How can Pfizer stock be dropping?

OK, I'll start this off by saying I am not claiming to be an investment specialist. I am fairly confident in my ability to analyze market prices, however, and I am familiar with how the stock market works in general. With that said, I got to wondering just how much money Pfizer is accumulating... after all, they are one of the largest producers of a vaccine that has a global market where every government is begging the people to get vaccinated, some governments are actually mandating the vaccine, and all this is happening in the US under a "no cost to customers" policy where the government is paying the bill (many other countries already have universal healthcare, so the same thing would apply to them). I mean, someone must be making money off all this, right?

Tes, they are... at least on paper. But no, they're not from a shareholder's point of view.

The real money is in the stock prices. As stick prices rise, the principles in the company, who either own stock passed down from the founders or have stock through a company bonus plan, reap huge financial rewards when the stock price soars. That's a common method of tying the income of the principles to how well the company is doing. Unlike cash bonuses, this income is potentially unlimited, bounded only by how high the stock price can go. In addition, what investor wouldn't want a company who has a product that governments are demanding their people buy and who are literally paying the cost for them to buy it? More investors = high stock prices. To my mind, Pfizer stock should be skyrocketing!

The opposite is happening. It is slowly dropping and has been since August 17, almost a month ago. I grabbed the following image from Google:
OK, so I know a company can manipulate it's stock prices, primarily through buying and selling stock. Buying stock raises the price, since the supply is lower, while selling stock does the opposite. So is Pfizer selling off stock to keep their prices down? No, they aren't... at least not much. Out of over 6 billion shares, they have increased the number of outstanding shares by something like 8,000 since July. A drop in the bucket. That should have little to no effect on stock prices.

In addition, I checked their quarterly statements. They have made a tidy sum this year. Q4 of 2020 showed revenue of $5.947 billion, while Q1 of 2021 showed $14.582 billion and Q2 of 2021 showed $18.977 billion (Source). Quite the difference! Going back, it turns out that 2020 was a tough year for Pfizer... but not that tough. 2021 looks to be a record-breaking year, and indeed, they have exceeded expectations considerably in both quarters published thus far. Stock dividends, however, are holding steady at 39¢ per share (Source).

So how much is Pfizer making? Bloomberg reports Pfizer expects to make $33.5 billion this year from vaccine sales. That fits with their revenue reports.

But why is their stock price declining slowly instead of soaring? Why are their dividends just steady in the midst of this windfall?

Where is all this money going? Their expenses haven't made a lot of movement overall, at least not compared to their increased revenue. Stockholders aren't seeing it. Taxes aren't reflecting anything major. What gives?

Hopefully, someone on here with more expertise than I can answer this.

TheRedneck

People are resisting the vaccine mandates.

Duh.

a reply to: madmac5150

But Pfizer is still raking in a small fortune. Apparently only a small percentage of people are resisting the shots. I know most of the people I know have been vaccinated. I and a few others are the exception, not the rule.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I belive a lot of this money changing hands will never hit the books at net profit. What you are talking about is gross profit, yes the gross profit is off the charts. What's most likely happening is the net profit will not change, and in this case the net operating profit could actually decrease.

So what could be going on here? For one, the United States government may not be actually paying anything for the vaccines, maybe some deal was made where the "price" is being worked out through other means other than USD. Maybe some back door deals that the United States will buy the next product, this one is a freebee. The other option is the money is being laundered and some or most of the profits are being paid out in bribes and other kick backs.

At the end of the day nobody knows the actual numbers, these are wildly secret. We'll see on earnings day. It might be wise to buy some call contracts a few weeks before earnings as a lottery ticket. Just don't buy if the IV is 200%.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: madmac5150

But Pfizer is still raking in a small fortune. Apparently only a small percentage of people are resisting the shots. I know most of the people I know have been vaccinated. I and a few others are the exception, not the rule.

TheRedneck

A large percentage are refusing the shots.

You are being deceived.

The government mandates? They are losing money... there is no other reason to make the shot mandatory. It all comes down to money.

a reply to: madmac5150

I believe this to be a factor as well. You have a product with a shelf life. Pfizer made the product and the US procured it. Now it needs to be used before it goes bad which is probably a part of the vax mandate push. This product needs to go in arms asap or the money or deals or whatever means used to procure it would be null.

a reply to: TheRedneck

To get to these levels of sales in various countries they must be paying out big money for people not to look too closely into their product and its efficacy. This level of marketing must erode the bottom line.

The ones in the know are selling it all?

a reply to: litterbaux

No, the net profits are up as well. I guess I should have been clearer. Gross is up, costs are about the same, so net is up.

You seem well-versed in the market. Could this money be being laundered in any way?

TheRedneck

a reply to: UNOHOO

Boy i think you hit the nail on the head, by rights Evergrande should wipe it all out.

a reply to: litterbaux

You have a product with a shelf life. Pfizer made the product and the US procured it. Now it needs to be used before it goes bad which is probably a part of the vax mandate push.

I can actually see that reasoning. But once the government procures it, that's a sale and revenue for Pfizer, whether it goes in an arm or not. Just like if I buy a bottle of Bayer aspirin and accidentally flush it down the sink, Bayer still makes their money... more, in fact, because now I have to go buy another bottle.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Of course the money could be laundered and quite easily. Think of it this way, the cost of operating your business comes off gross profit leading to net profit. How easy would it be to fake a few salaries? Pfizer is an international company and their books are top secret to any government. They are incorporated in the United States so this would be a bad plan to do here, in case any pesky kids come around asking questions. But who's to say any of the scientists in the UK lab actually exist?

In addition, advertising comes off the top line as well. What does that encompass? Paying out lobbyists would fall into this category with a little language manipulation.

When people say this is the biggest wealth transfer in human history, this story has everything required to pull that off, easily.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: litterbaux

You have a product with a shelf life. Pfizer made the product and the US procured it. Now it needs to be used before it goes bad which is probably a part of the vax mandate push.

I can actually see that reasoning. But once the government procures it, that's a sale and revenue for Pfizer, whether it goes in an arm or not. Just like if I buy a bottle of Bayer aspirin and accidentally flush it down the sink, Bayer still makes their money... more, in fact, because now I have to go buy another bottle.

TheRedneck

That's why I mentioned it may not have been a USD transfer to buy the product and more of a promise in some way. Because you're right, if you're Pfizer, who cares what you do with the vaccines after purchase.

a reply to: litterbaux

I wonder if Gates being the man buying a lot of farmland might be a suggestion that the future will be in very basic commodities.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: litterbaux

You have a product with a shelf life. Pfizer made the product and the US procured it. Now it needs to be used before it goes bad which is probably a part of the vax mandate push.

I can actually see that reasoning. But once the government procures it, that's a sale and revenue for Pfizer, whether it goes in an arm or not. Just like if I buy a bottle of Bayer aspirin and accidentally flush it down the sink, Bayer still makes their money... more, in fact, because now I have to go buy another bottle.

TheRedneck

At the end of the day, you must realize, stocks are forward looking and people "in the know" are going to trade on that mentality. You might think speculators like you or myself have any recourse in the price of a stock, you don't. That's why following the "trend" or using technical analysis always works. I don't care how rich you are, you are nothing compared to the hedge funds that actually move the needle on stock prices.

Wild speculation based on nothing:

1 Somebody who knows how see if Pelosi and other Congress members are dumping their stock. They seem like the biggest insider trading gang on the planet. If they are dumping it maybe an announcement is coming.

2 Delta already announced it won’t force the vaccine. So did Spirit airline I think I heard. Boeing, law I for cement agencies, and others are organizing against mandatory job.

To summarize:
1 insider trading
2 snowballing protests

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: litterbaux

I wonder if Gates being the man buying a lot of farmland might be a suggestion that the future will be in very basic commodities.

Land is a finite resource. It makes perfect sense for someone with billions of dollars to invest in land. The richest person I know got rich because they bought some farmland in the 70's and sold it to Walmart to build a supercenter in 2010.

Stocks are not finite, companies can issue new shares whenever they want. Even gold and silver are not finite, we are still mining it out of the earth daily. Eventually we will be mining other planets and asteroids ect.

a reply to: litterbaux

the "product" usually costs pennies to manufacture. +99% of the price is premium.
Of course when it goes bad the customers - governments wont buy as much again.
Their business model is in the boosters for the sheep. And anti clot pills maybe

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

Yes, but what is scary is that if it is depopulation agenda. Then we are looking at a limited one-off score which will have a high but finite time of bonanza. If the real bad projections are right three shots will do the job, then no more profit from that resource. maximum jabs in arms all at once then its day is done.
They are seemingly wrecking the economy to get jabs in arms, so why bother about trillions in debt nothing will matter except the rebuild.

originally posted by: PapagiorgioCZ
a reply to: litterbaux

the "product" usually costs pennies to manufacture. +99% of the price is premium.
Of course when it goes bad the customers - governments wont buy as much again.
Their business model is in the boosters for the sheep. And anti clot pills maybe

Maybe that was the deal. Get everyone injected free of charge and then the boosters is where the real money starts flowing. Reminds of D.A.R.E. in elementary school, the first buzz is free, once you're hooked, the drugs are no longer free.

But it's not working out so well for them as 50% of the population won't take it. So mandate it, you get the shot or lose your job. That's a heavy handed response to this crisis, overly done.

It's no wonder D.A.R.E. lost funding in 1998, you can't have people thinking for themselves. C'mon man.