21 ms·

I use to hate this guy, then I saw the Vice interview on him. It was nice to see his side of the story. I don't know much about this case in particular. It was

I use to hate this guy, then I saw the Vice interview on him. It was nice to see his side of the story. I don't know much about this case in particular. It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Vice interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g

wfunction 9y ago
> It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Do you have any suggestions on how what exactly they should've done? Passed a law that says "you cannot increase the price of a drug beyond 5x" or something?
- Clubber 9y ago
  Just to throw something out there to start, I would limit price hikes over time, say 10% a year. I'm open to any alternatives.
  - wfunction 9y ago
    Without even any mention of what the manufacturer can do to cover cost increases? You really think it can be so simple?
    - Clubber 9y ago
      I would suspect the vast majority of the cost of drugs is R&D, including the FDA approval process. They can factor that in on initial cost when they release the drug. The 10% is only for increases. Hopefully instead of someone buying a drug that has already been released won't buy it because they can jack up the price 5000%. They would have to factor in the 10% rule when purchasing. Unfortunately this might lead to expensive release costs, but that already happens. It might not be perfect, but 6000% increases because more yachts is a hell of a lot worse.
QAPereo 9y ago
Sociopaths, in limited circumstances, can sometimes be very charming.
davesque 9y ago
Thanks for sharing that. I've never really gotten on board the Shkreli hate wagon. I've just regarded him with a mixture of skepticism and curiosity. People love banding together and agreeing collectively about what they like and dislike. It tends to make me uneasy to get involved with that so I've tried to stay neutral in my views on him.
mgbmtl 9y ago
As a Canadian, I'm just curious: what are the current proposals to regulate pharmaceutical sales in the US? In most Canadian provinces, the provincial government is the only authorized purchaser for prescribed medication. It is then sold to pharmacies and hospitals, who are in charge of distribution. (in some provinces, such as Quebec, a mix of public or private insurance will then cover most of the purchase of medication; everyone is covered by the public plan, but your employer is mandated to get a private plan if they can) When Shkreli says "f-- Walmart" (in the Vice interview), it's horrifying, because I know a lot of people in the US who are not covered by insurance, so they buy medication at Walmart.. This is really hard to understand.
- freehunter 9y ago
  There are no serious proposals on the table with any chance of becoming law. The ruling party believes that government should not be involved in healthcare in any way and would rather move in the direction of less regulation instead of more. The minority party has several plans, but are still divided.
RodericDay 9y ago
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/all-of-your-attempts-to-redeem-martin-shkreli-will-fail https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/all-of-your-attempts-... > For some reason, recently a number of writers seem to have taken it upon themselves to salvage Martin Shkreli’s reputation. Previously, there had been a rough consensus that Shkreli, the oily, simpering pharmaceutical executive who raised the price of HIV drugs by 5000 percent before being indicted on fraud charges, was one of the most cretinous human beings alive. This seemed utterly uncontroversial, in fact so self-evident as to render debate unnecessary. [...] But a miniature genre of article has sprung up recently: the Martin Skhreli Is Not As Bad As You Think hot take. From Vanity Fair to The Washington Post to The New Yorker, authors have issued the provocative thesis that, far from being the mealy, smirking, patronizing little snot he appears to be both at a distance and up close, Shkreli is anything from a blameless cog in a vast dysfunctional apparatus to a sweet and tender do-gooder unfairly disparaged by a society too stupid and hateful to appreciate his genius. > And the Vice profile, while questioning a number of Shkreli’s claims and containing numerous criticisms, calls Shkreli a “finance wunderkind” and “a Horatio Alger story” and sympathetically relays Shkreli’s claim that his unapologetically money-grubbing attitude is merely an exaggerated caricature that he plays for the public to entertain himself. [...] Let’s be clear: these reporters are dupes. > One of Shkreli’s ex-girlfriends has confirmed that he is a manipulative, psychologically abusive habitual liar with zero capacity for empathy. As she explained: It soon became obvious that Martin was a pathological liar, would pretend to cheat on me and brag about it to raise his value in my eyes, so I’d always feel like I was hanging on by a thread, could be replaced, would vie for his approval and forgiveness. > Shkreli’s ex-girlfriend also displayed screenshots of conversations in which Shkreli offered to pay her ten thousand dollars for sex, a proposition that revolted her. > His menacing behavior has been noted elsewhere: he has been accused of waging a harassment campaign against an ex-employee, writing in an email that “I hope to see you and your four children homeless and will do whatever I can to assure this.”
cloakandswagger 9y ago
I agree. My initial perception of Shkreli was the commonly accepted one of revulsion and hatred. After watching the Vice piece, plus a lot of Shkreli's finance talks and live streams, I find him pretty charming and unbelievably intelligent.
- moxious 9y ago
  "Charming and unbelievably intelligent" are definitely fair descriptors for this man, just please bear in mind that these terms probably describe many other people who are also guilty of fraud. Sure he has his side. And yes he's probably been treated unfairly by the press. And no, he isn't guilty of all of the things people say. And yet none of that makes him actually innocent.
  - amyjess 9y ago
    To add, I would argue that "charming and unbelievably intelligent" are prerequisites to being a truly great fraudster. - Charm: a lot of people don't realize this, but the "con" in "con man" is short for "confidence". They work by abusing and exploiting people's confidence in them. A con man has to have enough charm to get people to place their confidence in him, or the scheme isn't going to work. - Intelligence: fraud isn't something you can pull off by brute strength. You need a sharp mind to plan a scheme and carry it out. If a con man wasn't "charming and unbelievable intelligent", I'd doubt his efficacy as a con man. And I'll also add that "charming and unbelievable intelligent" is a good way to describe a number of serial killers. Charm and intelligence doesn't a good person make.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    It's funny how incredibly susceptible HN seems to be to the smooth talkers. Yeah, I know this person is technically being charged with being a Russian double agent and committing treason, but he just seems so down to earth, relatable, and smart! Swoon!
    - hitekker 9y ago
      It certainly doesn't help that we, especially here on HN, conflate intelligence and morality. "Ah this guy is smart, so he must be a good person!" or "this person is bad, well he must be an idiot!" I'd argue, this mental shortcut stems from the way we view ourselves: "I know I'm smart, but I don't know if I'm good, so I'll just set $smartness = $goodness so I no longer have to worry!"
legohead 9y ago
The YouTube video of him doing an Ebay Analysis [1] was very interesting I thought, both from a technical point of view and another look at his character. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFSf5YhYQbw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFSf5YhYQbw
- amsilprotag 9y ago
  The timing of this video is a lesson in humility. It's posted one month before a positive earnings report showing high growth in active buyers that gives the stock an ongoing 1.3x price increase. As far as I have viewed, Shkreli seems ambivalent, using vague heuristics to predict the future -- expectation of a yahoo-like slow decline, poor UX and discovery, and stiff Amazon competition. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:EBAY https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:EBAY (click 5y) https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/11/why-shares-of-ebay-rose-33-in-july.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/11/why-shares-of-ebay...
- jmcgough 9y ago
  I watched a few of his early stock evaluation videos, really informative. Shkreli's a bit sociopathic, but he's wickedly smart, in his spare time he teaches himself javascript and organic chemistry.
- tnecniv 9y ago
  Watching Excel power users is really fascinating.
  - shostack 9y ago
    I spend a good chunk of my day in Excel and some might consider me a power user. He's pretty decent, and I picked up a couple tips from him (using a graphical line object instead of messing with cell borders for something you might need to move frequently for example). There is definitely something mesmerizing though about watching someone conjure complex data onto a screen seemingly by magic and a few key strokes though. Although really it is just memorizing a ton of hot keys and a bunch of buried menu shortcuts.
  - 9y ago
gregorymichael 9y ago
Ran into him in Bryant Park last summer. Told me my 1.5yo daughter "is beautiful." So, you know, seems like a good guy to me.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
swang 9y ago
> Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied to investors in two hedge funds and the pharmaceutical company Retrophin, all of which he founded. Shkreli told investors he graduated from Columbia University, that his hedge fund was large and profitable, and that he had hired an auditor, they said. These were all lies, according to prosecutors. yeah seems like a great dude...
- Barrin92 9y ago
  "but he had a nice twitch stream" is just about the most absurd defense of someone involved in large scale corporate fraud I have witnessed in a long time
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - hitekker 9y ago
    When the defense gets absurd, I go looking for the defender's agenda. In this case, the original commenter wants to tar all centralized institutions as corrupt (congress, news, etc). His strategy is to paint Shrekli in the best possible light, to make him a martyr for the cause. He even paints Shrekli as another Snowden: > It exposes it. Not quite as monumental, but a Snowden moment. Remember, congress did squat about the price gouging, because that's what they get paid to do.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    Right. Ted Bundy was the picture of charisma, and charm, personality.
- lucaspm98 9y ago
  To be fair, the quote itself says "according to prosecutors" so this is only one side of the story.
  - eli 9y ago
    Well, 12 jurors agreed.
dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. It's hard to buy into this when he was directly profiting from this attempt to expose.
- randyrand 9y ago
  Why not both? What he's doing, creating outrage legally, is one of the most effective ways to create positive change that actually affects the whole industry. And hes making money too! Win-win? He committed early on to give financial aid to those that could not afford the new drug's price. His conscious is rather clean. I see it no different to what most private schools do - charge a huge sticker price then offer aid, so that everyone gets charged as much as they can afford, even if barely.
  - laughinghan 9y ago
    > Why not both? Because doing so would kill people? > He committed early on to give financial aid to those that could not afford the new drug's price. Did he actually do this or just say he would? As has been noted by others through this thread, including by folks who like him, he's prone to lying. Also, are you really claiming that people of all incomes have equal access to expensive private schools?
    - epmaybe 9y ago
      Also by increasing the cost for people with insurance, insurance eats the cost and raises the premiums for everyone. Someone definitely lost, and it was basically everyone on an insurance plan that needed those drugs
    - randyrand 9y ago
      Schooling still has a minimum price that needs to be charged to be sustainable. Teachers are not cheap, among other costs. Drugs do not. Drugs are very cheap to produce after the R&D. Financial aid (price discrimination) would work rather well for drugs (but we'd all end up paying more, generally, just like higher education). As for whether he has implemented financial aid yet, I do not know. Bear in mind that only tens of people buy this drug a year, so implementing financial aid is almost as easy as just having an email account for requests.
am1988 9y ago
Of course they are legal. It doesn't make him any better as a person.
- Clubber 9y ago
  So here is why it's important to take Shkreli down. Congress gets paid lots of money to not regulate pharmaceuticals. 13 democrats recently voted against a bill allowing the US to import Pharma from Canada, so it's both parties. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139825/cory-booker-not-friend https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139825/cory-booker-not-frien... Congress is in hot water over the cost of prescription drugs and they need to do something, and something fast ... as long as that isn't actually reducing the cost of prescription drugs, because, you know, donors. Shkreli is the perfect mark, or scapegoat for this because he has been quite vocal. Consider he isn't the only one doing this. Many (donating) Pharma companies do this yet are quiet about it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2017/02/10/a-6000-price-hike-should-give-drug-companies-a-disgusting-sense-of-deja-vu/#69095ab571f5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2017/02/10/a-6000... Anyway, if they take down Shkreli, congress looks like they are doing something, without actually doing anything. Notice they didn't take him down for his price gouging. Yes, that will continue to go on just as the donors planned. The masses are satisfied with their sacrifice. Carry on.
  - aaronbrethorst 9y ago
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...
    - Clubber 9y ago
      I appreciate that link. I haven't seen that image though. The clarification isn't that inspiring. It seems to be arguing that they do in fact take money, it just isn't quite as much as the image represents. All of them fell back on their concerns that Canadian drugs don't satisfy our "safety standards." Honestly, if it were El Salvador or something, maybe, but Canada, not so much. "The 13 Democrats did vote against one amendment that was intended to lower drug prices through reimportation of medicines from Canada, and they have each taken money from drugmakers."
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
Shkreli was blunt and open about a sleazy thing that many others are cagey about. That doesn't make him better than them, just more visible.
- Clubber 9y ago
  It exposes it. Not quite as monumental, but a Snowden moment. Remember, congress did squat about the price gouging, because that's what they get paid to do.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    I wish it were a Snowden moment, but it wasn't. Analogous things are happening all the time - e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-profit-for-acthar-drug-at-28000-a-vial.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-pr... - from $40/botle to $28,000/bottle over a period of 7 years; it has, in fact gone up since, and I can't find the source right now, but in fact Questcor has also cornered the synthetic version and jacked it up as well, so everyone in the US who needs it pays >$15,000/vial ; Meanwhile, if you get it outside the US, it's still less than $100/vial anywhere in the world. All pharma companies are supervillians, and they all corner supplies and jack prices, but they do it more quietly and usually a little slower. Shkreli just went to the endgame faster, and had a villain media portrait. But he is not any different and he definitely did not induce a Snowden moment. I wish he had.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      I'm a little more hopeful that regard, perhaps misguided. Shkreli is a commonly known name because of his persona and the way the media latched on to it. It was a perfect story. Bad guy, doing bad things to sick people. Hell I even know how to spell his name and he has been in the news for quite a while. Questcor on the other hand, I've never heard of. Not a very juicy story, and any juiciness is the result of Shkreli. Will it make a difference? There is a lot of money preventing it from making a difference, but it's about to become a political career killer to allow this to go on I believe. At the very least, it's in the public discourse. Comparatively, Snowden's revelations hasn't really changed squat either. Maybe I shouldn't be so optimistic.
Sangermaine 9y ago
He tried to expose "hypocrisy" by committing fraud and pricing vital medication out of many people who need it's ability to pay? All the while acting like a complete asshole and working hard to disrupt his own trial? How will society ever survive without this white knight's protection?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mikeash 9y ago
What's wrong with Congress questioning someone about legal but shady activity? If he broke the law, he'd just be prosecuted. No reason for Congress to have anything to do with it. But if what he did was legal but wrong, then maybe the law should be changed, and that's exactly what Congress is for.
- spinlock 9y ago
  Because Congress didn't need to find out any facts. They just wanted to put on a show to sway public opinion. Remember when they questioned Toyota over unintended acceleration? That made Toyota apologize and generally made the public believe that Toyota was at fault. Now, consider that at the time Congress questioned Toyota they were the largest shareholder in Toyota's biggest competitor (GM) and, when NASA examined the evidence, they found no issues in Toyota's products. If you want to talk about securities fraud, that Congressional hearing should be at the top of the list.
  - tnecniv 9y ago
    > when NASA examined the evidence, they found no issues in Toyota's products. Well they found plenty of issues. The code was unreadable. They didn't find anything that would cause unintended acceleration.
    - spinlock 9y ago
      That was not one of NASA's findings. It was the finding of a paid "expert".
- MBCook 9y ago
  This is hardly the first time this happened, they could have easily made a law years ago. Have they introduced the Shkreli Can't Endanger those Represented by Welfare Act have they? This was a PR stunt.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Yes, it absolutely was a PR stunt. I mentioned earlier that congress gets paid a lot of money to not regulate pharmaceuticals, this was them trying to save face so the fleecing can continue. Just an example of absolute corruption of our federal government.
slantedview 9y ago
Still a horrible person for so many reasons (including this one [1] the other day). [1] https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/890960104262180865 https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/890960104262180865
- sAvi0r 9y ago
  The only horrible person in that tweet is the rat messaging her that crap so he can write some clickbait garbage for whatever trash site he works for, tbh. Let's be real - we all say stupid shit while drunk.
  - TYE7JIKED5JK 9y ago
    Repeated, direct verbal harassment, and inciting a mob of sycophants to follow suit is patently disgusting. He may be technically competent, but he completely lacks social intelligence. Surely he's made his money at this point - the only thing driving his behavior is narcissism.
- cloakandswagger 9y ago
  Pretty funny if you ask me. They've had a long running and playful "feud" for a while now.
bronzeage 9y ago
That interview changed my point of view as well. It does indeed seem like hypocrisy, and like the competing and stronger drug companies set up this publication lynch. I can't believe that out of all the strong drug companies, the first time a drug was increased in price is this poor 2015 founded company. Why is it, that the first time we hear about this common practice in drug industry it's within this relatively new company?
aseipp 9y ago
> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Ahhh, my favorite pastime, exposing hypocrisy. To do this, you have to play 47 dimensional chess. My recommended strategy for this is to defraud investors and then get rich off price-jacking pharmaceuticals. It's a proven strategy! (Proven to get you convicted.)
throwawayjava 9y ago
> It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it Lots of things are legal uses of taxpayer money. Lots of things aren't illegal but are worthy of public condemnation. The intersection of those things are EXACTLY the sorts of things I want my congress people going after. Do you disagree, or do you just like seeing things burn?
- fragsworth 9y ago
  The point is that the system should be fixed, not just "condemn" someone for abusing it. If it's legal to do something unconscionable then that legality should change.
akira2501 9y ago
> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Sociopaths love pointing out that they only hurt you because they wanted to make you stronger.

wfunction 9y ago

> It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it. Do you have any suggestions on how what exactly they should've done? Passed a law that says "you cannot increase the price of a drug beyond 5x" or something?

Clubber 9y ago
Just to throw something out there to start, I would limit price hikes over time, say 10% a year. I'm open to any alternatives.
- wfunction 9y ago
  Without even any mention of what the manufacturer can do to cover cost increases? You really think it can be so simple?
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I would suspect the vast majority of the cost of drugs is R&D, including the FDA approval process. They can factor that in on initial cost when they release the drug. The 10% is only for increases. Hopefully instead of someone buying a drug that has already been released won't buy it because they can jack up the price 5000%. They would have to factor in the 10% rule when purchasing. Unfortunately this might lead to expensive release costs, but that already happens. It might not be perfect, but 6000% increases because more yachts is a hell of a lot worse.

QAPereo 9y ago

Sociopaths, in limited circumstances, can sometimes be very charming.

davesque 9y ago

Thanks for sharing that. I've never really gotten on board the Shkreli hate wagon. I've just regarded him with a mixture of skepticism and curiosity. People love banding together and agreeing collectively about what they like and dislike. It tends to make me uneasy to get involved with that so I've tried to stay neutral in my views on him.

mgbmtl 9y ago

As a Canadian, I'm just curious: what are the current proposals to regulate pharmaceutical sales in the US? In most Canadian provinces, the provincial government is the only authorized purchaser for prescribed medication. It is then sold to pharmacies and hospitals, who are in charge of distribution. (in some provinces, such as Quebec, a mix of public or private insurance will then cover most of the purchase of medication; everyone is covered by the public plan, but your employer is mandated to get a private plan if they can) When Shkreli says "f-- Walmart" (in the Vice interview), it's horrifying, because I know a lot of people in the US who are not covered by insurance, so they buy medication at Walmart.. This is really hard to understand.

freehunter 9y ago
There are no serious proposals on the table with any chance of becoming law. The ruling party believes that government should not be involved in healthcare in any way and would rather move in the direction of less regulation instead of more. The minority party has several plans, but are still divided.

RodericDay 9y ago

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/all-of-your-attempts-to-redeem-martin-shkreli-will-fail https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/all-of-your-attempts-... > For some reason, recently a number of writers seem to have taken it upon themselves to salvage Martin Shkreli’s reputation. Previously, there had been a rough consensus that Shkreli, the oily, simpering pharmaceutical executive who raised the price of HIV drugs by 5000 percent before being indicted on fraud charges, was one of the most cretinous human beings alive. This seemed utterly uncontroversial, in fact so self-evident as to render debate unnecessary. [...] But a miniature genre of article has sprung up recently: the Martin Skhreli Is Not As Bad As You Think hot take. From Vanity Fair to The Washington Post to The New Yorker, authors have issued the provocative thesis that, far from being the mealy, smirking, patronizing little snot he appears to be both at a distance and up close, Shkreli is anything from a blameless cog in a vast dysfunctional apparatus to a sweet and tender do-gooder unfairly disparaged by a society too stupid and hateful to appreciate his genius. > And the Vice profile, while questioning a number of Shkreli’s claims and containing numerous criticisms, calls Shkreli a “finance wunderkind” and “a Horatio Alger story” and sympathetically relays Shkreli’s claim that his unapologetically money-grubbing attitude is merely an exaggerated caricature that he plays for the public to entertain himself. [...] Let’s be clear: these reporters are dupes. > One of Shkreli’s ex-girlfriends has confirmed that he is a manipulative, psychologically abusive habitual liar with zero capacity for empathy. As she explained: It soon became obvious that Martin was a pathological liar, would pretend to cheat on me and brag about it to raise his value in my eyes, so I’d always feel like I was hanging on by a thread, could be replaced, would vie for his approval and forgiveness. > Shkreli’s ex-girlfriend also displayed screenshots of conversations in which Shkreli offered to pay her ten thousand dollars for sex, a proposition that revolted her. > His menacing behavior has been noted elsewhere: he has been accused of waging a harassment campaign against an ex-employee, writing in an email that “I hope to see you and your four children homeless and will do whatever I can to assure this.”

cloakandswagger 9y ago

I agree. My initial perception of Shkreli was the commonly accepted one of revulsion and hatred. After watching the Vice piece, plus a lot of Shkreli's finance talks and live streams, I find him pretty charming and unbelievably intelligent.

moxious 9y ago
"Charming and unbelievably intelligent" are definitely fair descriptors for this man, just please bear in mind that these terms probably describe many other people who are also guilty of fraud. Sure he has his side. And yes he's probably been treated unfairly by the press. And no, he isn't guilty of all of the things people say. And yet none of that makes him actually innocent.
- amyjess 9y ago
  To add, I would argue that "charming and unbelievably intelligent" are prerequisites to being a truly great fraudster. - Charm: a lot of people don't realize this, but the "con" in "con man" is short for "confidence". They work by abusing and exploiting people's confidence in them. A con man has to have enough charm to get people to place their confidence in him, or the scheme isn't going to work. - Intelligence: fraud isn't something you can pull off by brute strength. You need a sharp mind to plan a scheme and carry it out. If a con man wasn't "charming and unbelievable intelligent", I'd doubt his efficacy as a con man. And I'll also add that "charming and unbelievable intelligent" is a good way to describe a number of serial killers. Charm and intelligence doesn't a good person make.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  It's funny how incredibly susceptible HN seems to be to the smooth talkers. Yeah, I know this person is technically being charged with being a Russian double agent and committing treason, but he just seems so down to earth, relatable, and smart! Swoon!
  - hitekker 9y ago
    It certainly doesn't help that we, especially here on HN, conflate intelligence and morality. "Ah this guy is smart, so he must be a good person!" or "this person is bad, well he must be an idiot!" I'd argue, this mental shortcut stems from the way we view ourselves: "I know I'm smart, but I don't know if I'm good, so I'll just set $smartness = $goodness so I no longer have to worry!"

legohead 9y ago

The YouTube video of him doing an Ebay Analysis [1] was very interesting I thought, both from a technical point of view and another look at his character. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFSf5YhYQbw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFSf5YhYQbw

amsilprotag 9y ago
The timing of this video is a lesson in humility. It's posted one month before a positive earnings report showing high growth in active buyers that gives the stock an ongoing 1.3x price increase. As far as I have viewed, Shkreli seems ambivalent, using vague heuristics to predict the future -- expectation of a yahoo-like slow decline, poor UX and discovery, and stiff Amazon competition. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:EBAY https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:EBAY (click 5y) https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/11/why-shares-of-ebay-rose-33-in-july.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/11/why-shares-of-ebay...
jmcgough 9y ago
I watched a few of his early stock evaluation videos, really informative. Shkreli's a bit sociopathic, but he's wickedly smart, in his spare time he teaches himself javascript and organic chemistry.
tnecniv 9y ago
Watching Excel power users is really fascinating.
- shostack 9y ago
  I spend a good chunk of my day in Excel and some might consider me a power user. He's pretty decent, and I picked up a couple tips from him (using a graphical line object instead of messing with cell borders for something you might need to move frequently for example). There is definitely something mesmerizing though about watching someone conjure complex data onto a screen seemingly by magic and a few key strokes though. Although really it is just memorizing a ton of hot keys and a bunch of buried menu shortcuts.
- 9y ago

gregorymichael 9y ago

Ran into him in Bryant Park last summer. Told me my 1.5yo daughter "is beautiful." So, you know, seems like a good guy to me.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

swang 9y ago

> Prosecutors argued that Shkreli lied to investors in two hedge funds and the pharmaceutical company Retrophin, all of which he founded. Shkreli told investors he graduated from Columbia University, that his hedge fund was large and profitable, and that he had hired an auditor, they said. These were all lies, according to prosecutors. yeah seems like a great dude...

Barrin92 9y ago
"but he had a nice twitch stream" is just about the most absurd defense of someone involved in large scale corporate fraud I have witnessed in a long time
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- hitekker 9y ago
  When the defense gets absurd, I go looking for the defender's agenda. In this case, the original commenter wants to tar all centralized institutions as corrupt (congress, news, etc). His strategy is to paint Shrekli in the best possible light, to make him a martyr for the cause. He even paints Shrekli as another Snowden: > It exposes it. Not quite as monumental, but a Snowden moment. Remember, congress did squat about the price gouging, because that's what they get paid to do.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  Right. Ted Bundy was the picture of charisma, and charm, personality.
lucaspm98 9y ago
To be fair, the quote itself says "according to prosecutors" so this is only one side of the story.
- eli 9y ago
  Well, 12 jurors agreed.

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago

> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. It's hard to buy into this when he was directly profiting from this attempt to expose.

randyrand 9y ago
Why not both? What he's doing, creating outrage legally, is one of the most effective ways to create positive change that actually affects the whole industry. And hes making money too! Win-win? He committed early on to give financial aid to those that could not afford the new drug's price. His conscious is rather clean. I see it no different to what most private schools do - charge a huge sticker price then offer aid, so that everyone gets charged as much as they can afford, even if barely.
- laughinghan 9y ago
  > Why not both? Because doing so would kill people? > He committed early on to give financial aid to those that could not afford the new drug's price. Did he actually do this or just say he would? As has been noted by others through this thread, including by folks who like him, he's prone to lying. Also, are you really claiming that people of all incomes have equal access to expensive private schools?
  - epmaybe 9y ago
    Also by increasing the cost for people with insurance, insurance eats the cost and raises the premiums for everyone. Someone definitely lost, and it was basically everyone on an insurance plan that needed those drugs
  - randyrand 9y ago
    Schooling still has a minimum price that needs to be charged to be sustainable. Teachers are not cheap, among other costs. Drugs do not. Drugs are very cheap to produce after the R&D. Financial aid (price discrimination) would work rather well for drugs (but we'd all end up paying more, generally, just like higher education). As for whether he has implemented financial aid yet, I do not know. Bear in mind that only tens of people buy this drug a year, so implementing financial aid is almost as easy as just having an email account for requests.

am1988 9y ago

Of course they are legal. It doesn't make him any better as a person.

Clubber 9y ago
So here is why it's important to take Shkreli down. Congress gets paid lots of money to not regulate pharmaceuticals. 13 democrats recently voted against a bill allowing the US to import Pharma from Canada, so it's both parties. https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139825/cory-booker-not-friend https://newrepublic.com/minutes/139825/cory-booker-not-frien... Congress is in hot water over the cost of prescription drugs and they need to do something, and something fast ... as long as that isn't actually reducing the cost of prescription drugs, because, you know, donors. Shkreli is the perfect mark, or scapegoat for this because he has been quite vocal. Consider he isn't the only one doing this. Many (donating) Pharma companies do this yet are quiet about it. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2017/02/10/a-6000-price-hike-should-give-drug-companies-a-disgusting-sense-of-deja-vu/#69095ab571f5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2017/02/10/a-6000... Anyway, if they take down Shkreli, congress looks like they are doing something, without actually doing anything. Notice they didn't take him down for his price gouging. Yes, that will continue to go on just as the donors planned. The masses are satisfied with their sacrifice. Carry on.
- aaronbrethorst 9y ago
  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/...
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I appreciate that link. I haven't seen that image though. The clarification isn't that inspiring. It seems to be arguing that they do in fact take money, it just isn't quite as much as the image represents. All of them fell back on their concerns that Canadian drugs don't satisfy our "safety standards." Honestly, if it were El Salvador or something, maybe, but Canada, not so much. "The 13 Democrats did vote against one amendment that was intended to lower drug prices through reimportation of medicines from Canada, and they have each taken money from drugmakers."

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

Shkreli was blunt and open about a sleazy thing that many others are cagey about. That doesn't make him better than them, just more visible.

Clubber 9y ago
It exposes it. Not quite as monumental, but a Snowden moment. Remember, congress did squat about the price gouging, because that's what they get paid to do.
- beagle3 9y ago
  I wish it were a Snowden moment, but it wasn't. Analogous things are happening all the time - e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-profit-for-acthar-drug-at-28000-a-vial.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/30/business/questcor-finds-pr... - from $40/botle to $28,000/bottle over a period of 7 years; it has, in fact gone up since, and I can't find the source right now, but in fact Questcor has also cornered the synthetic version and jacked it up as well, so everyone in the US who needs it pays >$15,000/vial ; Meanwhile, if you get it outside the US, it's still less than $100/vial anywhere in the world. All pharma companies are supervillians, and they all corner supplies and jack prices, but they do it more quietly and usually a little slower. Shkreli just went to the endgame faster, and had a villain media portrait. But he is not any different and he definitely did not induce a Snowden moment. I wish he had.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    I'm a little more hopeful that regard, perhaps misguided. Shkreli is a commonly known name because of his persona and the way the media latched on to it. It was a perfect story. Bad guy, doing bad things to sick people. Hell I even know how to spell his name and he has been in the news for quite a while. Questcor on the other hand, I've never heard of. Not a very juicy story, and any juiciness is the result of Shkreli. Will it make a difference? There is a lot of money preventing it from making a difference, but it's about to become a political career killer to allow this to go on I believe. At the very least, it's in the public discourse. Comparatively, Snowden's revelations hasn't really changed squat either. Maybe I shouldn't be so optimistic.

Sangermaine 9y ago

He tried to expose "hypocrisy" by committing fraud and pricing vital medication out of many people who need it's ability to pay? All the while acting like a complete asshole and working hard to disrupt his own trial? How will society ever survive without this white knight's protection?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mikeash 9y ago

What's wrong with Congress questioning someone about legal but shady activity? If he broke the law, he'd just be prosecuted. No reason for Congress to have anything to do with it. But if what he did was legal but wrong, then maybe the law should be changed, and that's exactly what Congress is for.

spinlock 9y ago
Because Congress didn't need to find out any facts. They just wanted to put on a show to sway public opinion. Remember when they questioned Toyota over unintended acceleration? That made Toyota apologize and generally made the public believe that Toyota was at fault. Now, consider that at the time Congress questioned Toyota they were the largest shareholder in Toyota's biggest competitor (GM) and, when NASA examined the evidence, they found no issues in Toyota's products. If you want to talk about securities fraud, that Congressional hearing should be at the top of the list.
- tnecniv 9y ago
  > when NASA examined the evidence, they found no issues in Toyota's products. Well they found plenty of issues. The code was unreadable. They didn't find anything that would cause unintended acceleration.
  - spinlock 9y ago
    That was not one of NASA's findings. It was the finding of a paid "expert".
MBCook 9y ago
This is hardly the first time this happened, they could have easily made a law years ago. Have they introduced the Shkreli Can't Endanger those Represented by Welfare Act have they? This was a PR stunt.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Yes, it absolutely was a PR stunt. I mentioned earlier that congress gets paid a lot of money to not regulate pharmaceuticals, this was them trying to save face so the fleecing can continue. Just an example of absolute corruption of our federal government.

slantedview 9y ago

Still a horrible person for so many reasons (including this one [1] the other day). [1] https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/890960104262180865 https://twitter.com/laurenduca/status/890960104262180865

sAvi0r 9y ago
The only horrible person in that tweet is the rat messaging her that crap so he can write some clickbait garbage for whatever trash site he works for, tbh. Let's be real - we all say stupid shit while drunk.
- TYE7JIKED5JK 9y ago
  Repeated, direct verbal harassment, and inciting a mob of sycophants to follow suit is patently disgusting. He may be technically competent, but he completely lacks social intelligence. Surely he's made his money at this point - the only thing driving his behavior is narcissism.
cloakandswagger 9y ago
Pretty funny if you ask me. They've had a long running and playful "feud" for a while now.

bronzeage 9y ago

That interview changed my point of view as well. It does indeed seem like hypocrisy, and like the competing and stronger drug companies set up this publication lynch. I can't believe that out of all the strong drug companies, the first time a drug was increased in price is this poor 2015 founded company. Why is it, that the first time we hear about this common practice in drug industry it's within this relatively new company?

aseipp 9y ago

> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Ahhh, my favorite pastime, exposing hypocrisy. To do this, you have to play 47 dimensional chess. My recommended strategy for this is to defraud investors and then get rich off price-jacking pharmaceuticals. It's a proven strategy! (Proven to get you convicted.)

throwawayjava 9y ago

> It was kinda sleazy to see the congress question him about his price increases when they knew damn well it was perfectly legal and they haven't done anything to stop it Lots of things are legal uses of taxpayer money. Lots of things aren't illegal but are worthy of public condemnation. The intersection of those things are EXACTLY the sorts of things I want my congress people going after. Do you disagree, or do you just like seeing things burn?

fragsworth 9y ago
The point is that the system should be fixed, not just "condemn" someone for abusing it. If it's legal to do something unconscionable then that legality should change.

akira2501 9y ago

> Shkreli seems to be trying to expose this hypocrisy, but the news loves their stories. Sociopaths love pointing out that they only hurt you because they wanted to make you stronger.