Clearly there are egos involved. Clearly (Guidant) couldn't have been happy when J&J lowered their bid, claiming there had been a material change. |
For them to bid more than they originally bid would have signaled to other potential acquisitions that they didn't have the financial discipline they've always been known for. |
He was talking about elected positions. |
I can't imagine shareholders would vote against it. No one's come forward to make a counter-offer, so they better take this. |
I don't think J&J wants to walk away from the deal. I think they want a more equitable price for the company they're buying, |
I have maintained all along that J&J was paying far too much for Guidant. They would pay a higher multiple for St. Jude, but it would be a higher quality situation. |
I think that's an admission that they're trying to renegotiate the price or get some kind of concession for what is damaged property, |
I think they're pretty much as expected. |
I wouldn't be surprised if they walked away. |
It might reflect that Guidant knows that it has some troubles, and it may see a safety net here. Maybe Boston Scientific has signaled to Guidant that the situation has too many problems, and it may be pulling back. |
It's a victory for J&J, ... I think it's a recognition that Guidant's franchise has at least sustained some near-term damage. Whether they can correct that and when they can correct that is going to be a question going forward. |
It's certainly not positive. It's certainly indicative of a more serious problem. |
J&J needs to get the top line to grow 5 to 10 percent. They've got to find something that's large enough and growing rapidly enough to stimulate that growth. St. Jude could be a potentially attractive acquisition. |
Let's put it this way. Last March when I initiated coverage of J&J, I thought they were overpaying for Guidant. This was before problems arose from the recalls. I believe that's still the case. This has gotten to be an irrational price. |
My reaction still is one of concern about the top line. Until that's rectified, it's problematic as to whether they can get to the kind of growth rates they're looking for. |