SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Buffettology

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: James Clarke who wrote (1695)7/21/1999 1:59:00 PM
From: Michael Burry  Read Replies (1) of 4656
 
PPD serves primarily individuals and small businesses. It is hard to imagine their approach having much success in big-time corporate America, but for small businesses it makes sense. They have had success marketing to certain groups as well. Targeting police officers, school teachers, etc.

They take very little risk that expenses will be higher than expected. All memberships sold since 1987 have been "closed panel." This means that the insured must access benefits through one of the "plan" lawyers. The lawyers get a capitated fee per member covered. Just like the HMOs. But there's much less hassle from the government, since no one really cares what people pay for legal advice. Least of all Congress. This is because there is no Medicare/Medicaid equivalent to make it an issue. And that won't change anytime soon. As well, the cost of providing legal services is managed by only offering certain services. You can't go to a lawyer for just anything - only for what you are covered. The ethical wars are much less than the HMOs have to fight as well. 94% of its members were closed panel as of the end of December.

From what I understand, they expect quite a bit out of their lawyers, highest ratings and all that. But evidently the legal cost ratio is so favorable that lawywers want to do it. The kicker is, PPD doesn't bear any of the liability for potential negligence or fraud claims if a provider attorney screws up. It's in the contracts.

It's not all rah-rah, though. Evidently quite a few members quit. That's part of the "smells bad." If I just ignore everything else and look at the numbers, I'm ok with investing in it. If I think about the MMM structure, then I think I'll head for the exits at the first sign of significant insider selling. To date, insiders have been big holders and buyers.

I don't think this is a Buffett investment in the manner of Coke. But maybe in the manner of Kirby or Execujet. Mike
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext