cant beat em? join em.

Started by caligas
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
C

caligas

Full Member
Verified Member
10+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
If amcs are going to hurt my income, im hedging by buying equities. I really like Mednax (MD on the nyse). They own american anesthesiology are are buying up practices left and right. Anybody else buying amc stocks?
 
Nope. I don't need to give 'em more fuel to use against us.
That's just a personal move though. I shouldn't be emotioanl when buying/selling stocks... but I'm not buying this one.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
There is a fairly infamous anti-trust lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court in 1984. It had to do with two aspects of the Sherman anti-trust regulations, the first part which prevents competition and the second part which has to do with tying of services. Essentially the ruling at the Supreme court level was that an anesthesia practice could have an exclusive contract with the hospital as it did not violate this part of unfair marketshare and weeding out potential competition. (Google Jefferson Parrish Hospital v. Hyde).

I'm no longer sure this is the case.

With the explosion (and thats the only word) of AMCs and the decrease of competition for market pricing in particular healthcare markets, they may in fact now be violating the first part of the Sherman antitrust laws regardless of the tying aspects. It would be interesting to see if, say, an anesthesiologist who lives in an area and wants to work at a particular hospital with a particular set of surgeons who are unhappy with the crappy intra-op care their patients are tied to by having to deal with these AMCs could win such a case. (It is my understanding that this a similar model that already exists in the San Antonio area with particular anesthesiologists working with certain surgeons directly.)

I'm not saying this is the best solution or the most economically viable way to do things for individual anesthesiologists. It certainly would involve litigation and these AMCs have the resources and deep pockets to battle it. Also the current composition of the courts may not be favorable to such a challenge. But I'm suggesting that the way these big AMCs operate as relative oligopolies may present a unique legal avenue of recourse for anesthesiologists in anti-trust litigation. It all depends on what you're willing to fight for, I guess.
 
pgg said:
No thanks. Stock picking is generally a losing proposition., and there are additional diversification risks when you invest in the industry/company your paycheck comes from.
Click to expand...

True. Might not really be a hedge since an AMC can hurt my practice but still lose money itself.
 
pgg said:
No thanks. Stock picking is generally a losing proposition., and there are additional diversification risks when you invest in the industry/company your paycheck comes from.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. Stock picking is NOT generally a losing proposition if you know what you're doing. The problem is that most people on here don't have the time to know what they are doing nor have the resources to get the information they need.
 
+1 for nixing the stock picking. Save well, max your tax-protected accounts first, invest in low-cost total market funds and an appropriate amount of bonds/fixed income.
 
cognitus said:
This is wrong. Stock picking is NOT generally a losing proposition if you know what you're doing. The problem is that most people on here don't have the time to know what they are doing nor have the resources to get the information they need.
Click to expand...
Disagree. We're all scientists here and the data is compelling: stock picking is a losing proposition, and nobody knows anything (except the inside traders who know something and illegally apply it). It's a trap for egos fuelled by bull markets when everyone's winning regardless of strategy.
 
Health care ETFs are fairly robust safer choices than individual stocks with low cost/lower risk (than individual stocks).
 
pgg said:
Disagree. We're all scientists here and the data is compelling: stock picking is a losing proposition, and nobody knows anything (except the inside traders who know something and illegally apply it). It's a trap for egos fuelled by bull markets when everyone's winning regardless of strategy.
Click to expand...
Stock picking is WAY more than knowing the science. It's being able to properly assess risk and determine how much of it is in the stock price. You can get some of that from talking to other investors. You can also get some of that if you've taken a few finance courses. However, that's way easier when you manage millions of dollars and have access to sell side wall street analysts and company management.
 
cognitus said:
Stock picking is WAY more than knowing the science. It's being able to properly assess risk and determine how much of it is in the stock price. You can get some of that from talking to other investors. You can also get some of that if you've taken a few finance courses. However, that's way easier when you manage millions of dollars and have access to sell side wall street analysts and company management.
Click to expand...


Then why can't actively managed funds run by "experts" beat index funds over the long term? Even Warren Buffett says he would put his wife in index funds and bonds.
 
I have a good chunk of money in Vanguard. Not an endorsement. But you should check out their family. Buyer beware. I'm not responsible if you lose your house.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Being the market over the long term on a risk adjusted basis is an attainable goal. However the odds of it happening are very low. So low that the prudent investor should choose to manage their money passively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.