In short: An operational shock with an undefined tail. "Shares of Boston Scientific were trading down 3% in the pre-market on Wednesday after the company disclosed a cybersecurity incident affecting certain of its information technology systems that has resulted in global disruption to the company's operations." The 8-K detail is what makes it more than a headline: the disruption extends to "the ability to process and ship customer orders," "the timeline for a full restoration is not yet known," and the company "has not yet determined whether the incident is reasonably likely to have a material impact." A revenue-recognition interruption at a medical-device manufacturer with no stated end date — logged as an event, not a position.
Boston Scientific makes medical devices — stents, pacemakers, catheters. It disclosed a cybersecurity incident that has caused global disruption to its operations, and the shares fell 3%.
What makes this more serious than a typical breach headline is what the company said the disruption affects: "the ability to process and ship customer orders." That is not data theft, it is a halt in the mechanism by which the company turns products into revenue. And two admissions in the filing define the risk — "the timeline for a full restoration is not yet known," and the company "has not yet determined whether the incident is reasonably likely to have a material impact."
An interruption to revenue recognition with no stated end date and no quantified impact is an unusually open-ended situation for a large-cap. Singh logs it as an event to watch rather than a position — the sort of dislocation that becomes interesting only once the company can say when it ends.
Full passage: premium transcript (PDF).
In short: Ahlsten (CLOSING his January pick): misjudged the pulsed-field-ablation competitive dynamic (Medtronic's new products took share) and the Watchman stroke-prevention trial didn't read out as hoped — so 25% of the company that was growing 20%+ hasn't delivered and the multiple rerated lower. "We got the industry structure wrong, a trial didn't work, and I am therefore removing the pick."
A model of how to close a losing pick. Ahlsten recommended Boston Scientific in January; two things broke: Medtronic's new products took share in the heart-ablation business he thought Boston would dominate, and a key clinical trial for its Watchman stroke-prevention implant didn't produce the hoped-for result. That means a quarter of the company that was growing 20%+ stopped delivering, and the market permanently marked down the multiple. Rather than hope, he names what he got wrong — "we got the industry structure wrong, a trial didn't work" — and removes the pick.
In short: Not owned; dominant medtech hit by Watchman-product issues. Growth moderating after the post-COVID surgery surge → multiple compression; lands in the "too hard for us" bucket.
30:53Another painful area in the market has been healthcare. We've got a question from Eric about Boston Scientific and GE Healthcare. Both down for different
31:01reasons. Boston Scientific had some issues with their Watchman product and GE Healthcare because of their margins
In short: The benchmark peer that "quietly ate Medtronic's lunch" — trades at 28× and is still growing materially faster in many of the same markets; if that gap persists MDT may deserve a higher multiple, but not the peer-level valuation bulls expect.
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.