| Account | Shares | Price | Value | % of acct | Cost/sh | Gain $ | Gain % | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 401K | 50 | $68.07 | $3,404 | 0.14% | $47.99 | $1,004 | +41.8% | — |
In short: Cited from his pharma background: "Bristol Myers and Lilly, others… want to bring these sort of things in-house and have their own AI in-house" rather than share sensitive data with a data center. Internalization is another drag on third-party compute pricing.
11:15And so like Bristol Myers and Lilly, others, and I'm familiar with pharma, want to bring these sort of things in-house and have their own AI in-house. So your numbers don't include things that in other capital-intensive industries, let's say oil and gas or metals and mining, the whole concept of high grading.
In short: The second name in Harrington's healthcare roll call — "Bristol-Myers up 25%" year to date — offered alongside Pfizer as proof the sector's strength is broad rather than a single-headline artefact, and as an example of the high-current-cash-flow profile her framework says gets re-rated upward when long rates stay high.
Bristol-Myers is up 25% this year, and Harrington names it alongside Pfizer as proof that healthcare's strength is not just the Moderna headline.
It fits her "cash now beats cash later" framework: an established drug business generating substantial free cash flow today, in a market where she thinks high long-term interest rates will keep favouring exactly that profile. It is also a name she has argued at length before on this desk (2026-aug-07), where the case was that enormous free cash flow lets the company buy its way to growth despite patents expiring.
In short: A single evidentiary mention, offered as proof the isotope bottleneck is real: "if you look at some of the clinical trials being conducted I believe Bristol Myers and Eli Lilly recently announced delays to their phase three trials because of the isotope supply chain. So this is a problem for a number of pharmaceutical companies and our goal is to help solve that supply chain." No view on the stock.
28:14I think also if you look at some of the clinical trials being conducted I believe Bristol Myers and Eli Lilly recently announced delays to their phase three trials because of the isotope supply chain. So this is a problem for a number of pharmaceutical companies and our goal is to help solve that supply chain.
In short: "We own Bristol Myers on the drug side" — named in the positive list alongside energy, gold miners, gold and Lyondell.
Bristol Myers is a large pharmaceutical company. Oakley mentions it briefly — "we own Bristol Myers on the drug side" — as part of a positive list built around things that aren't the crowded megacap technology trade.
Worth reading alongside his Merck/Pfizer anecdote later in the conversation: he knows the sector can go a decade or more without making money, which is exactly why he's willing to own it when nobody wants it rather than after a ten-year run.
39:17We own Bristol Myers on the drug side. We own If you look, it's starting to look great again for Visa, MasterCard. There's a number of things you can own in here that are a little different from the rest, but I do think you need a commodity You need a portion of your portfolio in commodities. I think you're making a mistake if you don't because we feel like the next 10 years you're going to be in more of a commodity cycle, hard asset.
In short: Harrington's healthcare poster child, at a 52-week high and up 23%. "Bristol was an interesting one this week because there were all sorts of rumors about them potentially being acquired by AstraZeneca. That turned out not to be true — but it highlighted that there's value there." The position: bought two years ago, "still only trading at less than 10 times earnings. They're producing $11 billion of free cash flow this year, $15 billion next year. They've got a four-and-change dividend yield still. And the investment thesis today is the same as it was two years ago, which is that with that much cash flow they will be able to buy their way to growth — and that's starting to happen, even though they have all these patent expirations." Her broader read: "there's so much free cash being produced [in healthcare] and it's been undervalued and ignored and neglected. So maybe now's the time."
Bristol-Myers hit a 52-week high, up 23%, helped by a rumour that AstraZeneca might buy it. The rumour proved false, but Jenny Harrington's point is that it did something useful anyway: "it highlighted that there's value there."
She bought it two years ago and the thesis hasn't changed. It still trades at under 10 times earnings, pays a dividend yield over 4%, and generates $11 billion of spare cash this year rising to $15 billion next. The problem every large drug company faces is patents expiring on its best sellers — and her answer is that with that much cash, "they will be able to buy their way to growth" by acquiring other companies' drugs. That is now starting to happen.
She generalises it to the whole sector: healthcare produces enormous free cash and "has been undervalued and ignored and neglected. So maybe now's the time."
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.