The end of PCP? I don't think so...

Discussion in 'Novartis' started by Anonymous, Aug 5, 2014 at 7:20 PM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest


  2. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Who's the idiot that thinks Seralaxin is still viable? LCZ is the drug that has potential, not Seralaxin.
     
  3. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    the only PCP left around this place will be Angel Dust!
     
  4. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

  5. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Perhaps you are not familiar with how percentages work...

    Net sales in 2011 $58,566
    Net sales in 2013 $57,920

    This is FLAT at best.
     
  6. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    In 2010 it was ~ $50B in 2013 it was 2013 it was, as you said, ~ $58B. Over that period Novartis lost ~ 40% of its reps.

    Perhaps you aren't familiar with how analysis works ......
     
  7. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    In 2011 it was 58 and in 2013 it was 57.... So yes, from 2010 to 2011, Novartis showed growth. But from 2011 until present day... Flat at Best.

    Do less with less.
     
  8. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    If memory serves, the first BIG LAYOFF (70%), happened in 2011. So the only real growth in the last 5 years occurred pre-layoffs... Ever since, revenues have been flat.

    Do less with less.
     
  9. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    I believe the layoffs were 2010, 2012, & then 2014
     
  10. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Add 2015 to the list.
     
  11. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    2011 BIG LAYOFF (70%) of what was a big company. 2013 (50%) of a small company. During that time, NO GROWTH.

    Do less with less.
     
  12. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    Add more stagnation to the mix. Q1 and Q2 2014..... drum-roll..... FLAT.

    Do less with less.
     
  13. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    So, your argument is that even though they have laid off thousands of reps since 2011 revs have been flat?

    If you can't see that this argues that revs are independent of numbers of reps you must be a rep.
     
  14. Anonymous

    Anonymous Guest

    So the number of reps is the ONLY factor that impacts revenue? If you can't see that your argument is shallow and not well thought out, then you must be a college professor.

    Never in my life has flat revenues been acceptable for any business model. It has always been about growth.

    I like how your argument was that Novartis was just in an uncontrollable growth rate, but now you have accepted the fact that there has been NO GROWTH.

    Go do some homework.