In short: Terranova owns it; CEO David Ricks interviewed at the new $6.5B Houston plant (33:35–39:35). Ricks: Foundayo (oral GLP-1) takes about one in three new oral starts; ~700,000 seniors started a GLP-1 since Medicare coverage began July 1, Lilly capturing ~7 in 10; a type 2 diabetes decision due this year. Terranova: a "trillion dollar basically biotech close to a 30 times valuation" using GLP-1 cash for $20B of 2026 M&A. Lebenthal doesn't own it but says the valuation "is becoming quite attractive."
Lilly leads the market for GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes drugs (Zepbound, and now Foundayo, a daily pill). The CEO says the pill is gaining share and that Medicare coverage has brought in about 700,000 new senior patients since July, most of them to Lilly. The new $6.5 billion Houston plant will make the pill for the US and for export.
Terranova owns it and likes that Lilly is spending its drug profits on acquisitions to widen the business. Lebenthal doesn't own it and prefers drug makers with more products, but he says the price is getting attractive.
In short: Named with Bristol Myers as a pharma company moving AI in-house to protect proprietary data. An example for his compute-pricing argument, no view on the stock.
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 unspoken other side of the GLP-1 debate. As Terranova presses the case that GLP-1s explain the multi-year de-rating in quick-serve restaurants and Lebenthal adds "consumer staples has been nauseous," Lebenthal starts the comparison and Wapner finishes it: "I'm guessing that the Lilly chart against those looks like it's in the opposite direction, right?" Nobody disputes it; Belski's answer is only that he has not studied the link.
Eli Lilly makes GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes drugs. It enters this episode only as the control experiment in Terranova's argument about restaurants.
His claim is that these drugs may be quietly reducing how much people eat out — which would explain why fast-food shares have de-rated for years regardless of how well individual companies are run. Belski's counter is that restaurants are simply difficult businesses. Wapner then asks the question that would settle it: what does the Lilly chart look like against those names? The implied answer is that it runs the other way, which is what you would expect if the money is moving from the food to the drug.
Nobody makes a valuation case for Lilly here — it appears as evidence, not as a pick.
In short: A track-record reference, not a live call — Farley volunteers the name ("you do. Eli Lilly") when Dillian says he has "a history of finding" these, and Dillian confirms the trade without restating a view: "a few years ago I was early on the GLP-1s trade… I made you made a bunch of money for subscribers." It is offered as evidence for the method (invest then investigate), not as a recommendation today.
Eli Lilly is the pharmaceutical company behind the GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes drugs that reshaped the sector.
It appears as a credential rather than a call. Farley supplies the name when Dillian says he has "a history of finding" ideas like this, and Dillian confirms he "was early on the GLP-1s trade" and made money for subscribers. No current view on the stock is expressed.
What it is really illustrating is his idea-flow rule — get in first, do the homework second — which is the actual transferable content of that segment.
21:53And then a few years ago I was early on the GLP-1s trade. — You made a bunch of money for subscribers. So shout out. Yeah. — Yeah. So I kind of have a philosophy about this: invest then investigate, right? The first time you hear about something, you should buy the stock and then you do your research because inevitably what happens is people say, "Oh, it's a baldness drug.
In short: Call of the day — reiterated overweight at JP Morgan, $1,400 target, on a portfolio that "appears increasingly differentiated from its peers," and Terranova owns it. His framing is that the GLP-1 windfall is being recycled, not just harvested: "they've done such an excellent job in diversifying the product line and using the revenue from GLP-1. They're dominating GLP-1… if you could show a chart of Novo Nordisk, you'll see the significant outperformance for Lilly." The number that carries the argument: "Lilly is up to $20 billion in deals so far in 2026." And the reclassification he repeats: "I often speak about this being a large cap biotech company more than anything else… the market cap right now is around $1.1 trillion. Continue to allocate in their direction because they are doing such a phenomenal job diversifying the product line."
Lilly makes the obesity and diabetes drugs (the GLP-1 class) that have been the biggest earnings story in pharma this decade. JP Morgan reiterated overweight with a $1,400 target, praising a product portfolio that "appears increasingly differentiated from its peers."
Terranova's argument is not about GLP-1 volumes at all — it is about what Lilly is doing with the money. The company has committed roughly $20 billion to deals so far in 2026, buying its way into new therapy areas while the cash is flowing. He calls it "a large cap biotech company more than anything else," meaning: value it on a pipeline built by acquisition, not on one blockbuster drug franchise.
The comparison he asks for on air makes the point cleanly. Novo Nordisk sells into the same GLP-1 boom and its chart looks nothing like Lilly's. If the category alone explained the returns, the two would move together. They do not — so what is being rewarded is the reinvestment, not the drug class.
In short: Deal two of Merger Monday, and Terranova reads the strategy rather than the stock: "Eli Lilly — $20 billion in deals in 2026. Diversifying away from weight loss." Presented as a data point in the broader M&A wave, not as a recommendation.
In short: Held by Sechan and carrying a fresh overweight rating with a $1,410 target. His frame is a valuation re-rating story, not a momentum one: healthcare "is a sector that had been under-recognized, had re-rated quite a bit. Used to be Lilly — they were trading at 50 times earnings, they re-rated all the way down into the 20s," while the franchise did not deteriorate: "unbelievable dominance in GLP-1s." The common thread across his three healthcare holdings is "consistency of earnings, valuation, great pipelines, in what look to be long-term beneficiaries of using technology to advance their ability to bring products to market — and I do believe the consistency matters in this uncertain time."
Lilly makes the leading weight-loss and diabetes drugs, and Rob Sechan owns it. What is interesting is that his argument is about valuation, not about the drugs.
His point is that healthcare as a sector was written off, and Lilly is the clearest example of what happened: the stock used to trade at about 50 times its annual earnings, and that multiple fell all the way into the 20s. The business did not deteriorate — he calls its dominance in the GLP-1 class "unbelievable" — so what changed was the price investors were willing to pay.
The three criteria he applies across his healthcare holdings are consistency of earnings, a reasonable valuation and a strong pipeline of future drugs, all in a sector he expects to benefit from using technology to develop and approve products faster. In an uncertain market, he says, consistency is what gets rewarded.
In short: Named alongside Bristol Myers in the same sentence — phase-3 trial delays attributed to the isotope supply chain, cited as external corroboration of the Yb-176 shortage rather than as a stock call.
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: Terranova's template for what a genuine breakthrough is worth: "the perfect example is what we've witnessed with Eli Lilly over the last five years in the GLP-1 — it's up close to 400%, 371%. And that really built in 2023 when we began to see the introduction, the utilisation, the engagement and the success rate on it. What follows is not just a momentary move higher — now your expectation is the revenue growth is consistently going to build in the coming quarters. And that's what we've watched with Eli Lilly, trading at an all-time high today. We talked about it yesterday in final trades." Simpson's overlay: Lilly and Merck "have been backfilling with acquisitions, even Amgen with Horizon Therapeutics… but someday that moves on and you need to have something behind it."
Lilly is used as the worked example of what a genuine medical breakthrough is worth over time. Its weight-loss drugs (the GLP-1 class) inflected in 2023, and the stock is up roughly 371% over five years, trading at an all-time high today.
Terranova's point is about the shape of that return, not the size. A breakthrough day is not a one-off jump — once the drug is being prescribed and used successfully, the expectation resets to revenue growth that keeps building quarter after quarter. That compounding is where the bulk of the return came from, and it is the pattern he is implicitly asking whether Moderna and Merck can now repeat.
The counterweight, from Simpson: Lilly, Merck and Amgen have all been buying smaller companies to fill gaps in their pipelines. Acquisitions can carry a few years of growth, "but someday that moves on and you need to have something behind it" — meaning the internal science eventually has to deliver.
In short: #9. Founded 1876, IPO 1952 — and the best return on the list at more than 17,000% since 1990. "They're a major producer of insulin and now GLP-1 drugs." Lindy case: "People will always get sick… Lilly has decades of experience developing new medicines. Strong patents protect its best products." Note the contrast with 23 July, where Lilly was scored 8.2/10 on quality and then explicitly passed on valuation — its price assumed 18.9% growth. Here it is included on durability alone with no price attached, so the two verdicts do not conflict.
Eli Lilly researches and manufactures medicines. It has made insulin since the 1920s and is now one of the two dominant makers of the weight-loss and diabetes drugs that have reshaped the industry.
Its return is the best on the whole Lindy list — more than 17,000% since 1990 — and the argument here is the simplest possible one: people get ill, they want treatment, patents protect the successful products for long enough to pay for the failures. But read this alongside the archive's own verdict three weeks earlier, where Lilly scored 8.2 out of 10 on business quality and was then explicitly not bought, because its share price already assumed 18.9% annual growth. There is no contradiction — this list is about how long a business will last, and that analysis was about what it costs today — but the two should be held together.
In short: Volume crushes price. Q2 revenue +48% Y/Y to $23.0B (a $2.3B beat) and adjusted EPS $8.38 ($1.80 beat), with growth coming from a 60% increase in volume more than offsetting a 13% decline in realized prices. Mounjaro +91% to $9.9B and Zepbound +46% to $4.9B take combined GLP-1 revenue to nearly $15B; international Mounjaro more than doubled to $5.2B "as Lilly expands access globally, despite significant price reductions including China reimbursement." Foundayo, the newly launched oral GLP-1 obesity pill, did $98M in its first quarter, and retatrutide — the triple-hormone injection targeting GLP-1, GIP and glucagon — cleared three more Phase 3 obesity trials, with an FDA filing planned for Q1 2027. FY26 revenue guidance raised $2.5B at the midpoint to $85–$87B; underlying EPS guidance rose $2.78 but $3.03 of acquisition-related R&D charges offset it, leaving reported guidance at $35.50–$36.50. Bottom Line: "The GLP-1 story remains a volume machine. Lilly is deliberately giving up price to expand access, and demand is more than compensating."
Lilly makes the weight-loss and diabetes drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound. Sales rose 48% to $23.0 billion, beating expectations by $2.3 billion. The important detail is how: the number of doses sold rose 60%, while the average price Lilly actually collected fell 13%.
That is a deliberate strategy. Rather than defend a high price for a smaller number of patients, Lilly is cutting prices — including agreeing reimbursement terms in China — to get the drugs to far more people. Volume is growing more than four times faster than price is falling, so revenue rises anyway. International Mounjaro sales more than doubled to $5.2 billion on exactly that trade.
Two new products matter for the next few years. Foundayo is a weight-loss pill rather than an injection, and did $98 million in its first quarter on sale — small, but pills reach people who won't inject. Retatrutide is a next-generation injection that works on three hormone pathways instead of two; it passed three more late-stage obesity trials, with an application to US regulators planned for early 2027.
Full-year sales guidance rose by $2.5 billion. Reported earnings guidance did not go up, because about $3.03 per share of charges from buying other companies' research offsets the underlying improvement — an accounting drag, not an operating one. The newsletter's verdict: "the GLP-1 story remains a volume machine."
In short: Argus reiterates with the target to 1300 from 1200, and the stock is knocking against it. Simpson: "this is the highest quality healthcare company on the planet. Zepbound, Mounjaro — they are the players in the space. They continue to do everything right. But what I like most about Lilly is it's not a one-trick pony: there is a diversification underneath the surface with their entire drug catalog." Harrington's qualifier: "valuation requires exceptional execution. I really like the name."
Argus lifted its Lilly target to $1,300. Kevin Simpson calls it "the highest quality healthcare company on the planet" — Zepbound and Mounjaro have made it the dominant name in weight-loss and diabetes treatment. But the reason he likes it isn't the blockbusters: "what I like most about Lilly is it's not a one-trick pony. There is diversification underneath the surface with their entire drug catalog," so the story doesn't depend on a single franchise. Jenny Harrington adds the honest caveat: at this valuation, "it requires exceptional execution."
In short: A published pass — 8.2/10 on quality, declined on price. Stock $1,163.0, market cap $1.1 trillion, classified "Oligopoly." The moat is five-part (patents, 10-12 year FDA approval cycles, physician trust, presence in 120+ countries, R&D reinvestment at ~25% of revenue) with GLP-1 stickiness on top — "patients stay on these drugs long-term, making revenue extremely sticky" — behind a gross margin of 82.8% and ROIC of 32.5%. Growth is exceptional (revenue +13.0% and EPS +27.0% CAGR over ten years; owner's earnings +27.5%), and management is credited: "CEO David Ricks took charge in 2017. Since then, shares are up over +1.400% (!)." The block is price: forward PE 32.2x against a 30.3x ten-year average, and a reverse DCF requiring 18.9% annual net-income growth for a 10% return when "I think Eli Lilly should be able to grow its EPS by 10-15% per year in the long term." Verdict: "a phenomenal business. But we think it's too expensive right now. We will wait patiently for a more attractive valuation."
Eli Lilly invents drugs and sells them while the patent lasts. Its two big prizes right now are the weight-loss and diabetes injections Mounjaro and Zepbound, and an Alzheimer's drug called Donanemab that, if approved, could add billions a year. Between Lilly and Novo Nordisk, essentially two companies own the obesity market.
The business quality is not in dispute anywhere in the piece. It keeps about 83 cents of gross profit on every dollar of sales, earns roughly a third on every dollar of capital it puts to work, and has turned $10,000 in 1992 into $1.8 million — against $0.3 million for the index. The moat is layered: patents, an approval process that takes a decade and billions of dollars to clear, doctors who trust the brand, a sales network in 120 countries, and patients who stay on these particular drugs indefinitely, which makes the revenue behave like a subscription.
There is one clever technical move worth understanding. Lilly spends 12% of sales on factories and equipment, which by his usual rule would make it too capital-hungry to own. He splits that spending into two kinds: the part needed just to keep existing plants running, and the part building new capacity for growth. Using depreciation as a proxy for the first, only 2.8% of sales is genuinely maintenance — the rest is expansion, which is a choice rather than a burden. Corrected that way, the business passes comfortably.
What stops him is price. Three valuation methods are run and they do not agree, which is the point. Against its own ten-year history the stock is slightly expensive. The forward-return model says about 11.9% a year if earnings grow 13% and the multiple drifts down — acceptable. But the reverse calculation, which asks what growth today's price already assumes, says Lilly must grow profits 18.9% a year for a decade just to hand you 10%. He himself expects 10-15%. Paying a price that requires more than you believe is the definition of no margin of safety, so he passes and waits — and says he is more comfortable owning Novo Nordisk for the same theme.
In short: Baruch's final trade: "it's back-testing, it's a breakout and on the downslope of a CapEx cycle. Real exciting here."
Eli Lilly is the drug maker behind blockbuster weight-loss/diabetes treatments. Bill Baruch made it his final-trade pick on a chart basis: it's "back-testing" a breakout (retesting the level it just broke above, a healthy sign) and is "on the downslope of a CapEx cycle" — meaning the heavy spending phase is easing, which tends to free up cash. "Real exciting here."
In short: Baruch, in the AbbVie/healthcare aside: "I like Lilly a lot as well" — sees great momentum continuing in healthcare outside of tech.
In short: A healthcare 52-week-high leadership name — the sector "left for dead six months ago" is now leading, and he wants the names actually making new highs.
Eli Lilly is a pharma giant (best known for its blockbuster weight-loss and diabetes drugs). Terranova uses it as a healthcare 52-week-high leadership name. The broader story: healthcare was "left for dead six months ago" and is now a hot sector — and his way to play that broadening is to own the names confirming the move by hitting new highs, like Lilly and Merck.
In short: The other half of the GLP-1 duopoly, and here the losing half in one specific race: Lilly's oral pill Foundayo "is selling at much lower volumes" than Novo's Wegovy pill, and "new data shows that people taking Novo's pill lose more weight and have fewer side effects than people taking Lilly's pill". Conclusion drawn: "Eli Lilly will have a hard time catching up." No view on Lilly as an investment.
In short: Owns it for years; "won the diet drug wars." A blowout: EPS 8.55 vs 6.66 est (3.34 last yr), revenue 19.8B vs 17.6B est, raised revenue and EPS guidance.
Eli Lilly is the drugmaker behind the leading weight-loss (GLP-1) medicines, and Eisman — a longtime owner — says it has flatly "won the diet drug wars." The quarter was a blowout: earnings of $8.55 versus $6.66 expected (and just $3.34 a year ago), revenue well ahead, and raised guidance for the year. It's the rare name where the numbers more than justify the enthusiasm.
24:11Main takeaway from the results of these big four, there is no slowdown in AI CapEx on the horizon. AI CapEx is what is driving GDP and a strong GDP drives the stock market. Moving on, Eli Lilly, I also have owned this stock for years. And there is no question about it, Lilly has won the diet drug wars. Lilly issued a blowout, a blowout quarter.
In short: Named only as the other half of the GLP-1 duopoly and as the competitor Novo "played it very badly against" in the US. No Compounding Quality stance here; the full write-up is the 23 July deep dive.
In short: David Hay's framing (not Sy's pick) — another former cheap value stock now "priced for perfection."
In short: The other half of the duopoly, and the benchmark rather than a stance. "The biggest competitor of Novo Nordisk? Eli Lilly." Zepbound (tirzepatide) "hits 2 hormones instead of one" and delivers 20% weight loss against Wegovy's 14%; Lilly also holds "the strongest drugs (Retatrutide & Zepbound)" in the pipeline comparison. The relative-value point is the whole article: Lilly at 34.1x next year's earnings against Novo's 16.9x — "You can buy more than two shares of Novo Nordisk for 1 Eli Lilly. I don't think this huge valuation difference is justified." One 2026 setback noted: "Lilly's oral GLP-1 delayed to Q2 2026, giving Novo extra quarter of sales." No independent view on Lilly as an investment is offered here; the July 2026 Eli Lilly case scores it separately (8.2/10, and a published pass on price).
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.