selling off its operations. The technology firms that have replaced the financial, industrial and communications empires as the world’s most valuable companies have not shown the same willingness to risk their business on big, adventurous tie-ups. Big tech’s most important dealmaking moves today involve comparatively small investments in artificial-intelligence startups.

Another, even more potent, brake on mega-deals is politics. Suspicion of big companies across the political spectrum has led to more radical and less predictable thinking on antitrust. Even when firms do prevail in legal scuffles with regulators, as Microsoft did in its $69bn acquisition of Activision, they face lengthy periods of uncertainty between signing and completing transactions, making them less likely to pursue deals in the first place. Microsoft’s acquisition of the video-game developer took nearly 21 months. The tie-up between Kroger and Albertsons will soon commiserate its second birthday without completing.

The bar for cross-border deals has also gone up. National security is at least as potent a threat to such mergers as antitrust worries. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (cfius), America’s inbound investment watchdog, has grown bigger and tougher in recent years. Similar rules have proliferated globally, meaning dealmakers must navigate an expanding definition of national security and patchwork of regulations.

Nippon’s attempt to buy us Steel marks a watershed moment in this regard. The national-security rationale for blocking the acquisition of the steelmaker by a competitor from Japan is flimsy, and opposition to the deal has more to do with its presence in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Bosses will have few reasons to think that future dealmaking will be treated more objectively. And so fewer of them will be rushing to get their cheque-books out. <<

[Farfromgeneva]

>> What has killed the mega-deal? One theory is that executives have learned from previous value-obliterating adventures. According to a literature review by Geoff and J. Gay Meeks of Cambridge University only a fifth of studies conclude that the average deal produces higher combined profits or increases the wealth of the acquirer’s shareholders. The purchase of Time Warner for a jawdropping $165bn by aol, an internet firm pumped up by the dotcom bubble, in 2001 is taught to business school students as an example of hubristic dealmaking par excellence. In 2007 txu, an American utility firm, was gobbled up in the largest-ever leveraged buy-out, but filed for bankruptcy less than seven years later.

This explanation underestimates the financial rewards bosses reap from running giant firms, however, and overestimates how much time they spend studying the past. Some executives are destined to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, or at least decide that the best way of correcting them is to strike even more deals. Warner Bros Discovery, an American media giant formed in April 2022 through the merger of Discovery and WarnerMedia, the heir to Time Warner, is already rumoured to be mulling a breakup. On September 5th Verizon, a telecoms giant which shares a common corporate ancestry with at&t, WarnerMedia’s previous owner, said it would pay $20bn for Frontier, acquiring assets it sold only in 2016.

A better explanation is that would-be empire builders face more scepticism from investors than they did in the past. Sprawling global conglomerates are thoroughly unfashionable. General Electric, an industrial icon, completed a split into three separate companies earlier this year. Vodafone, which pulled off another of the largest takeovers in history when it acquired Mannesmann in 2000, is today meekly selling off its operations. The technology firms that have replaced the financial, industrial and communications empires as the world’s most valuable companies have not shown the same willingness to risk their business on big, adventurous tie-ups. Big tech’s most important dealmaking moves today involve comparatively small investments in artificial-intelligence startups.

Another, even more potent, brake on mega-deals is politics. Suspicion of big companies across the political spectrum has led to more radical and less predictable thinking on antitrust. Even when firms do prevail in legal scuffles with regulators, as Microsoft did in its $69bn acquisition of Activision, they face lengthy periods of uncertainty between signing and completing transactions, making them less likely to pursue deals in the first place. Microsoft’s acquisition of the video-game developer took nearly 21 months. The tie-up between Kroger and Albertsons will soon commiserate its second birthday without completing.

The bar for cross-border deals has also gone up. National security is at least as potent a threat to such mergers as antitrust worries. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (cfius), America’s inbound investment watchdog, has grown bigger and tougher in recent years. Similar rules have proliferated globally, meaning dealmakers must navigate an expanding definition of national security and patchwork of regulations.

Nippon’s attempt to buy us Steel marks a watershed moment in this regard. The national-security rationale for blocking the acquisition of the steelmaker by a competitor from Japan is flimsy, and opposition to the deal has more to do with its presence in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Bosses will have few reasons to think that future dealmaking will be treated more objectively. And so fewer of them will be rushing to get their cheque-books out. <<

Wait I have an issue right off the break on this piece though don't deny that M&A often dilutes shareholder value it does often but mainly becuase execution never looks like it plays out in the pitchbook deck.

But....AOL/TW, A disaster for TW shareholders, but it was exactly what Steve Case or any CEO should do when they have overvalued stock. Issue shares, trade it for tangible assets, etc. AOL was a POS business ultimately but it's shareholders traded air for a ton of true valued IP and hard assets. So only one side of that deal messed up. There was no hubris on the part of AOL. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. What'd Yahoo sharholders get ultimately? If not for thier investment in Alibaba it would've been zero by comparison.

[Typical Lax Dad]

>> What has killed the mega-deal? One theory is that executives have learned from previous value-obliterating adventures. According to a literature review by Geoff and J. Gay Meeks of Cambridge University only a fifth of studies conclude that the average deal produces higher combined profits or increases the wealth of the acquirer’s shareholders. The purchase of Time Warner for a jawdropping $165bn by aol, an internet firm pumped up by the dotcom bubble, in 2001 is taught to business school students as an example of hubristic dealmaking par excellence. In 2007 txu, an American utility firm, was gobbled up in the largest-ever leveraged buy-out, but filed for bankruptcy less than seven years later.

This explanation underestimates the financial rewards bosses reap from running giant firms, however, and overestimates how much time they spend studying the past. Some executives are destined to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, or at least decide that the best way of correcting them is to strike even more deals. Warner Bros Discovery, an American media giant formed in April 2022 through the merger of Discovery and WarnerMedia, the heir to Time Warner, is already rumoured to be mulling a breakup. On September 5th Verizon, a telecoms giant which shares a common corporate ancestry with at&t, WarnerMedia’s previous owner, said it would pay $20bn for Frontier, acquiring assets it sold only in 2016.

A better explanation is that would-be empire builders face more scepticism from investors than they did in the past. Sprawling global conglomerates are thoroughly unfashionable. General Electric, an industrial icon, completed a split into three separate companies earlier this year. Vodafone, which pulled off another of the largest takeovers in history when it acquired Mannesmann in 2000, is today meekly selling off its operations. The technology firms that have replaced the financial, industrial and communications empires as the world’s most valuable companies have not shown the same willingness to risk their business on big, adventurous tie-ups. Big tech’s most important dealmaking moves today involve comparatively small investments in artificial-intelligence startups.

Another, even more potent, brake on mega-deals is politics. Suspicion of big companies across the political spectrum has led to more radical and less predictable thinking on antitrust. Even when firms do prevail in legal scuffles with regulators, as Microsoft did in its $69bn acquisition of Activision, they face lengthy periods of uncertainty between signing and completing transactions, making them less likely to pursue deals in the first place. Microsoft’s acquisition of the video-game developer took nearly 21 months. The tie-up between Kroger and Albertsons will soon commiserate its second birthday without completing.

The bar for cross-border deals has also gone up. National security is at least as potent a threat to such mergers as antitrust worries. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (cfius), America’s inbound investment watchdog, has grown bigger and tougher in recent years. Similar rules have proliferated globally, meaning dealmakers must navigate an expanding definition of national security and patchwork of regulations.

Nippon’s attempt to buy us Steel marks a watershed moment in this regard. The national-security rationale for blocking the acquisition of the steelmaker by a competitor from Japan is flimsy, and opposition to the deal has more to do with its presence in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Bosses will have few reasons to think that future dealmaking will be treated more objectively. And so fewer of them will be rushing to get their cheque-books out. <<

Wait I have an issue right off the break on this piece though don't deny that M&A often dilutes shareholder value it does often but mainly becuase execution never looks like it plays out in the pitchbook deck.

But....AOL/TW, A disaster for TW shareholders, but it was exactly what Steve Case or any CEO should do when they have overvalued stock. Issue shares, trade it for tangible assets, etc. AOL was a POS business ultimately but it's shareholders traded air for a ton of true valued IP and hard assets. So only one side of that deal messed up. There was no hubris on the part of AOL. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. What'd Yahoo sharholders get ultimately? If not for thier investment in Alibaba it would've been zero by comparison.

Yep. I still don’t understand why Illumina offered $8 billion for something trading at $400 million. I bought some Grail stock for that reason.

[Farfromgeneva]

>> What has killed the mega-deal? One theory is that executives have learned from previous value-obliterating adventures. According to a literature review by Geoff and J. Gay Meeks of Cambridge University only a fifth of studies conclude that the average deal produces higher combined profits or increases the wealth of the acquirer’s shareholders. The purchase of Time Warner for a jawdropping $165bn by aol, an internet firm pumped up by the dotcom bubble, in 2001 is taught to business school students as an example of hubristic dealmaking par excellence. In 2007 txu, an American utility firm, was gobbled up in the largest-ever leveraged buy-out, but filed for bankruptcy less than seven years later.

This explanation underestimates the financial rewards bosses reap from running giant firms, however, and overestimates how much time they spend studying the past. Some executives are destined to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, or at least decide that the best way of correcting them is to strike even more deals. Warner Bros Discovery, an American media giant formed in April 2022 through the merger of Discovery and WarnerMedia, the heir to Time Warner, is already rumoured to be mulling a breakup. On September 5th Verizon, a telecoms giant which shares a common corporate ancestry with at&t, WarnerMedia’s previous owner, said it would pay $20bn for Frontier, acquiring assets it sold only in 2016.

A better explanation is that would-be empire builders face more scepticism from investors than they did in the past. Sprawling global conglomerates are thoroughly unfashionable. General Electric, an industrial icon, completed a split into three separate companies earlier this year. Vodafone, which pulled off another of the largest takeovers in history when it acquired Mannesmann in 2000, is today meekly selling off its operations. The technology firms that have replaced the financial, industrial and communications empires as the world’s most valuable companies have not shown the same willingness to risk their business on big, adventurous tie-ups. Big tech’s most important dealmaking moves today involve comparatively small investments in artificial-intelligence startups.

Another, even more potent, brake on mega-deals is politics. Suspicion of big companies across the political spectrum has led to more radical and less predictable thinking on antitrust. Even when firms do prevail in legal scuffles with regulators, as Microsoft did in its $69bn acquisition of Activision, they face lengthy periods of uncertainty between signing and completing transactions, making them less likely to pursue deals in the first place. Microsoft’s acquisition of the video-game developer took nearly 21 months. The tie-up between Kroger and Albertsons will soon commiserate its second birthday without completing.

The bar for cross-border deals has also gone up. National security is at least as potent a threat to such mergers as antitrust worries. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (cfius), America’s inbound investment watchdog, has grown bigger and tougher in recent years. Similar rules have proliferated globally, meaning dealmakers must navigate an expanding definition of national security and patchwork of regulations.

Nippon’s attempt to buy us Steel marks a watershed moment in this regard. The national-security rationale for blocking the acquisition of the steelmaker by a competitor from Japan is flimsy, and opposition to the deal has more to do with its presence in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Bosses will have few reasons to think that future dealmaking will be treated more objectively. And so fewer of them will be rushing to get their cheque-books out. <<

Wait I have an issue right off the break on this piece though don't deny that M&A often dilutes shareholder value it does often but mainly becuase execution never looks like it plays out in the pitchbook deck.

But....AOL/TW, A disaster for TW shareholders, but it was exactly what Steve Case or any CEO should do when they have overvalued stock. Issue shares, trade it for tangible assets, etc. AOL was a POS business ultimately but it's shareholders traded air for a ton of true valued IP and hard assets. So only one side of that deal messed up. There was no hubris on the part of AOL. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. What'd Yahoo sharholders get ultimately? If not for thier investment in Alibaba it would've been zero by comparison.

Yep. I still don’t understand why Illumina offered $8 billion for something trading at $400 million. I bought some Grail stock for that reason.

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

[Typical Lax Dad]

>> What has killed the mega-deal? One theory is that executives have learned from previous value-obliterating adventures. According to a literature review by Geoff and J. Gay Meeks of Cambridge University only a fifth of studies conclude that the average deal produces higher combined profits or increases the wealth of the acquirer’s shareholders. The purchase of Time Warner for a jawdropping $165bn by aol, an internet firm pumped up by the dotcom bubble, in 2001 is taught to business school students as an example of hubristic dealmaking par excellence. In 2007 txu, an American utility firm, was gobbled up in the largest-ever leveraged buy-out, but filed for bankruptcy less than seven years later.

This explanation underestimates the financial rewards bosses reap from running giant firms, however, and overestimates how much time they spend studying the past. Some executives are destined to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, or at least decide that the best way of correcting them is to strike even more deals. Warner Bros Discovery, an American media giant formed in April 2022 through the merger of Discovery and WarnerMedia, the heir to Time Warner, is already rumoured to be mulling a breakup. On September 5th Verizon, a telecoms giant which shares a common corporate ancestry with at&t, WarnerMedia’s previous owner, said it would pay $20bn for Frontier, acquiring assets it sold only in 2016.

A better explanation is that would-be empire builders face more scepticism from investors than they did in the past. Sprawling global conglomerates are thoroughly unfashionable. General Electric, an industrial icon, completed a split into three separate companies earlier this year. Vodafone, which pulled off another of the largest takeovers in history when it acquired Mannesmann in 2000, is today meekly selling off its operations. The technology firms that have replaced the financial, industrial and communications empires as the world’s most valuable companies have not shown the same willingness to risk their business on big, adventurous tie-ups. Big tech’s most important dealmaking moves today involve comparatively small investments in artificial-intelligence startups.

Another, even more potent, brake on mega-deals is politics. Suspicion of big companies across the political spectrum has led to more radical and less predictable thinking on antitrust. Even when firms do prevail in legal scuffles with regulators, as Microsoft did in its $69bn acquisition of Activision, they face lengthy periods of uncertainty between signing and completing transactions, making them less likely to pursue deals in the first place. Microsoft’s acquisition of the video-game developer took nearly 21 months. The tie-up between Kroger and Albertsons will soon commiserate its second birthday without completing.

The bar for cross-border deals has also gone up. National security is at least as potent a threat to such mergers as antitrust worries. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (cfius), America’s inbound investment watchdog, has grown bigger and tougher in recent years. Similar rules have proliferated globally, meaning dealmakers must navigate an expanding definition of national security and patchwork of regulations.

Nippon’s attempt to buy us Steel marks a watershed moment in this regard. The national-security rationale for blocking the acquisition of the steelmaker by a competitor from Japan is flimsy, and opposition to the deal has more to do with its presence in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Bosses will have few reasons to think that future dealmaking will be treated more objectively. And so fewer of them will be rushing to get their cheque-books out. <<

Wait I have an issue right off the break on this piece though don't deny that M&A often dilutes shareholder value it does often but mainly becuase execution never looks like it plays out in the pitchbook deck.

But....AOL/TW, A disaster for TW shareholders, but it was exactly what Steve Case or any CEO should do when they have overvalued stock. Issue shares, trade it for tangible assets, etc. AOL was a POS business ultimately but it's shareholders traded air for a ton of true valued IP and hard assets. So only one side of that deal messed up. There was no hubris on the part of AOL. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. What'd Yahoo sharholders get ultimately? If not for thier investment in Alibaba it would've been zero by comparison.

Yep. I still don’t understand why Illumina offered $8 billion for something trading at $400 million. I bought some Grail stock for that reason.

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

There is no M&A activity any longer? I figured if someone put a $8 billion valuation on something trading at $400 million, there may be some upside. I don’t need 20x. turd, I would settle for 2x.

[Farfromgeneva]

>> What has killed the mega-deal? One theory is that executives have learned from previous value-obliterating adventures. According to a literature review by Geoff and J. Gay Meeks of Cambridge University only a fifth of studies conclude that the average deal produces higher combined profits or increases the wealth of the acquirer’s shareholders. The purchase of Time Warner for a jawdropping $165bn by aol, an internet firm pumped up by the dotcom bubble, in 2001 is taught to business school students as an example of hubristic dealmaking par excellence. In 2007 txu, an American utility firm, was gobbled up in the largest-ever leveraged buy-out, but filed for bankruptcy less than seven years later.

This explanation underestimates the financial rewards bosses reap from running giant firms, however, and overestimates how much time they spend studying the past. Some executives are destined to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, or at least decide that the best way of correcting them is to strike even more deals. Warner Bros Discovery, an American media giant formed in April 2022 through the merger of Discovery and WarnerMedia, the heir to Time Warner, is already rumoured to be mulling a breakup. On September 5th Verizon, a telecoms giant which shares a common corporate ancestry with at&t, WarnerMedia’s previous owner, said it would pay $20bn for Frontier, acquiring assets it sold only in 2016.

A better explanation is that would-be empire builders face more scepticism from investors than they did in the past. Sprawling global conglomerates are thoroughly unfashionable. General Electric, an industrial icon, completed a split into three separate companies earlier this year. Vodafone, which pulled off another of the largest takeovers in history when it acquired Mannesmann in 2000, is today meekly selling off its operations. The technology firms that have replaced the financial, industrial and communications empires as the world’s most valuable companies have not shown the same willingness to risk their business on big, adventurous tie-ups. Big tech’s most important dealmaking moves today involve comparatively small investments in artificial-intelligence startups.

Another, even more potent, brake on mega-deals is politics. Suspicion of big companies across the political spectrum has led to more radical and less predictable thinking on antitrust. Even when firms do prevail in legal scuffles with regulators, as Microsoft did in its $69bn acquisition of Activision, they face lengthy periods of uncertainty between signing and completing transactions, making them less likely to pursue deals in the first place. Microsoft’s acquisition of the video-game developer took nearly 21 months. The tie-up between Kroger and Albertsons will soon commiserate its second birthday without completing.

The bar for cross-border deals has also gone up. National security is at least as potent a threat to such mergers as antitrust worries. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (cfius), America’s inbound investment watchdog, has grown bigger and tougher in recent years. Similar rules have proliferated globally, meaning dealmakers must navigate an expanding definition of national security and patchwork of regulations.

Nippon’s attempt to buy us Steel marks a watershed moment in this regard. The national-security rationale for blocking the acquisition of the steelmaker by a competitor from Japan is flimsy, and opposition to the deal has more to do with its presence in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Bosses will have few reasons to think that future dealmaking will be treated more objectively. And so fewer of them will be rushing to get their cheque-books out. <<

Wait I have an issue right off the break on this piece though don't deny that M&A often dilutes shareholder value it does often but mainly becuase execution never looks like it plays out in the pitchbook deck.

But....AOL/TW, A disaster for TW shareholders, but it was exactly what Steve Case or any CEO should do when they have overvalued stock. Issue shares, trade it for tangible assets, etc. AOL was a POS business ultimately but it's shareholders traded air for a ton of true valued IP and hard assets. So only one side of that deal messed up. There was no hubris on the part of AOL. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. What'd Yahoo sharholders get ultimately? If not for thier investment in Alibaba it would've been zero by comparison.

Yep. I still don’t understand why Illumina offered $8 billion for something trading at $400 million. I bought some Grail stock for that reason.

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

There is no M&A activity any longer? I figured if someone put a $8 billion valuation on something trading at $400 million, there may be some upside. I don’t need 20x. turd, I would settle for 2x.

What kids and others don’t get even with MBAs often is IRRs don’t mean Ish. It’s all about MOIC (multiple on invested capital).

[a fan]

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

Can you share why?

And why is MOIC more important in your view?

TIA

[old salt]

Lobbying is one of the reasons are healthcare system is the world’s most expensive. Lobbyists also direct or help direct campaign contributions which flow heavilybin healthcare. There was a time before big money was permitted the lobbyists did help educate but thst has long since evolved. I once was part of a video made on lobbying for the banking industry. I would not now.

Yep.

OS is asking the .gov to step in and FORCE insurers to carry a product that OBVIOUSLY isn't cost effective.

Because if the tests were cost effective? Insurers would JUMP at the chance to lower their costs.

Instead, if it's forced on them, and Illumina has a monopoly on the product? Now patients are on the hook for lining Old Salt's pockets.

Best part is that Old Salt has unwillingly educated the forum as to how monopolies work in America, why they make, in this case, American Health Care the most expensive in the world....while at the same time, not the best outcome.

It's all about directing our money to the .01%ers on a crooked playing field.

So long -- I'm done playing your game. It is not possible to have a dialogue with someone who insists on twisting, misrepresenting, putting words in other peoples mouths, & presuming to know what other people think or believe. You dishonestly ignored what I wrote that the cancer test must be cost effective before it is covered or a mandated benefit. You know nothing about Illimina & the good works they have done. Do you think that Obama, Gates & Bezos would front for a monopoly that makes American Health Care the most expensive in the world without the best outcomes ? Even the EU's High Court ruled that the merger should not have been blocked. As TLD pointed out, ILMN offered $8B to acquire GRAL, which has a market cap of $394m. Nice work Madame Khan, now that you've blocked this monopolistic merger, Illumina's competitors have not stepped up to help bring the test to market.

https://www.illumina.com/company/news-c ... 3c0c7.html

https://centuryofbio.com/p/illumina

[Typical Lax Dad]

Lobbying is one of the reasons are healthcare system is the world’s most expensive. Lobbyists also direct or help direct campaign contributions which flow heavilybin healthcare. There was a time before big money was permitted the lobbyists did help educate but thst has long since evolved. I once was part of a video made on lobbying for the banking industry. I would not now.

Yep.

OS is asking the .gov to step in and FORCE insurers to carry a product that OBVIOUSLY isn't cost effective.

Because if the tests were cost effective? Insurers would JUMP at the chance to lower their costs.

Instead, if it's forced on them, and Illumina has a monopoly on the product? Now patients are on the hook for lining Old Salt's pockets.

Best part is that Old Salt has unwillingly educated the forum as to how monopolies work in America, why they make, in this case, American Health Care the most expensive in the world....while at the same time, not the best outcome.

It's all about directing our money to the .01%ers on a crooked playing field.

So long -- I'm done playing your game. It is not possible to have a dialogue with someone who insists on twisting, misrepresenting, putting words in other peoples mouths, & presuming to know what other people think or believe. You dishonestly ignored what I wrote that the cancer test must be cost effective before it is covered or a mandated benefit. You know nothing about Illimina & the good works they have done. Do you think that Obama, Gates & Bezos would front for a monopoly that makes American Health Care the most expensive in the world without the best outcomes ? Even the EU's High Court ruled that the merger should not have been blocked. As TLD pointed out, ILMN offered $8B to acquire GRAL, which has a market cap of $394m. Nice work Madame Khan, now that you've blocked this monopolistic merger, Illumina's competitors have not stepped up to help bring the test to market.

https://www.illumina.com/company/news-c ... 3c0c7.html

https://centuryofbio.com/p/illumina

Not sure an $8 billion offer is justifiable economically unless the folks at Illumina knows something nobody else knows:

Compare GRAIL to Competitors

Freenome Logo
Freenome
Freenome serves as a biotechnology company focused on early cancer detection through advanced diagnostic tools. The company develops blood tests that identify early signs of cancer by analyzing biomarkers from tumor and non-tumor sources using a multiomics platform. These tests are designed to be non-invasive and accessible, aiming to detect various types of cancer at its most treatable stages. It was founded in 2014 and is based in South San Francisco, California.
2
20/20 GeneSystems
20/20 GeneSystems is a company focused on modernizing clinical lab testing, primarily in the healthcare and biotechnology sectors. The company offers diagnostic tests that aid in the fight against cancer and COVID-19, utilizing machine learning and real-world data to provide comprehensive testing services. Their main offerings include a blood test that combines the results of multiple cancer biomarker tests to calculate a probability score for different types of cancers, and a range of COVID-19 testing services. It is based in Rockville, Maryland.
Owlstone Medical Logo
Owlstone Medical
Owlstone Medical specializes in breath analysis technology for precision medicine and early disease detection within the healthcare sector. The company offers non-invasive diagnostics through the detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath, providing tools for biomarker research and breath biopsy sample collection and analysis. It was founded in 2004 and is based in Cambridge,United Kingdom.
L
Liquid Genomics
Liquid Genomics monitors patient therapy via blood-based molecular testing. Blood based testing is used to detect and quantify cancer gene mutations with high sensitivity using Digital PCR and or Allele Specific Blocker PCR for blood or tissue.
A
Accuragen
Accuragen is a company focused on the development of cancer diagnostics technology in the healthcare sector. The company's main service is the development of liquid biopsy technology, which is a non-invasive alternative to tissue biopsy, used for DNA and RNA sequencing to determine a patient's optimal treatment plan. Accuragen primarily sells to the healthcare industry, specifically in the field of cancer treatment. It is based in Menlo Park, California.
O
OncoTAB
OncoTAB is a biotechnology company focused on improving the quality of cancer care. The company'

[a fan]

So long -- I'm done playing your game. It is not possible to have a dialogue with someone who insists on twisting, misrepresenting, putting words in other peoples mouths, & presuming to know what other people think or believe.

I quoted you DIRECTLY. Every word.

YOU told us that the entire reason they needed the merger was to use massive lobbying money to FORCE (again, YOUR words) "Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare" to pick up the cancer test.

Not me, not TLD. YOU WROTE THAT.

Now you want to come back and gaslight us, and tell us that you didn't write that. YOU are the one who brought up lobbying to force insurers to carry the test, OS. You and no one else. Don't yell at me over what YOU wrote.

you dishonestly ignored what I wrote that the cancer test must be cost effective before it is covered or a mandated benefit.

No, you didn't.

You're now pretending to be so stupid, that you don't understand what the phrase "cost effective" means.

Dude: if the test is cost effective, as I already told you, insurers would have picked up the test MONTHS ago.

Because if it lowers an insurers cost (the definition of cost effective), they would be idiots not to carry the test.

So what does that mean? Follow the logic: obviously, the cancer test is NOT cost effective.

Don't yell at me for quoting you, and using simple logic. This test isn't what YOU claim it is....it's NOT cost effective.

Nice work Madame Khan, now that you've blocked this monopolistic merger, Illumina's competitors have not stepped up to help bring the test to market.

What competitors? They own 80% of the market. Remember?

Something that YOU insist is a good thing.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So long -- I'm done playing your game. It is not possible to have a dialogue with someone who insists on twisting, misrepresenting, putting words in other peoples mouths, & presuming to know what other people think or believe.

I quoted you DIRECTLY. Every word.

YOU told us that the entire reason they needed the merger was to use massive lobbying money to FORCE (again, YOUR words) "Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare" to pick up the cancer test.

Not me, not TLD. YOU WROTE THAT.

Now you want to come back and gaslight us, and tell us that you didn't write that. YOU are the one who brought up lobbying to force insurers to carry the test, OS. You and no one else. Don't yell at me over what YOU wrote.

you dishonestly ignored what I wrote that the cancer test must be cost effective before it is covered or a mandated benefit.

No, you didn't.

You're now pretending to be so stupid, that you don't understand what the phrase "cost effective" means.

Dude: if the test is cost effective, as I already told you, insurers would have picked up the test MONTHS ago.

Because if it lowers an insurers cost (the definition of cost effective), they would be idiots not to carry the test.

So what does that mean? Follow the logic: obviously, the cancer test is NOT cost effective.

Don't yell at me for quoting you, and using simple logic. This test isn't what YOU claim it is....it's NOT cost effective.

Nice work Madame Khan, now that you've blocked this monopolistic merger, Illumina's competitors have not stepped up to help bring the test to market.

What competitors? They own 80% of the market. Remember?

Something that YOU insist is a good thing.

My wife knows nothing about finance but she knows Illumina well. She has been using their DNA sequencing products for years. She said everyone uses their products.

https://centuryofbio.com/p/illumina

[Farfromgeneva]

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

Can you share why?

And why is MOIC more important in your view?

TIA

Just this admin is more into killing deals. Not a comment on my view (I think they are right to want more anticompetitive enforcement but I think Khans approach is a soon to be failed academic/abstractions wet dream that doesn’t function in reality). To bet on a closing of a deal at price agreed to is dangerous compared with admins where deals are “waived in”. Nobody makes money betting on deals failing long term but in suppose you could take an occasional shot on that side within this admin but the general strategy is tot ale the spread between current value and agreed value exchange at a closing. Not betting both ways hence a tighter enforcement makes it a tougher trade. (Like trying to be an agency debenture prop trader in a flat zero rate yield curve, no upside margin lots of downside)

IRRs have to be reinvested in the same vehicle and same environment which isn’t replicable. It’s a modeling convention. Of course playing with $100 MOIC and IRR don’t matter but for folks using those terms. I can bang you some nice IRRs in turd vehicles but if you took $500k or $1mm to $560 or $1.18mm that’s cool but it didn’t change your life. When you take that $500k to 1.5 or 2x that’s a managing change. (there modeling Methodology problems and should use “modified IRR” instead and a bunch of quantitative issues I’ll set aside)

[Farfromgeneva]

I wouldn’t play any merger arb games under this admin.

Can you share why?

And why is MOIC more important in your view?

TIA

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/r ... te-equity/

Maximizing Returns: Understanding MOIC in Private Equity
CFI Team
In finance, where profitability and returns reign supreme, few metrics hold as much interest and significance as MOIC—the Multiple on Invested Capital. For those immersed in the world of private equity, MOIC is more than just an acronym—it’s a barometer of investment success across common performance metrics and a driving force behind informed financial decisions.

MOIC in Private Equity

This article will unpack the intricacies of MOIC, explore its significance in the context of private equity, and shed light on its role in assessing the performance of investments.

Unveiling MOIC: A Primer

MOIC, the abbreviation for Multiple on Invested Capital, serves as a widely accepted measure to quantify the returns generated from an investment relative to the amount of capital initially invested.

It’s a fundamental performance metric in the realm of private equity—a domain characterized by strategic investments, capital injections, and a focus on optimizing investor returns over a specified time horizon. MOIC is usually synonymous with the terms “cash-on-cash” and “multiple-on-money (MoM)”.

Deconstructing MOIC: The Formula

At its core, the MOIC formula is elegantly simple, yet its implications are profound. The formula calculates the ratio of the total value realized from an investment to the initial amount of capital invested or the total investment amount. Mathematically, it can be expressed as:

MOIC = Total Value / Invested Capital

The “Total Value” in this equation represents the sum of all cash inflows, including profits and distributions, generated from the investment portfolio.

On the other hand, “Invested Capital” refers to the initial investment, which encompasses both the paid-in capital and the total initial investment.

MOIC’s Role in Private Equity

Private equity, a distinct asset class that revolves around investments in privately held companies, has garnered immense investor popularity due to its potential for high returns.

A private equity company raises funds from various investors, known as limited partners, to make strategic investments in organizations with high growth potential. These investments are characterized by an initial capital infusion, which kickstarts a dynamic interplay of multiple financial strategies aimed at optimizing returns.

Unlocking MOIC’s Significance

As private equity investments unfold, the ultimate goal is to realize returns that significantly surpass the initial capital invested. This is where MOIC takes center stage. A net MOIC value greater than 1 indicates that the investment has yielded positive returns, while a net MOIC less than 1 signifies that the investment has not yet recouped its initial capital.

Regarding performance metrics, MOIC stands alongside other common measures, such as the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), to provide investors with a holistic view of investment performance. While IRR considers the time value of money and the timing of cash flows, MOIC focuses exclusively on the relationship between the realized value and the initial invested capital.

Calculating MOIC: An Illustration

Let’s delve into a hypothetical scenario to better understand MOIC calculation:

Imagine a private equity firm investing $1 million as the initial investment in a growing technology company. Over time, the company experienced substantial growth and attracted a series of cash inflows, including profits and distributions. The value realized from these cash inflows amounts to $3 million.

Using the MOIC formula, we can calculate:

MOIC = Total Value / Invested Capital: $3,000,000 / $1,000,000 = 3.0x

This implies that for every dollar initially invested, the private equity firm generated $3 in returns. A MOIC of 3.0x is indicative of a profitable investment that has tripled the initial capital.

MOIC vs. IRR: A Comparative Analysis

While MOIC and IRR are both integral to assessing investment performance, they approach the task from different angles. IRR considers the time value of money, incorporating the timing of cash flows to arrive at an annualized rate of return.

On the other hand, MOIC takes a straightforward approach, measuring the relationship between the total and net present value of realized proceeds and invested capital.

The Dynamics of MOIC and IRR

It’s worth noting that MOIC and the IRR calculation can sometimes offer divergent perspectives on investing performance. A scenario where MOIC is high but the IRR calculation is low might suggest that most returns are concentrated toward the end of the investment horizon.

Conversely, a high IRR and a low MOIC could indicate that the investment generated quick returns but did not multiply the initial capital significantly.

MOIC’s Influence on Decision-Making

When investors and private equity firms assess potential investments, MOIC is a pivotal factor in making informed decisions about alternative investments. A high MOIC signifies the potential for substantial returns, reflecting the ability of an investment to multiply the initial capital. Conversely, a low MOIC might indicate that an investment is struggling to generate returns proportional to the invested capital.

Factors Impacting MOIC

Several other factors also influence the MOIC of an investment:

1. Investment Performance

The primary driver of MOIC is the performance of the investment. High growth, strong profits, and timely distributions contribute to a higher MOIC.

2. Time Horizon

An investment with a longer holding period tends to have higher MOIC values, as they provide more time for value creation.

3. Fees and Expenses

The deduction of fees and expenses can reduce the total value realized, impacting MOIC.

4. Exit Strategy

The method and timing of exiting an investment play a crucial role in determining MOIC. A well-timed exit can lead to higher multiples.

5. Market Conditions

The broader economic and market conditions can influence both the total value realized and the initial investment, thereby affecting MOIC.

MOIC’s Role in Calculating Investment Returns

In the world of private equity funds, where capital infusion fuels growth and profitability, MOIC stands as a pillar of investment success. As private equity firms meticulously calculate MOIC and evaluate other performance metrics, they pave the way for informed investment decisions. MOIC is essential to unlocking value and transforming investments into vehicles of wealth generation and valuable returns.

Additional Resources

Cash on Cash Return

Exit Strategy

Private Equity vs Venture Capital, Angel/Seed Investors

ROIC

See all wealth management resources

[Farfromgeneva]

Lobbying is one of the reasons are healthcare system is the world’s most expensive. Lobbyists also direct or help direct campaign contributions which flow heavilybin healthcare. There was a time before big money was permitted the lobbyists did help educate but thst has long since evolved. I once was part of a video made on lobbying for the banking industry. I would not now.

Yep.

OS is asking the .gov to step in and FORCE insurers to carry a product that OBVIOUSLY isn't cost effective.

Because if the tests were cost effective? Insurers would JUMP at the chance to lower their costs.

Instead, if it's forced on them, and Illumina has a monopoly on the product? Now patients are on the hook for lining Old Salt's pockets.

Best part is that Old Salt has unwillingly educated the forum as to how monopolies work in America, why they make, in this case, American Health Care the most expensive in the world....while at the same time, not the best outcome.

It's all about directing our money to the .01%ers on a crooked playing field.

So long -- I'm done playing your game. It is not possible to have a dialogue with someone who insists on twisting, misrepresenting, putting words in other peoples mouths, & presuming to know what other people think or believe. You dishonestly ignored what I wrote that the cancer test must be cost effective before it is covered or a mandated benefit. You know nothing about Illimina & the good works they have done. Do you think that Obama, Gates & Bezos would front for a monopoly that makes American Health Care the most expensive in the world without the best outcomes ? Even the EU's High Court ruled that the merger should not have been blocked. As TLD pointed out, ILMN offered $8B to acquire GRAL, which has a market cap of $394m. Nice work Madame Khan, now that you've blocked this monopolistic merger, Illumina's competitors have not stepped up to help bring the test to market.

https://www.illumina.com/company/news-c ... 3c0c7.html

https://centuryofbio.com/p/illumina

Not sure an $8 billion offer is justifiable economically unless the folks at Illumina knows something nobody else knows:

Compare GRAIL to Competitors

Freenome Logo
Freenome
Freenome serves as a biotechnology company focused on early cancer detection through advanced diagnostic tools. The company develops blood tests that identify early signs of cancer by analyzing biomarkers from tumor and non-tumor sources using a multiomics platform. These tests are designed to be non-invasive and accessible, aiming to detect various types of cancer at its most treatable stages. It was founded in 2014 and is based in South San Francisco, California.
2
20/20 GeneSystems
20/20 GeneSystems is a company focused on modernizing clinical lab testing, primarily in the healthcare and biotechnology sectors. The company offers diagnostic tests that aid in the fight against cancer and COVID-19, utilizing machine learning and real-world data to provide comprehensive testing services. Their main offerings include a blood test that combines the results of multiple cancer biomarker tests to calculate a probability score for different types of cancers, and a range of COVID-19 testing services. It is based in Rockville, Maryland.
Owlstone Medical Logo
Owlstone Medical
Owlstone Medical specializes in breath analysis technology for precision medicine and early disease detection within the healthcare sector. The company offers non-invasive diagnostics through the detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath, providing tools for biomarker research and breath biopsy sample collection and analysis. It was founded in 2004 and is based in Cambridge,United Kingdom.
L
Liquid Genomics
Liquid Genomics monitors patient therapy via blood-based molecular testing. Blood based testing is used to detect and quantify cancer gene mutations with high sensitivity using Digital PCR and or Allele Specific Blocker PCR for blood or tissue.
A
Accuragen
Accuragen is a company focused on the development of cancer diagnostics technology in the healthcare sector. The company's main service is the development of liquid biopsy technology, which is a non-invasive alternative to tissue biopsy, used for DNA and RNA sequencing to determine a patient's optimal treatment plan. Accuragen primarily sells to the healthcare industry, specifically in the field of cancer treatment. It is based in Menlo Park, California.
O
OncoTAB
OncoTAB is a biotechnology company focused on improving the quality of cancer care. The company'

They’ve got to at least have a HLZ or somebody fairness opinion or similar analysis for bidder-it is illegal to toss bogus bids around so they can at least appear up a justificaiton I’m sure.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Lobbying is one of the reasons are healthcare system is the world’s most expensive. Lobbyists also direct or help direct campaign contributions which flow heavilybin healthcare. There was a time before big money was permitted the lobbyists did help educate but thst has long since evolved. I once was part of a video made on lobbying for the banking industry. I would not now.

Yep.

OS is asking the .gov to step in and FORCE insurers to carry a product that OBVIOUSLY isn't cost effective.

Because if the tests were cost effective? Insurers would JUMP at the chance to lower their costs.

Instead, if it's forced on them, and Illumina has a monopoly on the product? Now patients are on the hook for lining Old Salt's pockets.

Best part is that Old Salt has unwillingly educated the forum as to how monopolies work in America, why they make, in this case, American Health Care the most expensive in the world....while at the same time, not the best outcome.

It's all about directing our money to the .01%ers on a crooked playing field.

So long -- I'm done playing your game. It is not possible to have a dialogue with someone who insists on twisting, misrepresenting, putting words in other peoples mouths, & presuming to know what other people think or believe. You dishonestly ignored what I wrote that the cancer test must be cost effective before it is covered or a mandated benefit. You know nothing about Illimina & the good works they have done. Do you think that Obama, Gates & Bezos would front for a monopoly that makes American Health Care the most expensive in the world without the best outcomes ? Even the EU's High Court ruled that the merger should not have been blocked. As TLD pointed out, ILMN offered $8B to acquire GRAL, which has a market cap of $394m. Nice work Madame Khan, now that you've blocked this monopolistic merger, Illumina's competitors have not stepped up to help bring the test to market.

https://www.illumina.com/company/news-c ... 3c0c7.html

https://centuryofbio.com/p/illumina

Not sure an $8 billion offer is justifiable economically unless the folks at Illumina knows something nobody else knows:

Compare GRAIL to Competitors

Freenome Logo
Freenome
Freenome serves as a biotechnology company focused on early cancer detection through advanced diagnostic tools. The company develops blood tests that identify early signs of cancer by analyzing biomarkers from tumor and non-tumor sources using a multiomics platform. These tests are designed to be non-invasive and accessible, aiming to detect various types of cancer at its most treatable stages. It was founded in 2014 and is based in South San Francisco, California.
2
20/20 GeneSystems
20/20 GeneSystems is a company focused on modernizing clinical lab testing, primarily in the healthcare and biotechnology sectors. The company offers diagnostic tests that aid in the fight against cancer and COVID-19, utilizing machine learning and real-world data to provide comprehensive testing services. Their main offerings include a blood test that combines the results of multiple cancer biomarker tests to calculate a probability score for different types of cancers, and a range of COVID-19 testing services. It is based in Rockville, Maryland.
Owlstone Medical Logo
Owlstone Medical
Owlstone Medical specializes in breath analysis technology for precision medicine and early disease detection within the healthcare sector. The company offers non-invasive diagnostics through the detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath, providing tools for biomarker research and breath biopsy sample collection and analysis. It was founded in 2004 and is based in Cambridge,United Kingdom.
L
Liquid Genomics
Liquid Genomics monitors patient therapy via blood-based molecular testing. Blood based testing is used to detect and quantify cancer gene mutations with high sensitivity using Digital PCR and or Allele Specific Blocker PCR for blood or tissue.
A
Accuragen
Accuragen is a company focused on the development of cancer diagnostics technology in the healthcare sector. The company's main service is the development of liquid biopsy technology, which is a non-invasive alternative to tissue biopsy, used for DNA and RNA sequencing to determine a patient's optimal treatment plan. Accuragen primarily sells to the healthcare industry, specifically in the field of cancer treatment. It is based in Menlo Park, California.
O
OncoTAB
OncoTAB is a biotechnology company focused on improving the quality of cancer care. The company'

They’ve got to at least have a HLZ or somebody fairness opinion or similar analysis for bidder-it is illegal to toss bogus bids around so they can at least appear up a justificaiton I’m sure.

I would love to see the assumptions that got them to an $8 billion valuation. The addressable market is huge but not orphaned. So they would not get the kind of runway an orphan drug company would have and they would have to be fairly certain competition won’t come in and usurp their market position….the Illumina business is already moated but the space Grail is in is less defined. They could get the value if they foreclose competition, for sure.

[Farfromgeneva]

Lobbying is one of the reasons are healthcare system is the world’s most expensive. Lobbyists also direct or help direct campaign contributions which flow heavilybin healthcare. There was a time before big money was permitted the lobbyists did help educate but thst has long since evolved. I once was part of a video made on lobbying for the banking industry. I would not now.

Yep.

OS is asking the .gov to step in and FORCE insurers to carry a product that OBVIOUSLY isn't cost effective.

Because if the tests were cost effective? Insurers would JUMP at the chance to lower their costs.

Instead, if it's forced on them, and Illumina has a monopoly on the product? Now patients are on the hook for lining Old Salt's pockets.

Best part is that Old Salt has unwillingly educated the forum as to how monopolies work in America, why they make, in this case, American Health Care the most expensive in the world....while at the same time, not the best outcome.

It's all about directing our money to the .01%ers on a crooked playing field.

So long -- I'm done playing your game. It is not possible to have a dialogue with someone who insists on twisting, misrepresenting, putting words in other peoples mouths, & presuming to know what other people think or believe. You dishonestly ignored what I wrote that the cancer test must be cost effective before it is covered or a mandated benefit. You know nothing about Illimina & the good works they have done. Do you think that Obama, Gates & Bezos would front for a monopoly that makes American Health Care the most expensive in the world without the best outcomes ? Even the EU's High Court ruled that the merger should not have been blocked. As TLD pointed out, ILMN offered $8B to acquire GRAL, which has a market cap of $394m. Nice work Madame Khan, now that you've blocked this monopolistic merger, Illumina's competitors have not stepped up to help bring the test to market.

https://www.illumina.com/company/news-c ... 3c0c7.html

https://centuryofbio.com/p/illumina

Not sure an $8 billion offer is justifiable economically unless the folks at Illumina knows something nobody else knows:

Compare GRAIL to Competitors

Freenome Logo
Freenome
Freenome serves as a biotechnology company focused on early cancer detection through advanced diagnostic tools. The company develops blood tests that identify early signs of cancer by analyzing biomarkers from tumor and non-tumor sources using a multiomics platform. These tests are designed to be non-invasive and accessible, aiming to detect various types of cancer at its most treatable stages. It was founded in 2014 and is based in South San Francisco, California.
2
20/20 GeneSystems
20/20 GeneSystems is a company focused on modernizing clinical lab testing, primarily in the healthcare and biotechnology sectors. The company offers diagnostic tests that aid in the fight against cancer and COVID-19, utilizing machine learning and real-world data to provide comprehensive testing services. Their main offerings include a blood test that combines the results of multiple cancer biomarker tests to calculate a probability score for different types of cancers, and a range of COVID-19 testing services. It is based in Rockville, Maryland.
Owlstone Medical Logo
Owlstone Medical
Owlstone Medical specializes in breath analysis technology for precision medicine and early disease detection within the healthcare sector. The company offers non-invasive diagnostics through the detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in breath, providing tools for biomarker research and breath biopsy sample collection and analysis. It was founded in 2004 and is based in Cambridge,United Kingdom.
L
Liquid Genomics
Liquid Genomics monitors patient therapy via blood-based molecular testing. Blood based testing is used to detect and quantify cancer gene mutations with high sensitivity using Digital PCR and or Allele Specific Blocker PCR for blood or tissue.
A
Accuragen
Accuragen is a company focused on the development of cancer diagnostics technology in the healthcare sector. The company's main service is the development of liquid biopsy technology, which is a non-invasive alternative to tissue biopsy, used for DNA and RNA sequencing to determine a patient's optimal treatment plan. Accuragen primarily sells to the healthcare industry, specifically in the field of cancer treatment. It is based in Menlo Park, California.
O
OncoTAB
OncoTAB is a biotechnology company focused on improving the quality of cancer care. The company'

They’ve got to at least have a HLZ or somebody fairness opinion or similar analysis for bidder-it is illegal to toss bogus bids around so they can at least appear up a justificaiton I’m sure.

I would love to see the assumptions that got them to an $8 billion valuation. The addressable market is huge but not orphaned. So they would not get the kind of runway an orphan drug company would have and they would have to be fairly certain competition won’t come in and usurp their market position….the Illumina business is already moated but the space Grail is in is less defined. They could get the value if they foreclose competition, for sure.

I’m sure there’s numerous Illumina shareholder lawsuits in process already not following that specific deal at all.

Then they just chatted with Cathy Wood and she’s long that name.