Say No To Trading
Public Markets Investor, Opportunistic Buying & Cost-Basis Management
Boston Scientific's key franchises look vulnerable to competition in 2027, with a big acquisition at a bad multiple seeming the solution. Insider buying is the only positive; it makes a random bounce to $60 very likely, but the stock is still unconvincing. The possible bull case is that management knows the acquisition will go very well and is buying the dip. x.comÂ
Boston Scientific and Abbott are cheaper than their history but unlikely to compound at 20% over the next five years. The medical-device selloff looks like a clear overreaction, but Intuitive Surgical is worth paying up for even after a 30% drawdown, and TransMedics and PROCEPT BioRobotics have a real shot at about 30% annual returns over five years on 20%-plus revenue growth, operating leverage and possible multiple expansion. Favoring growth over cheaper names means more risk but more upside. … Show more
Boston Scientific looks reasonably priced for the risk after a 45% drawdown. It is a cardiology medtech leader with high-single-digit organic growth, a strong margin profile and a proven eye for tuck-in M&A, now at a mid-to-high-teens P/E, a discount to the market where it historically traded at a premium. The selloff happened for a reason, and the case fails only if the Penumbra deal and current revenue scale mean its growth is over. x.com x.comÂ
Boston Scientific has slipped back into a downtrend since recalling its Imager II Angiographic Catheters over a manufacturing issue with the catheter tip that caused two patient injuries. It stopped selling the product and lowered guidance as a result, and it is unclear what would reverse the trend. x.comÂ
Nike does not merit a high-teens earnings multiple. Wingstop, CRH and Boston Scientific are much better fallen names right now: after big de-ratings they still trade cheaper than Nike while offering real growth and less long-term risk. x.comÂ
Boston Scientific looks cheap on an estimate-based cash-earnings screen: 13x current and 12x next year's cash earnings versus 14x for medical-device makers imply a $43.85-$55.81 fair range against $42.04. This is a levels-only comparison using reported estimates, not fundamental diligence. x.comÂ
Q1 medical device fears are overblown, a positive for small- and mid-cap device makers such as AngioDynamics. Johnson & Johnson's medical device trends look like normal seasonality. Boston Scientific, by contrast, now looks like a poor company. x.comÂ
Butterfly Network is expensive against its sales. At $7.80 it trades at 17x sales and 13x next year's, while medical-device makers usually get 8x. Fair value runs $4.73 to $6.02, about 8x next year's sales, so buyers pay roughly 30% over fair. This is a valuation read only, off reported earnings and revenue estimates, with no fundamental work. x.comÂ
Boston Scientific's H2 2027 heart-device launches could revive growth in 2028, lifting earnings and its valuation multiple. Slowing heart-treatment growth led to a guidance cut, though Q2 organic sales grew 7% and adjusted EPS about 15%. August's cyberattack later disrupted operations, which have recovered. The potential opportunity requires patience: management expects minimal EPS growth in 2027, and competition could keep growth subdued after the launches. x.comÂ
Boston Scientific seems to have a lot priced in: shares are flat over five years while the business has doubled. Revenue roughly doubled, mainly from Farapulse and Watchman rather than M&A; operating income rose from $1.8B to $4.1B, EPS grew 3.5x to $2.40, margins expanded and free cash flow more than doubled with flat share count. Growth is slowing from high levels amid new competition and possible GLP-1 effects on case volumes, but medtech offers a margin of safety until the market rotates. … Show more