Every Merck Biotech investment has failed

Quote




Anonymous said:
Why does Merck keep pissing away my money on biotechs? We all know Merck is not knowledgeable on biotech companies. Latest predictable failure: Cubist.
Click to expand...

Peter Kim is responsible for the following massive purchases and subsequent complete losses, which also don't include the Merck resources expended trying desperately to make them work. I remember angry Peter (he was often angry when he wasn't laughing like a donkey) blaming us for the failures he handed us at MRL:

Rosetta, purchased for $620 million in 2001.
Sirna, bought for $1.1 billion in 2006.
Glycofi, bought for $400 million in 2006.

And then there was the acquisition of Abmaxis for $80 million in 2006. This is interesting because Abmaxis was cofounded by Peter Kim's PhD thesis advisor Robert "Buzz" Baldwin in 2000 after he retired from Stanford in 1998. The company was shopped around for years with no interest, until Peter made Merck buy it. Rumor is that the Merck BOD forced Peter Kim out because of this blatant corruption and may threaten to press charges to change the terms of his golden parachute.
 




Anonymous said:
Peter Kim is responsible for the following massive purchases and subsequent complete losses, which also don't include the Merck resources expended trying desperately to make them work. I remember angry Peter (he was often angry when he wasn't laughing like a donkey) blaming us for the failures he handed us at MRL:

Rosetta, purchased for $620 million in 2001.
Sirna, bought for $1.1 billion in 2006.
Glycofi, bought for $400 million in 2006.

And then there was the acquisition of Abmaxis for $80 million in 2006. This is interesting because Abmaxis was cofounded by Peter Kim's PhD thesis advisor Robert "Buzz" Baldwin in 2000 after he retired from Stanford in 1998. The company was shopped around for years with no interest, until Peter made Merck buy it. Rumor is that the Merck BOD forced Peter Kim out because of this blatant corruption and may threaten to press charges to change the terms of his golden parachute.
Click to expand...

Thanks RMP!

- PK
 
















Anonymous said:
Peter Kim is responsible for the following massive purchases and subsequent complete losses, which also don't include the Merck resources expended trying desperately to make them work. I remember angry Peter (he was often angry when he wasn't laughing like a donkey) blaming us for the failures he handed us at MRL:

Rosetta, purchased for $620 million in 2001.
Sirna, bought for $1.1 billion in 2006.
Glycofi, bought for $400 million in 2006.

And then there was the acquisition of Abmaxis for $80 million in 2006. This is interesting because Abmaxis was cofounded by Peter Kim's PhD thesis advisor Robert "Buzz" Baldwin in 2000 after he retired from Stanford in 1998. The company was shopped around for years with no interest, until Peter made Merck buy it. Rumor is that the Merck BOD forced Peter Kim out because of this blatant corruption and may threaten to press charges to change the terms of his golden parachute.
Click to expand...

If nothing else, Merck is very consistent when it comes to making big $$ decisions. Lets not forget the nearly half a billion $$s they spent to acquire Inspire only to dump it 2 years latter for 50 million. Maybe Merck just needs to show some losses on its tax return to offset the tremendous gains its produced recently
 








Anonymous said:
Why does Merck keep pissing away my money on biotechs? We all know Merck is not knowledgeable on biotech companies. Latest predictable failure: Cubist.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. Why does Merck buy any company? Reps, bean counters(great people), or administrators? We buy intellectual property. The real problem is that we allow the Merck scientists(for lack of a better word) to stick their nose in subjects they have no understanding of. If they could do their jobs there would be no reason to purchase companies in the first place. They just are not smart enough to get the job done. Simple plan: spend 10 billion dollars for a few well ran companies with a rock solid R&D department. Fire 50 percent of the Merck R&D department. Three months later fire 25 percent more. Then finish off the last ones three months later. They don't really deserve a package beyond the WARN plus one week pay for every two years of service. The pipeline starts to fill up and everyone is happy. The stock goes up and everyone keeps their jobs. Actually we start hiring again. It called a win-win situation for everybody.
 




Anonymous said:
No, no, no. Why does Merck buy any company? Reps, bean counters(great people), or administrators? We buy intellectual property. The real problem is that we allow the Merck scientists(for lack of a better word) to stick their nose in subjects they have no understanding of. If they could do their jobs there would be no reason to purchase companies in the first place. They just are not smart enough to get the job done. Simple plan: spend 10 billion dollars for a few well ran companies with a rock solid R&D department. Fire 50 percent of the Merck R&D department. Three months later fire 25 percent more. Then finish off the last ones three months later. They don't really deserve a package beyond the WARN plus one week pay for every two years of service. The pipeline starts to fill up and everyone is happy. The stock goes up and everyone keeps their jobs. Actually we start hiring again. It called a win-win situation for everybody.
Click to expand...

The R&D department would be better off if a lot of their leadership left. Come on RMP and JJ, get your act together. From top down, they throw obstacles and near impossible timelines in order to catch up to the competition. I've heard they keep reducing the amount of equipment in the labs and expect the same output. Also, I think everyone sees (except the bean counters) how horrible outsourcing has been to R&D.
 




Anonymous said:
The R&D department would be better off if a lot of their leadership left. Come on RMP and JJ, get your act together. From top down, they throw obstacles and near impossible timelines in order to catch up to the competition. I've heard they keep reducing the amount of equipment in the labs and expect the same output. Also, I think everyone sees (except the bean counters) how horrible outsourcing has been to R&D.
Click to expand...

My drawers are nicely labelled.
 












Anonymous said:
The R&D department would be better off if a lot of their leadership left. Come on RMP and JJ, get your act together. From top down, they throw obstacles and near impossible timelines in order to catch up to the competition. I've heard they keep reducing the amount of equipment in the labs and expect the same output. Also, I think everyone sees (except the bean counters) how horrible outsourcing has been to R&D.
Click to expand...

Very true. Yes equipment was cleaned out. Before recent move the labs were cleaned out and rules were set how to label drawers. Yes it happened and leaders retained.
 




Anonymous said:
The R&D department would be better off if a lot of their leadership left. Come on RMP and JJ, get your act together. From top down, they throw obstacles and near impossible timelines in order to catch up to the competition. I've heard they keep reducing the amount of equipment in the labs and expect the same output. Also, I think everyone sees (except the bean counters) how horrible outsourcing has been to R&D.
Click to expand...

Stop the madness. You have to work? How dare they. You have timelines? They are reducing the equipment because you're to stupid to use it. You never did anything productive with it anyway. Who do they think they are? If you want to really fool them have a day where you actually get something accomplished. They would never expect such a thing.
 
























Top Bottom
Back
Quote