- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,449
- Reaction score
- 1,233
This thread took a turn for the unexpected...
Page 2
Page 2
Walgreens and Tech hours
- Thread starter ancienbon
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
Honestly MPD I am glad we can bury the hatchet, but I think this year will be my last in retail. Merlyn is my old Sup and to this day is one of my best friends- wen she was my CVS she stood er ground and never brought in to the corporate bull****- she was always on the side of the pharmacist.
If you have met Merlyn you may also know Misty Henderson who is a great tech. I think you will love your job- if I am not mistaken there are some pharmacist at Caremark who can work from home- if I were you I would care less about the pay cut- your peace of mind should never have a price. Again you never know what the future may hold- one day you and I MPD might be at the same job laughing about our forum battles on SDN.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2010
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction score
- 40
:cry: There is a God!
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
You should cross over! They have a couple prior auth pharmacists slots open. Merlyn would be your sup again. We would have cubes right across from each other!
The pay cut was a little more than I expected or wanted however the quality of life improvement is huge. 9-6 M-F no nights, weekends or holidays. Thats huge and worth alot of money.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,342
- Reaction score
- 73
How much is it worth? 80K? 90K? 100K? 110K? Plenty of pharmacists already have those hours without the paycut, like "clinical", LTAC, and LTC.
I really like my schedule and find it difficult to wrap my mind around just weekends off. Working 7on/7off retail plus weekends hospital PRN is just roughly 76 hours every 14 days.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 5
I thought when you work 7 on/7 off you work 84 hrs in 14 days?
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,342
- Reaction score
- 73
It all depends on the company.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
I would hardly say there are plenty of pharmacists working in these positions. Compared to a retail pharmacy PIC everyone of those jobs is a substantial paycut.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 5
But the paycut is worth it if you have your sanity... I envy you right now
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
I am very lucky and i will not forget it. However, I have been looking for a non-retail positon for 2 years so its not like it happened over night. I would say perseverence is the key and knowing someone. If you do not know someone you are screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 199
- Reaction score
- 2
Spoken like a boss. The bolded part is the reason I had 3 offers (including hospital) in a supersaturated area, no prior work experience, no residency straight out of school. Simply put, knowing people put me at the same level as a rho chi, pgy2 with a few years of work experience.
Congrats MPD, I have always read your posts just to gain perspective on just how good I have it even on my worst day at work ( in comparison to retail).
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Messages
- 540
- Reaction score
- 14
About 50K-60K sound right? Plus with an opportunity to move up, not a bad move.
I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling this. WAGS has cut so much tech help that it's getting to be extremely stressful and dangerous. I came home yesterday totally exhausted and in disbelief at how a company like this continues to cut hours and expects the same or better results. This company used to be the premier place to work after you graduated...top pay and great working environment. Everything has gone down the toilet in the past few years.
"premier place to work?"
that has got to be the biggest joke i have ever heard, almost insulting.
Disclaimer: i have only been involved in pharmacy for 12 years.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
Honestly when I graduated in 2002 - WAGS was the place to be- it was the Rolls Royce of the retail business- everyone talked about how they were all over the country- great advanced computer system etc- but I honestly think from a BUSINESS standpoint CVS has surpassed them and note I said from a BUSINESS standpoint- CVS merger with Caremark looks like a wise decision- it's Minute Clinic is expanding and supposedly in 10 years there's going to be a MD shortage so Minute Clinic will be booming. Even tough CVS doesn't have the greatest tech budget in the industry, but every CVS that I know that is near a WAGS the CVS is far better staffed. I honestly wish the best for WAGS because competition is good for the consumer and for techs and pharmacist as well.
I will be the last person to defend walgreens these days. It was the place to be when the walgreens family was still in charge.
As for CVS and Caremark, time will tell if it was a wise decision. Only CVS/Caremark employees buy into the euphoria of the deal. If I remember correctly, caremark suffered severely after the merger due to various conflicts of interests and to losses of contracts with many employers.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
There's an old saying that goes Men LIE Women LIE but Numbers don't - check out CVS stock numbers this year they are beating expectations- compared them to WAGS stock value- now in 2002 this was just the opposite- also WAGS stock is roughly 12 dollars lower per share than CVS and WAGS front store sales have declined both in Jan and Feb.
http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-rat...-of-america-downgrades-walgreens-to-underperf
http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-rat...grades-walgreen-from-neutral-to-sell-lowers-p
Merrill Lynch, BOA and Citigroup all expect WAGS to under perform as mentioned in those above articles and the worst has yet to come it's widely expected that the Medco/ESI merger may go through in 90 days- I will tell you this if that happens it will be the nail in the coffin for the 2 WAGS in my area.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
Are you referencing me? If so good lord that would be a little more than a pay cut. I took a 25% cut in pay. Keep in mind my former company paid the highest out of all the chains. If you worked for the next closest competitor in pay it still would have been a 20% cut in pay.
You are correct about the chance for advancement. Caremark is growing like crazy right now and the possibilities seem endless. Absolutly worth the cut in pay. The stress reduction and quality of life improment has been huge. I've only been out of retail for a week. I think about it and wonder how in the world did I do that day after day for so many years..
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
I have another old saying for you...."'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Numbers can lie my friend and they can be manipulate to say what ever you want.
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,849
- Reaction score
- 165
Numbers dont lie. Its used to support a lie. Like guns dont kill people. Its used to kill people. Damn rookie.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,869
- Reaction score
- 14
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics"
Just wait until the Caremark contract comes up for Walgreens. They will give similar rates as ESI, and Walgreens will either eat that or stop taking them as well. Walgreens will have to sue, and I am not sure they can win (not an attorney).
Plus....ESI is buying Medco. Walgreens just got into a pissing contest with a huge player with a huge coverage base. Plus Caremark can't force people to go to CVS, but they would love for them to go there.
Plus....ESI is buying Medco. Walgreens just got into a pissing contest with a huge player with a huge coverage base. Plus Caremark can't force people to go to CVS, but they would love for them to go there.
Way to skew numbers to fit your argument...lol. I expected more objective analyst from professionals (what happened to Journal Club and stuff?). The only reason CVS stock is up is because of the ESI/WAG debacle. If you look at Rite Aid, the trend is the same, if not even better. Comparing CVS stock prices in the past 6-8 months is misleading. For the past 5 years, CVS stock price was stuck below 40$, valuing whole business less than CVS and Caremark separately. Numbers don't lie, but they are often and easily twisted to fit one's argument. At least be objective in your observations...lol.
Spot on. At least this guy knows what he's talking about.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
If you ever look at my old post I clearly mentioned that WAGS made a mistake with ESI it surely has benefited CVS and the fact of the matter is CVS appears to be retaining those customers- I mentioned in an earlier thread that if WAGS and ESI kissed and made up tomorrow that I still would maintain perhaps 95% of those customers. In fact my volume per week has not changed since the fall and a large portion of it is attributed to ESI.
So how are the numbers misleading? Is it CVS fault that WAGS and ESI did not come to an agreement. Plus you act as if ESI scripts can only be filled at CVS. I have two Wal-Mart pharmacies within a 5 mile radius plus a Krogers, Minyards and about 4 independents- I assure you that no one has put a gun to these former ESI WAGS customers and told them you must go to CVS- they CHOOSE to come to us and depending on which direction they come they are either going to pass 3 pharmacies where they could have got it filled or 2 other pharmacies that accepted ESI. I am very good friends with one of the P.I.C's at the Wal-Mart in my area and he as of last week said he hasn't got too many ESI transfer and we are 3 & 1/2 months in since we started doing these transfers. So you can't say the numbers are swayed because of ESI because people had a choice to take it to other chains they were not locked into CVS.
So can you or MPD give me an example of how numbers lie? If I say Pharmacy X has been booming in sales the last 3 years- but if you were to pull the financials and see that the last 3 years Pharmacy X has been declining in script sales and declining in overall sales that would be a lie correct because the numbers indicate something else right? NUMBERS DON'T LIE!!!!!!!!
Now you and MPD may be getting this confused when someone mentions a Half-truth but my friend numbers don't lie. For example my script sales have increased each year in the last four years- my proof each of the past 4 years the total number of scripts my pharmacy has sold has increased each year- bottom line NUMBERS DON'T LIE!!!!
First of all, you don't have to be so defensively (I never blamed CVS or defended Walgreens). I'm not here to argue if bat **** is stinkier than dog ****. In the end, **** is **** (I don't care for CVS vs Wags vs Rite Aid debates). If you want to drink the koolaid, then more power to you.
However, that doesn't mean I don't call bs when I see it. I assume everyone here is at least educated so please don't try to pull a fast one over people. You clearly misrepresented data because you responded to my CVS/Caremark merger remark by posting random articles from stock analysts, basically ignoring years and years of stock data since the CVS/Caremark merger and only focusing on the recent stock move (the same appreciation can be seen in Rite Aid's stock prices). Bringing in your personal stories (your friend at Wal-mart?) is so unprofessional. Why would you even do that? That just shows how weak your point is in the first place. I could say that my friend said his friend said something else...LOL.
You've basically lost all credibility with your first post. The hidden bias is very evident, and it's obvious you're associated with CVS. Throwing out misleading quotes and articles in order to prove your point is something children do in high school... and maybe on their first journal club assignment...I honestly expected more objectivity from people with doctorate degrees.
Furthermore, I never said the PBM/Pharmacy model doesn't work; it's just not the miracle that corporate's been selling you. That's why you don't see other PBMs and pharmacies rushing to do deals like this; they saw what happened. In a way, I feel bad for Caremark because it got the bad end of the deal . It would have grown exclusively of CVS anyway, and that growth would've been even greater had the merger not happened. Again, all I said was that only time will tell if the merger was a wise move...that's all...calm down. I didn't step on your lunch.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
Dude i could care less if you think my post is misleading I only report information that I know- which is obviously my store and my area and I report on what others tell me about their locations hence the Wal-Mart pharmacist and hence other CVS pharmacies in my district that have seen increased numbers since 1-1-12.
Now YOU are the one that is going back years and years- when dd I ever say that CVS stocks were always great???? I am talking about TODAY- not YESTERYEAR or 10 years ago. Those articles I have quoted about WAGS are all THIS years figures. Now I don't know how little or much you know about the stock market but shareholders operate in real time- they could care less of how great WAGS was doing in 2002- people invest in buy stocks based on current real time expectations and this year CVS stocks are beating expectations- again NUMBERS don't LIE. And for what it's worth WAGS stocks have not been meeting expectations and once again Numbers DON't LIE. I am very happy with my
CVS stocks and if you like go buy some WAGS stocks if it makes you happy. Also, how do you figure Caremark got the bad end of the deal? Do you work for Caremark and somehow know how the deal has affected them financially? Caremark is growing in ways you won't believe(I know this because I have many friends in various roles at Caremark)- they are actually hiring both techs and pharmacist so if they got the bad end of the deal I would hate to see what happens when the deal sweetens up for them..
Also, can you tell me what misleading quotes I am throwing out? The articles clearly gave Merril Lynch, BOA, and Citigroups analysis of WAGS- are you saying the author of those articles are lying and have some type of vendetta against WAGS. Are you assuming that the loss of ESI hasn't affected WAGS bottomline or it's stock value??? Are you freaking kidding me? You can't be serious!
Here's another article that indicates that CVS stock is in the bullish Phase in which if you know anything about stocks it means it's on the upside which is good: http://www.askstockguru.com/cgi-bin/s?s=CVS
Now if Warren Buffet was confident enough to buy a large stake in CVS/Caremark stock than I think I will rest my case.
So finally YOU are the one getting defensive not me and once again I bring personal reference(s) to my post because I don't like to talk about things without having a source- now it would be misleading if I went on- here and ranted that Wal-Mart is not getting many ESI scripts- now there's only 2 ways I could possibly know that 1) If I worked for Wal-Mart and was given my own personal testimony or 2) if someone who works for Wal-Mart gave me that testimony. So that's the difference between you and I- you will make up things before you even research it- where as I will produce my sources either directly or indirectly. I report you decide.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 13,246
- Reaction score
- 201
This thread is cute 
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
Listen:
You lost all credibility with this post. Go to any Financial site and post a comparison in stock price for CVS and WAG
10 year return: CVS +170% WAG -2%
5 year return: CVS +35% WAG -25%
3 year return: CVS +70% WAG -30%
1 year return: CVS +38% WAG -18%
Finanially, CVS has outperformed Walgreens in every way and just about over every period in the last 10 years.
Please do not jump into other people's debates without actually knowing what is being argued. I never said Waglreens outperformed CVS or vice versa (I don't care, if you read my other posts). We are not even arguing that. Reading must be hard.
We were talking about the mere fact that rxnupe misrepresented data by ignoring stock prices since the CVS/Caremark merger and solely focusing on the stock's recent rise to justify the merger (which ironically has little to do with the merger but more so with ESI/WAG). That's all. Don't jump into people's arguments without reading what is being discussed. This should be common courtesy no matter what side you're on.
You are being defensive. If you look at your posts, you look like a little school girl ranting off. When did I say that ESI hasn't affected WAG's bottom line (quote me directly please)? Stop putting words in my mouth . Let me recap for you:
1. In my original post, I said that the CVS/Caremark merger wasn't as wise as some people thought.
2. You got all offended and basically responded by posting CVS's stock data for the past 6 months to justify that it was a good merger.
3. I told you that you misrepresented data by only showing 6 months and not the past prices since the merger. The recent move has nothing to do with the CVS/Caremark merger but more so with ESI/WAG. It's like using Macy's holiday sales to project full year results. It's misleading no matter how you put it.
4. Now, you realize that you've skewed data and got caught, so you are detracting from the original debate to talk about ESI and Walgreens. Why? I don't care. That wasn't what we were arguing about before.
Seriously, why are we moving the argument to ESI and Walgreens. That has nothing to do with what we discussed originally. Moreover, I don't care for your personal stories. They have no place in any debate. My friend knows a friend who knows a friend who works in upper management at Walmart agrees...lol
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
OK, this is the official call for everyone to calm down, take a deep breath and keep it civil. Thanks.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
A Blind man can see that you have a bone to pick- why are you so concerned about CVS stock? If you don't own any don't worry about it- you responded to my post not the other way out. Again, for the millionth time I posted stock value in real time and gave you the results- if you don't like what BOA, Merill Lynch, and Citigroup had to say about their analysis of WAGS than go pick a fight with those guys- or if you think I am picking on WAGS go invest and buy into their stock.
Again if you don't like the fact that I have peers who work for other chains and they give me either good or dismal news about their company at their specific location I will be glad to pass their phone numbers to you and you can pick a fight,
Now here is one question I want you to answer with either Yes or No or True or False- Is CVS stock as of today doing better than expected?????
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,342
- Reaction score
- 73
Who cares?????
1. Detracting from the original argument is sign of weakness. When did we start debating whether or not CVS is doing well? I don't get this. The original debate was over CVS/Caremark merger and whether you misrepresented data. What's the point if you keep changing your arguments?
2. I am not concerned about CVS stock prices. Rite Aid has had the same movements, if not better. Like I said, I don't like it when people skew numbers to try to prove a point thinking they can pull a fast one. The good thing about these forums is all your words can be traced back.
3. Don't make it personal. I never said I didn't like that you have peers. I just said personal stories have no place in a debate. Reading and reading comprehension are two separate but equally important skills. Also, there's no verification process for personal stories. People can say whatever they want. That's why if your argument is weak, just say that you know a friend who knows a friend in upper management who said this and that. After all, no one can prove you wrong.
4. Most importantly again, we were talking about the CVS/Caremark merger, NOTHING ELSE. Therefore, if you're going to post stock prices to prove your point that the merger was good, you should include data since the merger as well, not just the good ones. Cherry-picking data is misleading. By including just the recent run on CVS stock prices, you misrepresented data, and that has been the argument all a long. The argument was NEVER about esi/wag or if cvs is doing well.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
First, you're not my mother. Second, you are not king of the Internet. Third this is a public discussion board, people interrupt all of the time.
No he didn't. as I pointed out. CVS stock has risen over the last 10 years and that's way before the merger. In fact, until recently, the merger has been a drag on performance because the PBM was in worse shape than CVS anticipated and it took some effort to turn it around. The price of Walgreens stock is falling not just because of the lack of ESI business. In fact CVS in their projections do not count on the Walgreens ESI fight to last past the first quarter. CVS stock is rising because the Caremark side is starting to make money and the synergy of the companies is also paying off. They are doing MTM via their Pharmacy Advisor program. Unlike an independent who get's their customers one at a time in a fee for service provided model, CVS is getting their MTM business 10,000 patients at a time at a fixed price per patient. SO your whole concept is flawed and I do understand your assertion that the rise of the stock price is not due to the merger, but due to the WAGS/ESI dispute and you are not correct. You are the one who does not understand the data. The price has been on the rise for more than six months, way before the ESI/WAGS dustup.
How do you account for the fact that the CVS stock price is up 70% in the three period since the merger? Look at any stock chart and you will see the numbers do not bear you out. It's certainly rising more lately due in part to the uptick from the ESI/WAGS dispute, but that is not the main factor. The Market finally sees the reason for the merger and all parts of the business are clicking, Retail, PBM and Minute Clinic.
Last edited:
I don't want to be your mother. I thought it was common courtesy to know what is being argued before you jump in, but I expected too much. I had the courtesy to ask you to re-read people's posts so you don't look stupid by commenting on things that were never discussed originally, but obviously that's too late.
Yes, he did. He misrepresented data because he focused on the recent rise in CVS's stock to justify the merger without looking farther back. The two articles, if you had actually took the time to read, were from a few weeks ago. They cite the ESI problem as being beneficial to CVS. This has nothing to do with the CVS/Caremark merger from 2007. Using data from the last 6-8 months to project back in time and justify a merger in 2007 is misleading. He didn't look at the last 10 years like you did. That is my point.
This whole statement alone acknowledges that I am right. That's why you shouldn't cherry-pick data and only focus on the good ones. A fair analysis would include all the data since the merger, not just the recent rise.
This is not the issue being discussed. Stop making up points that I'm not contending against. Whether or not Walgreen's stock is rising or dropping is none of my concern. Whether or not CVS included those numbers in their projection is none of my concern. Stock prices do not reflect what is happening but what is expected. The market is factoring in those numbers already.
That doesn't explain why Rite Aid is also experiencing the same rise in their stocks. The more logical conclusion would be that because of the ESI/WAG debalce, CVS and Rite Aid stocks are rising. Simple cause/effect relationship. The timing correlates too. You have a larger burden of proof by claiming that all of a sudden CVS's synergy is starting to pay off. Can you explain the timing? Why now...why didn't it pay off a year ago? LOL. Please don't make me laugh. Is it coincidental then that Rite Aid's stock is rising too? Or maybe they also have synergy with a "secret" PBM that no one knows about.
I don't have to, because if you actually took the time to read before opening your mouth you would know that is not the issue being discussed. What's being discussed here is the fact that you can't just use the last 6-8 months of data on CVS stock and make a case for a merger that happened in 2007. For an objective analysis, you should include data since the merger. All you're doing is supporting my argument.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
People who work for the company and/or invest in the company that's who cares!!!!
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
What's being discussed is the fact you are a complete and total nitwit. Only you fixate on the last 6-8 months. If you read what I said, and you clearly didn't. CVS stock has been going up in every period before the Walgreens/ESI adventure. It's not like the stock was flat before that ans suddenly shot up. I did include analsys of the merger, you chose not to accept it. Caremark lost contracts, gave bad customer service and was run poorly. Once the head of Caremark was forced out and replaced and the company had time to develop products they could sell that other PBM's don't have their sales increased. They also signed a 12 billion dollar contract with Aetna and that also has nothing to do with Walgreens or ESI. The only thing that supports your argument is your imagination. Unless you put up some data from somewhere that proves your point it's just wishful thinking on your part.
The attachment is from my 401K It shows the value of a single investment in CVS stock from mid 2009 until last night. You can clearly see the rise in value has been ongoing for years except for the market dip last year. Now put up or shut up. I don't dispute that it will effect it going forward.
Also read this from the Motley Fool
Last edited:
Wow, looks like you still haven't got a clue of what we were arguing about. I feel bad because you try so hard to be involved in this conversation. You tried hard to sound smart, but it ends up being totally irrelevant.
I was calling Rxnupe out for fixating on the last 6-8 months and here you are agreeing with me. I guess you are on my side after all...thanks? LOL.
I read everything people post in response to my own remarks. I wished that you had given me the same courtesy. Calling people nitwit because you're failing at a debate makes you sound like an emotional school girl.
Since you have stooped to name-calling, let me put it in a simple way that an idiot would understand:
AGAIN, me and Rxnupe WERE NOT ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT CVS STOCK IS GOING UP OR NOT. If you are going to continue to respond please at least KNOW WHAT IS BEING ARGUED.
I CALLED HIM OUT FOR USING ONLY A HANDFUL OF DATA FROM 2012 TO JUSTIFY A MERGER THAT HAPPENED IN 2007.
I AM CALLING HIM OUT FOR DATA MISREPRESENTATION BECAUSE HE SAID NUMBERS DON'T LIE.
HE MANIPULATED DATA TO PROVE A POINT AND THOUGHT HE COULD GET AWAY.
HE GOT CAUGHT AND WAS OFFENDED
THAT IS WHAT WE WERE ARGUING ABOUT, not all that stuff you just posted. I could have easily googled all that stuff. It's IRRELEVANT. I AM SORRY THAT YOU SPENT ALL THAT TIME RESEARCHING TO TRY AND SOUND SMART, BUT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CONVERSATION. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TELLING YOU? I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO OUT AND GOOGLE MORE STUFF FOR ME. I CAN CLICK MY MOUSE TOO! LOL.
AGAIN, IRRELEVANT
IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEFEND HIM, YOU NEED TO SHOW ME THAT HE DIDN'T MANIPULATE DATA. WHAT YOU'VE DONE SO FAR BY INCLUDING PAST CVS DATA (10 YEARS) IS BASICALLY SUPPORTING MY ARGUMENT.
I have been trying to tell you this all the time, you basically haven't read all of my posts.
If the snippet of data follows a similar trend to the entire time-span, that's not misrepresenting. The value went up in the past 6 months, it went up in the past 10 years. By looking at the 6 months, you couldn't assume it was true for the past 10 years, sure. But in actuality it is true, so it is not misrepresentation. If the past 10 years were trending down, but there was a recent uptick, focusing on the recent event would be misleading. That is not what happened.
If I said "the population in China increased so far in 2012" would you be upset that I didn't tell you about the population increase in 2011, 2010, 2009, etc? How far back do you want the data to go? Nupe did 8 months, you're not happy. Oldtimer goes 10 years, which is well beyond the merger, and you're still not happy. Do you want the data since the company started?
Now you state you don't care about stock values. How else do you want to measure the success of a corporation? Maybe you could do rx count, but that's not as easy to find, and we're more concerned about finances anyway.
If I said "the population in China increased so far in 2012" would you be upset that I didn't tell you about the population increase in 2011, 2010, 2009, etc? How far back do you want the data to go? Nupe did 8 months, you're not happy. Oldtimer goes 10 years, which is well beyond the merger, and you're still not happy. Do you want the data since the company started?
Now you state you don't care about stock values. How else do you want to measure the success of a corporation? Maybe you could do rx count, but that's not as easy to find, and we're more concerned about finances anyway.
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 180
CVS/Caremark stocks are up because CVS/Caremark won a lot of major contracts on the Caremark side. While the retail side and Walgreen/ESI definitely helped... it does not explain an increase from 28 dollars to 40. So to speak, Our business did not increase 25 percent just because Walgreen stop taking express script on Jan 1st. It increased because Caremark won multi billion and a lot of million contracts from other insurance companies.
Rite Aid stocks went up because of 2 reasons. One, they are finally narrowing their loss and recovering from the accounting scandals of the 90s. It also went up a lot the last few week because there are rumors of Walgreen taking over Rite aid.
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2,106
- Reaction score
- 180
Also, Rxnupe is right. The price increase in CVS/Caremark is up not only because CVS/Caremark is gaining multi dollar billion contracts from other insurances due to low costs... but because companies are actually interested in the programs that we have and are willing to pay for it.
They are actually paying for interventions such as CSI, patient adherence rates, interventions, etc. They are not paying a lot but it is a new model that local, state, companies actively want and can only be carried out by the model that is the result from the CVS and Caremark merger.
They are actually paying for interventions such as CSI, patient adherence rates, interventions, etc. They are not paying a lot but it is a new model that local, state, companies actively want and can only be carried out by the model that is the result from the CVS and Caremark merger.
1. We're not debating that. We're debating how he misrepresented the data.
2. No one knows for sure why CVS price is going up. What makes you able to claim that? Not that I want to argue this point, but there's no way for you to prove that the recent price rise is due to "contracts." How do you explain the same rise in price for Rite Aid? Could be it both ESI/WAG and the fact that Caremark is growing? Sure, but you don't have the authority to make any of that claim, so please refrain from doing so. I mean really.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
No one on here is perfect with that said- can you please admit that you have lost this argument and bow out gracefully? The more you respond the deeper the hole you are digging for yourself - you are getting to a point where a 12 foot rope won't be able to pull you out- please stop you are wrong let's move on.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 34
Also, he answered your question on why Rite Aid is getting better than expected numbers- they are cleaning up the books and a great potential that they will be purchased by WAGS.
1. This is actually the main point of the debate (data misrepresentation), not stock prices, ESI/WAG, or if CVS/Caremark is doing well like Oldtimer is trying to argue.
2. It would be fine if the snippet of data follows a similar trend of the entire span BUT IT DOESN'T. Since the founding of CVS/Caremark (2007), you can see obvious periods of depreciation in stock prices. There was no trend but merely a range. This was during the 2008 crisis and the recent 2010 market top. So how could you say it was a trend up all this time? For every "up" period you see, I can point to a corresponding "down" period.
But this is not true...how can people go around making claims without any supporting evidence? How can you use data from 10 years ago? They were two separate companies. CVS was just CVS not CVS/Caremark. That alone is misleading. Why is that so hard to grasp? This is common sense people.
You can only compare data since 2007 because of the merger, and there was no defined trend.
This analogy is flawed. A more accurately analogy would be using Apple's recent earnings numbers, projecting back in time, to prove that Apple has had this kind of success since 2007.
The only problem is that CVS/Caremark was founded in 2007. I thought this was common knowledge. You can't compare before 2007, unless your prices adjusted for the merger (even then it is misleading because they are not the same company). Thus, it is misleading for you to use 2012 data to describe trends when the company existed as two entities before 2007. I know that Oldtimer didn't know that but I thought you at least would know that...but I guess you didn't. How can you use data for CVS/Caremark in 2012 and project trends in the past for two separate entities? I thought this was simple logic...almost common sense.
I don't care about stock values because we are not arguing over stock values. We are arguing over how someone misrepresented data to prove his point. Stock prices are what they are. How can you argue with a stock price? "A" will always equal "A" no matter what you say. CVS's stock price is what it is. I can't change it, so why would I argue that point?
Overall, nice try though.
But that rumor was just a few days ago...LOL. The rise in Rite Aid's price has been going on for months (GOING BACK TO OCTOBER). LOL...come on you gotta try harder than that.
1. They are just recovering from the scandals of the 90s? Really? And they picked just the perfect time when ESI/WAG debacle happened to recover too right? LOL.
2. The rumor was just a few days ago...that doesn't explain why Rite Aid's stock has been going up since OCTOBER (WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE EXACT POINT THAT CVS STOCKS ALSO TURNED AROUND AND HAS BEEN RISING FROM SINCE). WOW BIG COINCIDENCE? No...sorry.
Besides, how are you able to make these claims is beyond me. I don't know anyone in the financial world who would be able to make claims like this. You must have inside information that even Rite Aid execs don't know. LOL.
You have the larger burden of proof my friends. Unfortunately, you can bs all you want but you will never be able to explain the timing...LOL.
Similar threads
