Analyst reports 2019

382 Posts, Pagina: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 » | Laatste
avantiavanti
7
Barclays 13 december 2019

Galapagos: Christmas comes early for GLPG holders - thoughts on the recent outperformance

Stock Rating/Industry View: Overweight/Positive
Price Target: EUR 180.00
Price (12-Dec-2019): EUR 192.25
Potential Upside/Downside: -6%

Both on our recent trip marketing across the US (see: Turkey Trotting round the States (03/12/19)) and since we’ve gotten back to London, the incoming question we’re getting with the highest frequency is what we think could be behind the recent move in GLPG shares. Whilst the local shares have performed better on a relative basis to the SXDP Index vs. the ADRs to the XLV (with some of this likely attributable to a catch-up trade in US biotech, which had lagged the broader indices all year until 4Q), whatever way you want to slice it, GLPG has been a notable outperformer QTD. What makes this move all the more interesting (to us) is that, following a transformative and news-heavy year for the company (with the most notable events begin the FINCH 1 & 3 data publication (see: FINCH results (28/03/19)) and expanded GILD transaction (see: Taking the road less traveled (26/08/19)), the only real fundamental news we have learned this quarter has been fundamentally slightly negative (filgotinib not meeting primary endpoint in ph. 2 studies in Sjogren’s and lupus, discontinuation of MOR 106 in atopic dermatitis, futility analysis of ISABLEA trials of GLPG 1690 now coming in 1Q21 vs. prior expectations of sometime in 2020; see Full steam ahead into filgotinib filing (11/11/19) and R&D update (14/11/19)), though we would concede none of these events are necessarily thesis-changing/impactful to NPVs. After speaking to a number of investors on both side of the Atlantic, as well as to the company, we believe there’s a number of factors that have been driving the recent move, with no single one necessarily being the most dominant and all probably being partly responsible for the recent move and provide our thoughts below. This by no means an exhaustive exercise, so any incoming thoughts are (as always) welcome.

Our laundry list of explanations…

Addition to MSCI index
In the charts above, we’re using October 2nd as our starting point, which was the relative low for GLPG local shares & ADRs post the GILD transaction. We would say that our incomings on GLPG’s share price really started going up around the time of the company’s 3Q19 report. At that time, the most common rationale given for the outperformance was the addition of Galapagos to the MSCI Global Standard Index, which was effective at the close on November 26th.

Whilst the addition to the index certainly could explain a portion of GLPG’s 4Q19 outperformance, we’d note that even after excluding for the day of the index add (when GLPG local shares traded >3.4mm shares), the ADV quarter-to-date remains well of that seen in other quarters in 2019, which we think lends itself to our second thoughts on GLPG’s outperformance…

“Derisking” of the company opening investment up to a wider base
This is an explanation that we’ve heard throughout the year at times when GLPG has been outperforming, particularly following the readout of the FINCH 1 & 3 data. For many investors, a precommercial biotech company is just viewed as too risky of an investment; however, there’s now a particularly clear line of sight into GLPG becoming a commercial company (with filgotinib filed in the EU and US filing immanent, see: Filgotinib will be filed in 2019 (02/07/19)), which can introduce the company to a far wider investor base.

That being said, particularly following the derisking of the MANTA trial as an event that could be an impediment to filing in the US this year, there haven’t really been any new developments regarding this narrative, so the question is why such a strong reaction for shares in 4Q19? In our conversations with GLPG, management noted to us that the company has been on the road pretty extensively in recent weeks, particularly following the company’s R&D day last month (see: Galapagos: R&D update: still waiting on Toledo but timelines set for ISABELA (14/11/19)), including the company’s first extensive roadshow seeing investors in Asia. One thing that we may have underestimated is how much investors also view the expanded GILD deal as a de-risking event in and of itself, which GLPG noted has been a very positive talking point in the company’s recent conversations with investors new to the story. After the strong initial post-deal move, those closer to the GLPG story questioned whether shares could sustain the post-deal momentum as this essentially took the upside risk of a takeout off the table; investors newer to the story however view this as a deal that derisks GLPG’s pipeline. It will certainly be an interesting exercise to see how the holders list for GLPG changes following 4Q19.

Positive tax implications from GILD deal given Belgian jurisdiction
This is an idiosyncrasy of being domiciled in Belgium that is new information to us. Belgium’s tax code has what’s called an “Innovation Income Deduction” or IDD which is, for all intents and purposes, a “patent box” intended to encourage local companies to keep IP generated in Belgium domiciled there and thus pay corporate taxes on revenues generated from that IP to Belgium (rather than long-standing historical practice of pharma companies domiciling IP in the US, which has had a lower corporate tax rate). For more background on the IDD, see: BDO: The innovation income deduction - what's new? (20/02/2017)).

Essentially, the impact of this vs. just paying normal corporate taxes (and the corporate tax rate in Belgium is going to be lowered from 33.99% to 29.58% to 25% for assessment years 2019, 2020 and 2021+), is that 85% is removed from the net income taxable base, with the remaining 15% then taxed at the normal corporate tax rate (soon to be 25%); this results in an effective tax rate of 3.75%.

Whilst there has been no formal ruling that all of GLPG’s operating income (inclusive of any royalties from GILD) will fall under this scheme, we see a reasonable possibility that it could, which would provide upside to our model. Whilst there’s still a lot of uncertainty in modelling when GLPG will be a full corporate tax payer (i.e. the impact of NOLs), we’d assumed that GLPG’s tax rate would eventually creep up to ~20% so anything below that would be upside to our model.




Snookeraar
0
Ik had 'm al opgegeven, maar opeens ga ik toch weer geloven in de reep chocola....

:-)


avantiavanti
5
Vervolg Barclays

Demand for cash rich biotech vs. debate over cash burn
One other explanation that we’ve heard that may help explain GLPG’s outperformance is that for investors who want exposure in biotech, but may be concerned about potential macro factors (i.e. next year’s US election and any drug pricing reform implications), a strong balance sheet can be a particularly attractive feature. And we would note that amongst our other biotech names who’ve raised capital recently (GMAB with its July US IPO (see: Genmab A/S: COLUMBA filed and sailed the ocean blue (18/07/19)) and argenx’s recent capital raise (see: argenx: Thoughts on the capital raise: what's $484mm amongst friends? (07/11/19)), we’ve also seen pretty strong recent performance.

We think that this factor may be (at the moment) outweighing the downside risk that could come from GLPG burning through its now €5.6bn cash pile faster than the street has modeled. We’ve heard feedback that at recent investor conferences, GLPG management has noted that it intends to spend all the cash that its raised. However, in our conversations with management, the company noted that whilst it would certainly love to spend cash at a greater rate, as this would mean that more projects will be moving forward in the pipeline, the higher cash balance has not changed at all the company’s approach to R&D and the company is in no rush to spend the money it has (unless it has viable programs wherein to do so). Whilst we do think there could be a big step up in R&D costs if the Toledo program advances into phase 2, the company noted that these phase 2 programs may not need to be particularly large in terms of number of patients relative to some of the filgotinib trials. In any event, we don’t have anything for Toledo in our model and will need to see how the company guides for operational cash burn in 2020; we haven’t learned anything thus far to cause us to change our approach in modelling this.

Rinvoq launch – you can spin it both ways but it’s probably a positive for the class thus far
One other topic that comes up a lot in GLPG discussions is the launch of Abbvie’s (not covered) Rinvoq in RA in the US (see: GLPG/UCB/VIFN: Halloween hangover - more laterals to our names (GLPG, UCB and VIFN) (01/11/19)). The impact of this is tougher to parse out to GLPG; a strong Rinvoq launch can be spun as a positive (it’s good for the JAK class and the “next gen” JAKs; i.e. a rising tide lifts all boats) or as a negative (reinforces the first-mover-advantage of the strongest commercial player in immunology, thus making it a more difficult climb for GILD, with filgotinib being the first product it will be launching in the space).

We’ve gotten a lot of feedback from US investors that their survey work has indicated that rheumatologists are quite skeptical of the next gen JAKs and are particularly concerned regarding safety (see: GLPG/NOVN/SAN: JAK survey - key EU takes (09/05/19)). We do have some early indicators though that, now that Rinvoq is actually on the market, prescription patterns are suggestive of a pretty strong launch which we think is bullish for both Rinvoq and filgotinib on the whole, rather than assuring the dominance of one over the other.

Doctor’s Guide Publishing Ltd. recently conducted a snap poll of 37 US-based rheumatologists to gauge early sentiment towards Rinvoq (published on 10/12/19). 59% of respondents have prescribed Rinvoq this far since the August launch, with an additional 19% indicating that they expect to prescribe the drug in the near future. The vast majority of prescribing docs are impressed with the drug thus far (64% are “moderately impressed” and 27% are “very impressed”). Whilst 8 in 10 respondents do indicate that safety is a concern when considering whether or not to prescribe the drug, 76% believe that the boxed earning labelling for all the JAK inhibitors (including Xeljanz and Olumiant) is comparable (indicating that if filgotinib gets a class boxed warning (as is the base case expectation), this should not be a limiting factor for the drug’s launch).

Importantly for filgotinib, 2/3 of rheumatologist said it is “too early” to assess whether Rinvoq is a best-in-class JAK inhibitor, leaving room for Gilead to promote for filgotinib’s (in our view) superior safety data.

…last but not least, the always popular “short covering”
One thing we’ve written extensively about all year is our sense that there’s a big difference in sentiment across the Atlantic in terms of how investors view GLPG. In the US, particularly amongst specialists, we’ve sensed a more bearish consensus towards GLPG (particularly on the peak sales potential of filgotinib and on the viability of the IPF program) than in Europe. Given that there’s a perceived lack of catalysts until either the SELECTION phase 2 data for filgotinib in ulcerative colitis and/or the filgotinib approval/label (whichever comes first, but both likely around mid-year 2020), we’ve heard feedback that GLPG is a popular name to short (particularly with the takeout risk off the table). Thus, this adds to the confusion of GLPG’s recent outperformance and one of the most common refrains we’ve heard lately is that this could be a result of short covering.

However, the short interest for GLPG has actually increased pretty sharply as a % of the float as of late, indicating to us that it’s more the aforementioned “real” buying driving GLPG shares higher vs. short covering.

Note van avanti: de bijbehorende grafiekjes krijg ik niet hier geplaatst, dus die ontbreken.




pe26
5
quote:

avantiavanti schreef op 13 december 2019 15:47:


Extract Credit Suisse 13 december 2019

Galapagos NV
Downgrading on lower estimates for filgotinib
and slowly developing pipeline

Target price 169.00
Neutral

We are reducing our Target Price to €169 (from €174) and downgrading Galapagos to Neutral (from Outperform). On a relative basis to peers, we believe it may be challenging for the company to deliver above market returns given the large cash balance, looming competition for filgotinib, and a pipeline with either challenging indications to develop (e.g. IPF) or low visibility into assets (e.g. Toledo). While the company’s substantial cash reserves (>5B EUR)
provide down-side valuation support, the cash on the balance sheet contributes >50% of our valuation. In the absence of more concrete plans to convert cash to revenues (via B&D or expanded R&D), we do not expect significant upside from current trading prices. We continue to believe filgotinib has best-in-class potential for a variety of indications, however, we are
reducing our estimates to reflect competition with AbbVie’s Rinvoq, given Rinvoq’s 1-year lead to market and first-mover advantage.
We also have lower expectations for ‘1690 in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) given the challenges in developing drugs for this indication, while ‘1972
in osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly competitive space.
We await for key data updates in 2020 for both ‘1972 and ‘1690 before being more constructive.

Following Galapagos’ R&D day in November, we believe acceleration of the pipeline is likely to take some time. We are encouraged by the Toledo franchise plans for multiple study initiations slated for 2020, but find it challenging to value the potential opportunity given the lack of visibility into the program. The latest update at the R&D day lacked the granularity that would
help us better value Toledo. The presentation suggests that data updates are more likely towards YE20 into 2021 (given the plans to initiate trials in 2020). Absent data or definite timelines for Toledo, we remain conservative in our view of the program as we need to see evidence of execution before we adjust our long-term growth assumptions.

Model changes: We lowered estimates for filgotinib to account for increased competition, which brings our peak adjusted estimates <3B.

Valuation/risks: Our €169 TP is based on a sum of the parts DCF analysis. 2020 non-GAAP diluted EPS changed to -€2.24 (from -€1.58) due to changing market assumptions. Risks: commercial, market, pricing, and regulatory.

Valuation
Our one-year TP of €169 TP is based on a sum-of-the-parts DCF valuation. We forecast cash flows through 2029 to account for known or anticipated competition and patent expirations. Beyond 2029, we apply a 2% terminal growth rate to Galapagos cash flows.
Galapagos is discovery-focused biotech company, and we expect that the company will be able accelerate its R&D efforts, replacing cash flows at a rate faster than what is lost to erosion. The collaboration with Gilead allows the company to monetize assets earlier than it would otherwise be able to, via opt-in payments and milestones, while allowing it to share phase 3 clinical risk
and ex-EU commercialization risk with an experienced partner. We account for the risk- mitigation of the collaboration via a 10% discount rate.








Don't shoot the messenger.
Het zijn ook voornamelijk de headlines van het analistenrapport van Credit Suisse die wel tegengeluid vragen.


1) "We continue to believe filgotinib has best-in-class potential for a variety of indications, however, we are reducing our estimates to reflect competition with AbbVie’s Rinvoq, given Rinvoq’s 1-year lead to market and first-mover advantage".


De 1-jaarsvoorsprong van Rinvoq voor ziekte-indicatie reumatische artritis is per zomer 2019 reeds bekend. Vrij laat dat Credit Suisse tot deze conclusie komt.
In hoeverre past Credit Suisse, de voorsprong in ontwikkeling van Filgotinib binnen chronische darmontstekingsziekten versus Rinvoq, toe in haar berekeningsmodel..?
Peak Sales van Filgotinib die ze hanteren zijn aan de lage kant in relatie tot andere analisten en grootte van ontstekingsziekten markt > $65 miljard per jaar vanaf 2027 voor RA/UC/Crohn/PsA en AS.



2) "We also have lower expectations for ‘1690 in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) given the challenges in developing drugs for this indication"


Credit Suisse duidt dit niet verder; daar kan je veel tegenin brengen

> er zijn reeds 2 goedgekeurde medicijnen;
> fase 3 studie rekrutering verloopt snel voor GLPG1690;
> target van LPA pathway, en ATX (1 treedje hoger) is de juiste t.a.v. van vermindering progressie c.q. stopzetting van progressie. Dit heeft een molecuul van Bristol-Myers Squibb reeds aangetoond;
> innovatieve karakter van GLPG1690 fase 3 studie is dosering met: of OFEV, of ESBRIET, of standaardmedicijn binnen bepaalde regio



3) "while ‘1972 in osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly competitive space".

Zijn er veel moleculen actief met het werkingsmechanisme als die van GLPG1972: namelijk vermindering van afbraakproces kraakbeen.
Totaal geen verdere duiding van Credit Suisse. Artrose bij uitstek een markt met weinig goed werkende medicijnen (ook binnen pijnbestrijding).



4) "Absent data or definite timelines for Toledo, we remain conservative in our view of the program as we need to see evidence of execution before we adjust our long-term growth assumptions".


Vooral conservatief blijven Credit Suisse. TOLEDO ontvouwt zich later en dan zijn jullie wederom laat met opwaarts bijstellen koersdoel bij goede data
pe26
2
Aanvulling op eerdere bericht.

3) "while ‘1972 in osteoarthritis (OA) is in(?) a highly competitive space" > Credit Suisse.


Zijn er veel moleculen actief met het werkingsmechanisme als die van GLPG1972: namelijk vermindering van afbraakproces kraakbeen..?
Nee, die zijn er niet. Dat is algemeen bekend, en ook terug te vinden op clinical trials.



Verdere duiding is bijvoorbeeld te vinden in het Berenberg rapport van 10-12-2019 over kansen GLPG1972 in artrose (OA).

"GLPG1972 could become a first-in-class disease-modifying osteoarthritis
drug (DMOAD)
. Phase IIb top-line data is expected in H220. With no
DMOAD on the market and few in development, we believe GLPG1972, if
approved
, could become Galapagos’ most significant value driver long
term".
....
"Thus, to us, the OA market is a significant market with robust opportunities for non-opioid pain treatments, as well as disease-modifying therapies".
....
"Differentiated from other current OA treatments on the market or in
development, GLPG1972 may have disease-modifying effects for OA patients".
....
"The KOL we hosted at a recent pain seminar is an orthopedic surgeon who specializes in shoulder and knee surgery with extensive knowledge and experience treating patients with OA".

"The KOL noted the excitement among orthopedists for the potential of GLPG1972 to demonstrate disease-modifying effects on cartilage degradation in knee OA patients. The KOL believes the compound, if approved, would be prescribed heavily among patients with earlier stage disease, and possibly even in those with later stage disease, depending on 1) the level of pain severity experienced by the patient; and 2) the potential impact of GLPG1972 on pain symptoms.

It is not clear to the KOL that a disease-modifying therapy such as GLPG1972 (or Samumed’s lorecivivint; see Appendix E of the Disruptive Discussion Part III: Inflammatory Conditions note.) would also have an impact on pain symptoms. To the KOL, if a disease-modifying therapy for OA also has an impact on pain symptoms, the potential market would be very substantial. Even if a disease-modifying therapy does not impact pain symptoms, if it slows or halts the degradation of cartilage, the KOL believes the drug would still be prescribed heavily. The caveat is whether or not a disease-modifying therapy that does not impact pain symptoms could even be approved by the FDA, which historically has
focused on improvement in pain symptom scores for approvals of knee OA drugs.


If ROCCELLA is successful, the KOL believes the data will help guide discussions with the
FDA in determining what the proper endpoints are for the Phase III pivotal program.
Moreover, the KOL thinks that immediate- and extended-release steroid injections for the
knee are likely to maintain their place as an important treatment option for pain for knee
OA for the foreseeable future".



Ter afsluiting het Galapagos jaarrapport 2018 omtrent osteoartrose (OA):

"Huidige behandelingen voor OA omvatten gewichtsverlies, fysiotherapie, pijn- en ontstekingsremmende medicijnen, en operaties, allemaal enkel gericht op het bestrijden van de symptomen van de ziekte. Op dit moment zijn voor OA geen ziektemodificerende geneesmiddelen beschikbaar.
asti
2
WiC, inderdaad op meerdere punten onscherp, van Credit Suisse.

Vorig jaar heb ik me verdiept in het werkingsmechanisme van GLPG1972 en in de concurrentie. Conclusie was dat het toch wel een behoorlijk riskant programma is. Als de perceptie parallel loopt met die, in mijn optiek, realiteit, kan positieve data een fikse toename in waarde betekenen.
asti
0
quote:

avantiavanti schreef op 13 december 2019 16:59:


Vervolg Barclays

(...)

…last but not least, the always popular “short covering”
One thing we’ve written extensively about all year is our sense that there’s a big difference in sentiment across the Atlantic in terms of how investors view GLPG. In the US, particularly amongst specialists, we’ve sensed a more bearish consensus towards GLPG (particularly on the peak sales potential of filgotinib and on the viability of the IPF program) than in Europe. Given that there’s a perceived lack of catalysts until either the SELECTION phase 2 data for filgotinib in ulcerative colitis and/or the filgotinib approval/label (whichever comes first, but both likely around mid-year 2020), we’ve heard feedback that GLPG is a popular name to short (particularly with the takeout risk off the table). Thus, this adds to the confusion of GLPG’s recent outperformance and one of the most common refrains we’ve heard lately is that this could be a result of short covering.

However, the short interest for GLPG has actually increased pretty sharply as a % of the float as of late, indicating to us that it’s more the aforementioned “real” buying driving GLPG shares higher vs. short covering.

(...)

Grappig om dit te lezen.

Als de vermeende ''echte'' koopdruk aanhoudt, zou dit dus betekenen dat...
Wall Street Trader
1
@Lama Daila

I made PDF Files of the analyst reports avantiavanti placed on the forum.
Maybe you can put them on your Twitter Feed for your Twitter Followers.

Once again thank you avantiavanti for the reports ;-)

Credit Suisse Galapagos (Neutral) PT EUR 169


Bijlage:
Wall Street Trader
2
Wall Street Trader
2
Morgan Stanley Galapagos (Equal Weight) PT $215

Morgan Stanley downgrades Galapagos to Equal Weight, raises price target to $215. Morgan Stanley analyst Matthew Harrison downgraded Galapagos to Equal Weight from Overweight with a price target of $215, up from $193.

He still views the company as a "key biotech with significant pipeline optionality bolstered by strong downside protection from its large cash position," but Harrison notes that the stock has risen 45% recently despite any major fundamental updates. The short-term valuation has moved ahead of fundamental value, said Harrison, who needs to see more pipeline data to justify a significantly further raise in his price target.

ivet
2
iedereen kent, zeker op prof. niveau, deze analistenrapporten wel. Toch staat/stond de koers (soms ver) boven nagenoeg alle PT's...en hebben sommigen hun PT opgetrokken.

Denken we dat een handje vol enthousiaste beleggers de koers zoveel hoger zetten? Was dat enthousiasme minder toen het aandeel van plm 170 naar 131 terugviel? Tuurlijk niet! Beleggen is vooruitzien en inslaan vóór de koers op 250-300 staat. Ik denk eerder dat instituten elkaar verdrongen om de aandelen te bemachtigen voor de LT...misschien enigszins geholpen door wat enthousiastelingen op het IEX-forum en een beetje short-covering.

avantiavanti
6
Citi 18 december 2019

Neutral from Buy
Price (17 Dec 19 09:04) €189.00
Target price €190.00 from €175.00

Bull Run Hits Our Risk-Adjusted Valuation. Downgrade to Neutral.


Downgrade to Neutral with PT €190 – after a strong run in the shares (+140% in
2019), we see the current valuation as a fair reflection of the risk-adjusted potential for filgotinib in RA and GLPG1690 in IPF, although we note that upside could still come from particularly the TOLEDO program (€5.5 per share risk-adjusted) and commercialisation of filgotinib in Crohn’s (€20 per share risk-adjusted).

We maintain our valuation framework with bull case of €279 - we have made
minor changes to our base case valuation, including the TOLEDO program for the
first time and see little downside risk (Figure 1). We believe the market
underestimates the potential of filgotinib in Crohn’s in particular, given advantages over existing treatments. We continue to believe that GLPG1690 could be disruptive in IPF (Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis).

We still believe in long term success – with its strong financial position and
productive development platform, we continue to see Galapagos as a future winner
in the EU biotech space but with fewer critical catalysts in 1H20, at the current price, we struggle to see what will drive the next upward leg before filgotinib launch.

Awaiting filgotinib US filing in December – Despite ABBV being a formidable
competitor and a strong Rinvoq launch, we believe our peak sales estimate of $3bn in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) (€50 per share risk adjusted) could be conservative given i) JAK1 selectivity giving best-in-class profile ii) lower thrombosis rate iii) potential to be first JAK inhibitor approved at 2 doses iv) strength of GILD as a marketing partner.

2020 expected news flow not enough to drive upside for now, in our view –
aside from filgotinib Phase 3 data in Ulcerative Colitis (SELECTION) in mid ‘20, we believe the next key driver will be the launches of filgotinib from late 2020 (Figure 7) followed by futility analysis for GLPG1690 in early 2021.
Bijlage:
harvester
0
quote:

avantiavanti schreef op 18 december 2019 10:27:


Citi 18 december 2019

Neutral from Buy
Price (17 Dec 19 09:04) €189.00
Target price €190.00 from €175.00

Bull Run Hits Our Risk-Adjusted Valuation. Downgrade to Neutral.


Citi is altijd zuinig geweest in hun target prices.

Nu ook weer. Ze zien geen triggers op korte termijn.
Beetje raar als je bedenkt dat marktintroductie filgotinib al binnen 12 maanden te verwachten is.
Ze noemen het risk adjusted. Dus als bijvoorbeeld een priority voucher wordt ingezet kunnen ze weer aanpassen.

Zouden klanten van Citi nog wat goedkoop aandelen willen inslaan?
avantiavanti
31
Hoi allemaal,
Ik deel nu zo'n jaar of 2 a 3 met veel plezier de analyst updates die mij onder ogen komen. De 1 met meer plezier dan de ander trouwens.
Sommigen zijn voorzichtig of negatief over Galapagos, sommigen zijn niet goed onderbouwd, sommigen bevatten foutjes, en andere doen weer wel goed huiswerk.
De reden dat ik zo veel mogelijk plaats en geen, even zwaar woord, -censuur-, toepas is omdat ik a) denk dat ik niet degene moet zijn die bepaalt wat goed is en wat niet. Dat is voor eenieder om zelf te bepalen. En B) denk ik dat we er allemaal baat bij hebben de verschillende invalshoeken te lezen en daar een eigen visie op te baseren.
Nu lees ik regelmatig van een aantal van jullie dat jullie deze analyst updates gestolen kunnen worden. Daarom even een check hier zo aan het einde van dit jaar: is er genoeg animo om deze draad ook in 2020 in de lucht te houden en van de analyst updates te voorzien? Of wekt het meer ergernis, dan dat we er plezier van hebben of wat mee kunnen?

Wens jullie alvast allemaal fijne feestdagen!
Lang
0
quote:

avantiavanti schreef op 18 december 2019 11:14:


Hoi allemaal,
Ik deel nu zo'n jaar of 2 a 3 met veel plezier de analyst updates die mij onder ogen komen. De 1 met meer plezier dan de ander trouwens.
Sommigen zijn voorzichtig of negatief over Galapagos, sommigen zijn niet goed onderbouwd, sommigen bevatten foutjes, en andere doen weer wel goed huiswerk.
De reden dat ik zo veel mogelijk plaats en geen, even zwaar woord, -censuur-, toepas is omdat ik a) denk dat ik niet degene moet zijn die bepaalt wat goed is en wat niet. Dat is voor eenieder om zelf te bepalen. En B) denk ik dat we er allemaal baat bij hebben de verschillende invalshoeken te lezen en daar een eigen visie op te baseren.
Nu lees ik regelmatig van een aantal van jullie dat jullie deze analyst updates gestolen kunnen worden. Daarom even een check hier zo aan het einde van dit jaar: is er genoeg animo om deze draad ook in 2020 in de lucht te houden en van de analyst updates te voorzien? Of wekt het meer ergernis, dan dat we er plezier van hebben of wat mee kunnen?

Wens jullie alvast allemaal fijne feestdagen!

nee man, helemaal top, ik lees ze graag en geeft mij veel informatie. Dat hier een aantal kleuters zijn, die menen dat ze, vanachter hun pc, overal commentaar op moeten geven, neem ik dan maar voor lief. Graag, heel graag, doorgaan. Wordt door mij zeer gewaardeerd.
Endless
0
quote:

avantiavanti schreef op 18 december 2019 11:14:


Hoi allemaal,
Ik deel nu zo'n jaar of 2 a 3 met veel plezier de analyst updates die mij onder ogen komen. De 1 met meer plezier dan de ander trouwens.
Sommigen zijn voorzichtig of negatief over Galapagos, sommigen zijn niet goed onderbouwd, sommigen bevatten foutjes, en andere doen weer wel goed huiswerk.
De reden dat ik zo veel mogelijk plaats en geen, even zwaar woord, -censuur-, toepas is omdat ik a) denk dat ik niet degene moet zijn die bepaalt wat goed is en wat niet. Dat is voor eenieder om zelf te bepalen. En B) denk ik dat we er allemaal baat bij hebben de verschillende invalshoeken te lezen en daar een eigen visie op te baseren.
Nu lees ik regelmatig van een aantal van jullie dat jullie deze analyst updates gestolen kunnen worden. Daarom even een check hier zo aan het einde van dit jaar: is er genoeg animo om deze draad ook in 2020 in de lucht te houden en van de analyst updates te voorzien? Of wekt het meer ergernis, dan dat we er plezier van hebben of wat mee kunnen?

Wens jullie alvast allemaal fijne feestdagen!

Graag deze draad in de lucht houden wordt zeer gewaardeerd, en ook ik vind dat we zelf de afweging kunnen maken of we de inhoud serieus nemen of niet.
Jij ook fijne feestdagen
Spreidstand
0
quote:

avantiavanti schreef op 18 december 2019 11:14:


Hoi allemaal,
Ik deel nu zo'n jaar of 2 a 3 met veel plezier de analyst updates die mij onder ogen komen. De 1 met meer plezier dan de ander trouwens.
Sommigen zijn voorzichtig of negatief over Galapagos, sommigen zijn niet goed onderbouwd, sommigen bevatten foutjes, en andere doen weer wel goed huiswerk.
De reden dat ik zo veel mogelijk plaats en geen, even zwaar woord, -censuur-, toepas is omdat ik a) denk dat ik niet degene moet zijn die bepaalt wat goed is en wat niet. Dat is voor eenieder om zelf te bepalen. En B) denk ik dat we er allemaal baat bij hebben de verschillende invalshoeken te lezen en daar een eigen visie op te baseren.
Nu lees ik regelmatig van een aantal van jullie dat jullie deze analyst updates gestolen kunnen worden. Daarom even een check hier zo aan het einde van dit jaar: is er genoeg animo om deze draad ook in 2020 in de lucht te houden en van de analyst updates te voorzien? Of wekt het meer ergernis, dan dat we er plezier van hebben of wat mee kunnen?

Wens jullie alvast allemaal fijne feestdagen!


Jouw werk hier waardeer ik zeer en lees de analisten rapporten ook steeds om mezelf te informeren. Dus wat mij betreft: ga zo door en bedankt daarvoor!
Pacino
0
avantiavanti,
zeer nuttige objectieve info. Zeer bruikbaar ook als naslag.Heel graag continueren en dank voor uw bijdragen.
382 Posts, Pagina: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 » | Laatste
Aantal posts per pagina:  20 50 100 | Omhoog ↑

Plaats een reactie

Meedoen aan de discussie?

Word nu gratis lid of log in met uw e-mailadres en wachtwoord.

Direct naar Forum

Detail

Vertraagd 23 jul 2021 17:35
Koers 50,860
Verschil -0,430 (-0,84%)
Hoog 51,380
Laag 50,650
Volume 278.706
Volume gemiddeld 0
Volume gisteren 274.111