I'm not sure I buy the idea it has anything to do with Clinton's tweet specifically. She's doesn't hold political office, and it's looking less and less likely by the day that she'll ever make it to the oval office.
Article doesn't sound like it's blaming Clinton, as much as pointing out that the spotlight on the issue is causing markets to expect additional interference and thus lower returns. It's an emotional response.
They are responding to a chance of additional regulation from a political candidate that hasn't been elected yet. To me that's fear and fear is an emotion.
>A huge overnight price increase for an important tuberculosis drug has been rescinded after the company that acquired the drug gave it back to its previous owner under pressure, it was announced on Monday.
>However, outrage over a gigantic price increase for another drug spread into the political sphere on Monday, causing biotechnology stocks to fall broadly as investors worried about possible government action to control pharmaceutical prices. The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell more than 4 percent.
>"Price-gouging like this in the specialty drug market is outrageous," Hillary Rodham Clinton, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a tweet on Monday. She said she would announce a plan on Tuesday to deal with rising drug prices.
Basically, people were spooked by the prospect of regulation, which a major political candidate for President said she would be announcing tomorrow.
Since he retired and his wife became a presidential candidate? Hillary is active on the world stage. Bill does some speaking, occasionally, but isn't that active otherwise; He doesn't make diplomatic gestures the way Jimmy Carter does, for example.
Anyone who's paid attention to biotech stocks in the last year or so knows that there is some very volatile movement. Anything related to thera-, pharma-, bio- has been swinging up and down wildly. I'd really like to know why it's been behaving like that.
What's sad is that Clinton says she'll unveil a "new plan" for dealing with this. The law to deal with this is the Sherman Antitrust Act and it's been on the books for over 100 years.
Cornering the market on the supply of a drug where the market supply is restricted (any competitor wishing to reproduce it would have to demonstrate equivalence) then implementing a drastic subsequent price rise is a clear Section 1 violation of that law.
We don't need a "new plan to deal with this". What we need is a politician that will have the justice dept indict them, file a request for an injunction on the price point, and stop supporting policies that constrain market access.
21 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 54.4 ms ] threadWhy is this Clinton's fault?
"cop blamed for sending child molester to jail."
Have we been trained to associate falling stock as always a bad thing?
Knowing it was broader then that, It makes a bit more sense that the hit came after her comment around releasing her plan for pharmaceuticals.
>A huge overnight price increase for an important tuberculosis drug has been rescinded after the company that acquired the drug gave it back to its previous owner under pressure, it was announced on Monday.
>However, outrage over a gigantic price increase for another drug spread into the political sphere on Monday, causing biotechnology stocks to fall broadly as investors worried about possible government action to control pharmaceutical prices. The Nasdaq Biotechnology Index fell more than 4 percent.
>"Price-gouging like this in the specialty drug market is outrageous," Hillary Rodham Clinton, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a tweet on Monday. She said she would announce a plan on Tuesday to deal with rising drug prices.
Basically, people were spooked by the prospect of regulation, which a major political candidate for President said she would be announcing tomorrow.
Cornering the market on the supply of a drug where the market supply is restricted (any competitor wishing to reproduce it would have to demonstrate equivalence) then implementing a drastic subsequent price rise is a clear Section 1 violation of that law.
We don't need a "new plan to deal with this". What we need is a politician that will have the justice dept indict them, file a request for an injunction on the price point, and stop supporting policies that constrain market access.
If a prosecutor were to bring suit under section 1, what would their argument look like?