FC Merck resinds mandatory 65 retirement age
- Thread starter sluggo72
- Start date
They did it just for him.
“CEO succession has been our top priority, and removing the mandatory retirement policy enables the Board to make the best decision concerning the timing of that transition,” said Leslie A. Brun, lead director, speaking on behalf of Merck’s Board of Directors. “Ken’s unwavering dedication over the years to Merck’s mission of delivering innovative medicines and vaccines has helped drive value for shareholders and patients. We look forward to Ken’s continuing leadership and the impact it will have.”
Like Vioxx?!?!
No wonder the a-hole OGBOTs felt they could do and say whatever they wanted ... apparently they can.
His primary job- like all of his ilk- is buying Congressmen so that the industry can maximize profits. He's doing a wonderful job.
https://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/news/20070418/no-negotiation-on-medicare-rx-prices#1
https://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/news/20070418/no-negotiation-on-medicare-rx-prices#1
Notice driving value for shareholders is mentioned first. Businesses are so much better off, IMO, when they’re not publicly traded.
Not really. Vioxx hit the fan in 2004. Frazier became CEO in 2011.
Gilmartin was CEO in 2004 but blaming him would not fit your agenda. You did not care about Merck until 2012.
You can start a private company and show us how it is done.
Last edited:
There are lots of very successful private companies that do not have to answer to shareholders - though private companies can sell stock too. If I were running a business I’d rather not have to factor in what a bunch of shareholders, who most likely don’t understand the business, think about decisions that I’m making that concern the future of the business and it’s long term health. Shareholders tend to be short term thinkers.
Go back and do some research on the Vioxx defense. Trust me. Kenny was involved up to eyeballs. He saw the playbook.
I really hate it when people get their facts wrong when it comes to serious issues. In this case, you are dead wrong.
When 65 was selected, the average man did not live to 65. I am 74 and look and live 15-20 years younger than my mother at my age. The retirement age must be raised to reflect the huge increase in years life expectancy.
Then so should social security (won’t have a choice anyway).
There is one serious problem with folks retiring older, and that’s that it doesn’t clear the way for the next generation. So the next generation has to wait longer to move up ladder than the one before it. Harmful to a growing and successful middle class, IMO.
The middle class has been shrinking and dying a slow death for nearly 40 years.
Kenny was general counsel in 2004 and decided to fight the Vioxx claims instead of settling. Probably saved the company a couple of billion dollars that would have gone to families of those killed by that "innovative" medicine. Good for the company but tells me all I need to know about his character.
And you are correct, I didn't care back in 2004 because I didn't have any family or friends die from Vioxx. But that "character" became more evident in 2011/12 for people who look like me.
He was doing his job. It is funny that you complain about PSU board doing the opposite. Which do you prefer?
I prefer them doing their job and being ethical human beings. Apparently you can't have both and in some cases neither in regards to powerful people.
Totally FALSE. Merck has CLEARLY outperformed Pfizer since Frazier took over. MRK is also ahead of Bristol Myers. When Vioxx hit the fan Merck stock dropped to the low 20s. Frazier took over in 2011 and now the stock is up to 70/sh. Pfizer was treading water in the low 30s for the last 10 years. They had a little run this year and they are up to 44.
Merck's price does not even include a spinoff that is doing very well. Merck spun off Medco(MDCO) which then merged with Express Scripts(ESRX) and that is going to be taken over by Cigna. The spinoff would probably add about 15% to the Merck price.
The chart you listed is the S&P500 vs Mrk. If there were two more graph lines they would be for PFE and BMY and they would be BELOW Merck. The graph you listed showed Merck outperforming the s&p for most years since Frazier took over. MRK was ahead until this year.
Last edited:
It has nothing to do with propaganda. The facts are the facts. Merck outperformed PFE and BMY. Merck has done great since Frazier took over. Sorry to disappoint you.
Last edited:
yes that spin off happened in 2003!! so unless you owned MRK before that, the spin off is irrelevant. Barry's is correct on this one, and you trying to throw some spin on something for some reason!! I knew I bought PFE for a reason!
August 20, 2003 09:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
WHITEHOUSE STATION, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 20, 2003--Merck & Co., Inc. today announced that it has successfully completed the spin-off of 100 percent of the outstanding shares of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. common stock to Merck stockholders. Shares of Medco Health common stock have been distributed to Merck stockholders on the basis of 0.1206 Medco Health common shares for each Merck common share held on the record date, Aug. 12, 2003. As previously announced, the spin-off is structured as a tax-free distribution to Merck stockholders for U.S. federal tax purposes, except to the extent cash is received in lieu of fractional shares.
"Together, Merck and Medco Health have enjoyed 10 years of growth and success. As a subsidiary of Merck, Medco Health grew to become the nation's leading pharmacy benefits management (PBM) company, providing integrated prescription health care to 62 million Americans. Medco Health increased revenues from $2.2 billion in 1992 to $33 billion in 2002, and last year, filled or processed approximately 548 million prescriptions. By all measures, the acquisition of Medco Health by Merck has been highly successful," said Merck Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Raymond V. Gilmartin. "With the spin-off, the market now has the ability to value each entity as 'pure plays' in their respective industries. We believe that by establishing Merck and Medco Health as two separate companies, we will enhance the potential for success of both businesses and, as a result, increase shareholder value."
that dumb ass is talking about a spin off in 2003!!! How's is that relevant to 2011??? (it aint) I remember that it happened, just I thought it was more recent so perhaps it needed accounted for!! Time flies!!! 2003, I thought it was like 5 yrs ago!
They hung guys in Nuremberg who claimed they were just doing their jobs. Didn't Frazier have a moral responsibility to do "more" for the victims of Vioxx? I guess in the corporate world, marketing poison, and suppressing evidence of its side effects......then screwing the victims, living and dead, is worthy of promotion and adulation. These are the misanthropes who sat in judgement of JVP.
What are you, some kind of Wall Street groupie? Give it rest. The man's going to burn in hell for his work on this planet.
My uncle had a stroke from that drug and he's never been the same since. KMA!
FIFY
I was in the room at various times listening to him and I read the coordinating counsel’s emails. Kenny - closest thing to the devil.
Amazing that Frazier has stiff competition for the Mount Rushmore of PSU Traitors. Just one of many names that will forever live in Penn State infamy.
