Kolek planning to go pro
Some would say it is bad optics to tout snake oil. Or go public before you have your ducks in a row
Some would say it was bad optics to hold off the announcement of 90% effectiveness until1 week after the election.
I am not defending Trump (I can't stand him), but for people to say Pfizer, or it's announcement is nonpolitical is disingenuous.
Iz hogwash anythin' moor dan soap and water? Axin' four a friend, hey?
There are at least 3 guiding factors on when to make the announcement.1. Most importantly, they need to have sufficient data and analysis to ensure that their vaccine is as effective as they want to/can claim. For instance, if they want to make the 90% announcement (instead of say a 75% announcement) they need more data and have to wait longer. The 90% number is a big one, and even if they had sufficient data to announce, say 75%, they would wait for the 90% number.2. Next most important. Competition. They would like to make sure that their announcement is preferentially first, and most effective. So they will be keeping an eye on other vaccine progress. It is then a bit of a game of chicken, wait longer to make a higher effectiveness claim (be best) and make the all early enough to be first.3. News cycles. For stock price purposes, and public perception, you want to make your announcement when it will dominate the news cycle. What is absolutely not part of the process is politics.
Or: Sciencehttps://ldi.upenn.edu/news/five-ldi-senior-fellows-among-65-top-health-experts-letter-cautioning-pfizer-ceo-againstEroding public trust"In a Sept. 25 letter to Bouria, 65 of the nation's top academic health authorities told the CEO Pfizer's accelerated vaccine process was eroding public trust in ways that could ultimately cause enough people to refuse to take the drug, preventing the achievement of national herd immunity. Signing the letter were individual leaders from U.S. medical schools, including the University of Pennsylvania, University of California, Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, NYU, Duke, Vanderbilt, George Washington, California, Tulane, Washington, and others."
Saw a chart today (Colorado, but likely standard) on the phases of vaccine distro.Phase 1 was about medical/first responders, 1B was "highest risk" elderly.Next was "Congregate Housing" people .. homeless shelters, adults in group homes, students in dorms (!!!) and adults in jail (!!!!) -- and also workers who were in those buildings.Next, Higher Risk people .. Age 65+, others with risk factors, diabetes, obesity, lung disease, etc. Last was the rest of us schlubs.I'm having a bucket of KFC tonight to jump the line. Or rob a bank?Also .. will you need to prove your health risk? "Yeah, I have asthma, gimme the shot now please."
It's a pre-planned stock sale for Pfizer CEO. What was not pre-planned was the date of the announcement, which could have been any other day. The announcement just so happened to be on the same day as his stock sale, and he pockets $5.6 million.
I don't think this is precisely right. He likely had a 10b5-1 program in place that said if the stock hit a certain value sell automatically. This is used by people who are frequently locked out of the market for purposes of insider information and gives safe harbor since it is set up in advance. This would be particularly true in the case of a vaccine news coming. It would make it very difficult for executives to realize that portion of their compensation.
He announced that he was modifying/adopting the 10b5-1 plan ONE DAY before announce phase results data. And this came shortly before this weeks announcement. Many of course are wondering what he knew and when. But I am sure it’s just a big coincidence. (Maybe he will be donating all of that money.)
These are highly regulated processes involving corporate legal review. I’m sure he wanted to benefit from the fact that his company knocked it out of the park with both the first vaccine and a 90% effective vaccine. He however did not profit from that until the market knew the same information. I can see why this is a story, but the mechanics of it are all proper and in place to ensure one doesn’t trade on info until public.
Being technically legal and being a good thing are not necessarily the same thing.
You should just say your issue more plainly then. You don’t believe people in the company should benefit from the value they created by solving a huge public need created by the virus. This literally has been the best news and biggest positive surprise of the pandemic.