Prices Generally Unaffected by Increased Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry

The laws of economics state that price is inversely proportional to competition. The more competition there is in an industry, the more options a potential customer has, which means the competitors have to lower their prices to draw in the customers. This phenomenon occurs especially in situations where the products being sold by different companies are similar enough to be interchangeable. For some reason, as investigated in Melody Peterson's L.A. Times article, that doesn't seem to be happening with pharmaceutical prices, even when there are many competitors.

To some extent, it makes sense that pharmaceutical manufacturers charge high prices for the prescription drugs and medical devices that they provide. It takes years and millions of dollars in research and development to create something new, which then has to spend years being tested by the Food & Drug Administration before it is finally approved for sale to the public. Often, by the time a medication has been approved by the FDA, there is only a small amount of time remaining on the patent. So, the developing company has only a few years in which to recoup their investment before other companies come out with generic versions.

The unfortunate aspect of that situation is that the medications and devices being developed are often necessary to cure or treat diseases. That can create an unfair situation: the creating company has the right to choose whatever price they want for their product, and the sick person has no choice but to pay it. That's what makes pharmaceuticals different from a normal product. If a computer company comes out with a new type of device that they have patented and decides to charge exorbitant prices for it, a customer has the choice to either pay the high price or move on without buying the new computer. It doesn't work that way with medicine. If a medication is highly priced, a sick person's only options are to pay the price or not be treated for their illness, which could lead to worse sickness or even death.

You would think that once a patent runs out, generic drug manufacturers would enter the market with a lower-priced product, thus giving customers a choice. The increased competition between the original manufacturer and all of the new generic providers should drive the price down, but it doesn't. Even generic drug producers have been coming out with exorbitantly priced medications. The price is usually slightly less than what a name-brand has it listed for, but nowhere near low enough to make it affordable or even justifiable. One example is a drug called ursodiol, which treats gallstones. The method of creating ursodiol was perfected decades ago, and all patents have run out. The ingredients are not very expensive, yet every drug company is charging somewhere around $5 per pill.

Analysts believe that drug manufacturers are defying the laws of economics for one simple reason: they can. When one company raises their price on a medicine, instead of lowering prices to gain greater demand, the competitors follow suit and raise their prices. In that way, the companies bring in more income, mainly at the cost of medical insurers, which leads insurance companies to charge higher premiums to customers. It's a cycle of rising costs with no end in sight. If a single company stood against the status quo and kept their prices at normal levels, the other companies would eventually have to either lower their prices or go out of business due to lack of demand.

Since none of the companies seem to be following economic principles and standing against the current, many are suspicious of the whole situation. Some fear that the medical suppliers have secretly formed a type of coalition or "trust," an incredibly illegal practice. The grand jury has subpoenaed some of these companies to find out if they had any communication with their competitors prior to making consistent price increases. Analysts believe that a trust could be the explanation as to why drug producers have successfully avoided the laws of economics from catching up to them. In time, a federal investigation may reveal the truth of the matter.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Long-Term Government Bonds Seen as "Safest" Investment

Although the global economy's struggles have made success more difficult for investors this year, many are trying new, riskier methods to multiply their money. Some, however, have decided to take the safe route, since very few investment opportunities remain with high payouts. So, the majority of "safe" investors have been going after utilities and bonds, which have the most stable profits, albeit slow ones. Tom Petruno, in his L.A. Times article, discusses some of the options that investors have been left in an economy with ever-dropping interest rates.

Options like utility stocks provide at least some semblance of "certainty," which has investors paying higher prices than they would expect to earn back in the short-term. All appearances seem to point to many investors playing the long game, more willing to take less profit than risk losing money. Additionally, because many investors have been focusing more on high-yield bonds as a safe haven for their money, government-backed bonds have been suffering. In about half a year, the US Treasury note yield has dropped from 2.27% to 1.37%.

Even in Japan and several countries in Europe, government bonds, which are known for being safer than most investments, have taken a hit. The market is so shaky in those countries that yields on bonds are somewhat negative, which means a bond owner is losing money on their investment. Because of this phenomenon, Japanese and European investors are looking to US bonds. While the American bonds only have a rate of 1.5%, it's better than losing money, so investors are rushing in.

According to economists, owning bonds is a representation of an investor's belief that the economy is improving. By holding onto one's bonds, an investor can be suffering through low-yield years in order to benefit greatly in the long run. Long-term bonds are described as an "insurance policy," no benefits for years, but great to have at the end of the road. Stocks have begun recovering again, and while stocks may hit all-time highs in the coming months, some companies fear that profits will still take a while to get back to normal levels.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Moon Express Decision Could Jump-Start Privately-Funded Space Exploration

On July 20, 1969, a team of astronauts including Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made history when they became the first humans to ever step on the moon. Ever since the late 1950s, the United States has been working on ways to explore our solar system and find out more about other galaxies. In 2011, the Space Program was discontinued, mainly because of the exorbitant costs and inherent danger present in space travel. Up until recently, private companies were still allowed to send up satellites into orbit for commercial and research applications. However, according to Samantha Masunaga's L.A. Times article, the US government may be preparing to grant permission for a company to send a spacecraft to the moon.

Until now, only countries have been allowed/able to conduct space missions beyond Earth's orbit. Moon Express, a Mountain View, California-based company, will set history if regulators grant them permission to send their MX-1 lander on the moon for a two-week operation. The Wall Street Journal seems confident that Moon Express will receive their approval from the Federal Aviation Administration within the next few weeks, potentially restarting the Space Program. In some ways, a Space Program run completely by private companies could be better than one run by the government. When the Space Program first started, it was mainly about national superiority and being the first country to achieve certain milestones, which meant that sometimes costs and risks took a backseat. For private companies, it will be mainly about profit, which means that they will certainly keep within specified budgets and will be more risk-averse.

While Moon Express has been pretty secretive about its major plans, it has released some information about what they're looking for on the moon. The MX-1 lander will be carrying out both scientific and commercial research. Moon Express will be partnering with a Los Angeles-based company called Rocket Lab and plans to blast off into space in 2017. The MX-1 and other moon landers will be looking for valuable resources such as platinum and rare earth elements, which scientists believe can be found on the moon and in asteroids. Another company, Planetary Resources, is looking to asteroids as a source of water that can be converted into rocket fuel.

One of the main regulatory issues standing in the way of Moon Express's exploration is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which states that nongovernmental entities have to get approval from the US and Russia before performing activities in outer space. Experts believe that if Moon Express receives their expected approvals, however, it will set a precedent for future private commercial activity. Several companies dedicated to moon mining and asteroid mining have sprung up in recent years but have not held for very long, probably due to the high-cost, high-risk type of business. However, Moon Express has been generating significant interest in the world of commercial space exploration, and analysts expect this company may be the one to finally jump-start the industry.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Federal Reserve Hikes Interest Rates - First Time Since Great Recession Began

For the first time in seven years, since the Great Recession began in 2008, the Federal Reserve has decided to start raising its interest rate. When the recession began, pushing the interest rates as close to zero as possible was necessary to help the nearly crippled economy. The Fed raising their rates could be seen in a positive light, as a sign of confidence that the economy is getting back on track. To others, it could be a preventative measure in preparation for a future economic downturn. Jim Puzzanghera and Don Lee discuss the implications of the rate hike in their recent article in the L.A. Times.

What was seen by some as a vote of confidence in the recovering economy helped investors to feel more confident, which in turn led the Dow Jones average to rally and close up about 224 points, a substantial increase. When the Fed decides that the economy can handle an interest rate increase, this helps the average person to believe that they can more easily trust the economy to keep their money safe. This leads to more investment, which can help the economy even more on its path to recovery. When people believe in the power of the economy, it is more able to grow and meet their expectations.

On the other hand, the increase of the interest rates might be an indication of future trouble for the economy. When the economy is struggling, when the market crashes or a recession hits, the Federal Reserve is able to lower interest rates, which can lessen the impact of the economic downturn. However, if the rates are already near zero and a recession begins anew, lowering the interest rates will have no effect because they are already too low. So, if the Fed raises the interest rates now, the government can start building up revenue so that if and when the economy slows again, they can lower interest rates and pump money back into the economy to give it a jumpstart.

This decision by the Fed, although seen as "historic" by economists, will likely have little effect, at least for the time being. The benchmark federal funds rate, which affects consumer and business loans, has only increased by 0.25%, and the Fed has promised that increases in the future will come slowly. Loans on automobiles and the interests rates on credit cards will probably begin to rise slowly in the coming months, and mortgage rates have already risen slightly. Small businesses, which have been more affected by the Great Recession than their larger competitors, have shown support for the raising of the interest rate, seeing it as a step on the way to a more stable economy. After all, at this point, a quarter of a percentage point does very little to harm business growth and could do much for the future of the economy.

The rate hike has been viewed by many as the turning point for the economy. It may signal an end to the worst of the recession and a new beginning for the economy. The rates, which will grow slowly, at first, are expected to reach 1.375% by the end of 2016, which is pretty low in the grand scheme of things. In fact, the interest rate was over 5% before the Fed started lowering it due to the Great Recession. By some measurements, unemployment is down to 5%, which means that the rate hike could be necessary in order to reduce inflation. Out of fear for issues in the global economy, the Fed decided not to raise rates in September, but since then has decided that the rate hike is exactly what the US economy needs right now.

Some economists believe that the increase is a ploy by the Fed to simply fulfill a promise that was made to raise the rates by the end of the year. Whether this was the Fed's intention or not, it doesn't matter because the rates have gone up and will continue to increase. All agree that the interest rates, when increased again, should go up slowly, so as to not stifle any economic growth that they may cause. While some still fear that the rate hike is a way for the Fed to handle "negative shocks" in the economy, the Federal Reserve Chairwoman, Janet Yellen, assures the American people that the economy appears to be stable for now. She believes that the economy will continue its growth in the future and that the American people should see the rate hike in a positive light.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Devaluation of the Yuan Affects California's Economy

To shopping centers throughout the Southland, busloads of Chinese tourists are a necessary and regularly expected source of income. Especially in summer months, some places like the Beverly Center get an average of 70 such buses per month, full of tourists ready to spend. Shan Li, Samantha Masunaga, and Andrew Khouri wrote recently in their L.A. Times article about how recent devaluation of the Chinese yuan could have positive and negative effects on various California businesses.

Where 2.2 million Chinese tourists to the U.S. spent nearly $24 billion in 2014, 12.6% more than in 2013, many expect that such spending will likely slow down in the coming months. Up until recently, tourists found that their money would stretch much further on brand-name products in California than in China, but as the yuan loses value, that is beginning to change. Furthermore, even as a decrease in tourism hurts stores and shopping centers, it also affects sales on a larger scale. For certain luxury brands, like Coach, a decrease in sales to tourists leads to a decrease in earning, which causes stock prices to fall.

The current economic trifecta in China (slowing of the economy, devaluation of the currency, and a crackdown on political corruption) has led tourists to become more careful with their spending, according to Li, Masunaga, and Khouri. However, they point out that while the yuan loss in value hurts local retailers, it can actually be quite helpful for importers. For U.S. businesses that import Chinese products, the devaluation of the yuan means that the dollar stretches much further than it did before. Since importers will take advantage of this situation and increase purchasing, experts predict that California's ports will get plenty of use in the coming months. This will help to provide jobs for dockworkers, truck drivers, and warehouse workers.

Unfortunately for exporters, such positive outcomes are not likely. They are expected to suffer far more than local businesses due to the fact that import taxes in China can range as high as 20 to 30%.
Some tourists who come to the U.S. regularly anyway to visit family or send their children to summer camp may continue shopping in the U.S. for such luxury goods, but it wouldn't make economic sense for Chinese companies to continue importing American goods when the value of the yuan is so far outweighed by the value of the dollar. Costs would be much higher, especially on top of the exorbitant import taxes, and so it would be unlikely that American exporters would find business improving while the yuan's devaluation continues.

As Louis Glickman once said, "The best investment on Earth is earth." Analysts expect that as the yuan's value continues to plunge, Chinese investors will slow down the purchase of American products and focus on American real estate. Since the dollar remains relatively steady, many such investors will prefer to "park" their money in a building, rather than hold onto the quickly-devaluing cash. The increasing prevalence of property investment could help to dull the effects of the reduction in retail. However, economists warn that China's economy is connected to our own. If China's economy starts to fail, then that won't be good news for the U.S.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Foreign Purchases of Some American Businesses Face Government Examination

7/20/15 - The Committee on Foreign Investment, an agency through the United States Treasury Department, is responsible for deciding whether to approve or deny any attempted purchase of an American company by a company based in another country. Some such buy-outs are simple and easily approved. Others, like the purchase of Micron Technology Inc., as discussed by James F. Peltz, in his L.A. Times article, require much more discussion and consideration.

The Committee on Foreign Investment only tends to take issue with purchases when they may affect national security. For example, in 2005, a major Chinese oil company called CNOOC Ltd. made an offer of $18.5 billion to purchase Unocal Corp., a California-based oil company. Politicians took issue with this proposed buy-out because they feared that foreign ownership of the American oil provider could possibly cause major problems for the future of American energy security. Eventually, due to complaints and protests regarding the deal, CNOOC Ltd. decided to retract its offer.

More recently, another Chinese company, Tsinghua Unigroup Ltd., has reportedly been preparing a $23 billion offer for the purchase of Micron Technology Inc., a major manufacturer of dynamic random-access memory chips. While Micron claims that no offer has been received yet, Peltz’s sources believe that the deal may not go through anyway, even without interference from the Committee on Foreign Investment. Micron’s stock prices in December were at $36 per share, and while those prices have dropped throughout the year, analysts still believe that the expected offer of $21 per share will not be enough to convince Micron to sell.

Were such an offer proposed by Tsinghua Unigroup and accepted by Micron, it is unlikely that the sale would be approved without a struggle. The Committee on Foreign Investment would have to come up with some pretty compelling reasons to grant approval for a state-owned Chinese country to gain control of one of the only major American producers of memory chips, found in so many devices from smartphones to personal computers. Memory chips are everywhere, in the public sector and in the government, and the change in ownership could pose a security risk, especially after the large number of recent cyber-attacks that have been traced back to China.

Having spent over $200 billion, last year alone, on importing integrated circuits, China, like other Asian countries, wants to become more independent and work on developing its own network of memory chip production, rather than continuing to purchase from America and other countries. Unfortunately for them, they will probably not achieve this goal through a purchase of Micron. Between the Department of Defense’s responsibility to protect national security and Micron’s high stock prices, it is more than likely that this Micron deal will end the same way as Unocal Corp.’s did.

***************************************************************************************************
Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Santa Monica Council Bans Short-Term Rentals

5/20/15 - Hundreds of property owners, especially those living in vacation destinations, rely on the income that they earn when they rent out their homes, condominiums, or spare bedrooms to short-term visitors. Because of new laws passed in Santa Monica, these individuals may find themselves struggling to find tenants. Tim Logan, in his L.A. Times article, discusses the implications of Santa Monica’s law banning short-term rentals.

Tourists who come to places like Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco are not generally there for a month at a time, but that is what this law will require. The law, in an effort to deter short-term renters and protect the hotel industry, bans rentals that last less than 30 days, and force individuals renting out a room to pay extra taxes similar to those paid by hotels. This, however, is not to say that the Santa Monica officials are only interested in protecting hotels. The council claims to be introducing these regulations in response to the complaints of annoyed neighbors and advocates for affordable housing in the neighborhood.

Home-sharing, the term given to the practice of renting out a room for a short period of time, has grown exponentially over the past few years. Websites like Airbnb, on which people post their rental listings, have become the place to look for anyone needing a place to live, albeit on a short-term basis. According to Logan, the home-sharing industry is booming and unlikely to slow down anytime soon. Profits are large and demand is high, so even with the new laws, people will likely find some way to keep doing what they are doing.

Some people providing housing through Airbnb are entrepreneurs, managing multiple residences and earning money left and right. Others are elderly and retired, who rent out their apartment when they go out of town to visit family. They encompass two ends of the spectrum, but both feel the same way: the regulations need to be changed. Many understand that home-sharing should be regulated to some extent; they just believe that an all-out ban is the wrong way to do it.

While some people fear that similar laws will be proposed in cities other than Santa Monica, Logan believes that the spread will be limited. Usage of online platforms like Airbnb is hard to keep track of, which is why the government may be afraid of its continued progression toward becoming an integral part of society. Logan recommends wariness when doing business with anyone, but especially with strangers met online. Some feel that laws and governmental oversight would reduce risks. Others believe that the government getting involved would just create hurdles and reduce profit. It's hard to tell which side is correct. Santa Monica may be the guinea pig that the rest of the country needs to test these risky waters.

***************************************************************************************************

Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Major Theater Chains Face Investigations Into Anti-Trust Violations

4/17/15 - Competition is a necessary part of economics. Without competition, a company or group of companies could gain control of a market and charge outrageous prices for goods and services, against which consumers may have no recourse. When competitors arise, such companies are forced to lower prices since consumers will be able to choose. As supply increases, prices must decrease, or the companies risk allowing demand to decrease.

A monopoly is when a single company gains complete control of a market or commodity. A cartel is when a group of companies have control over the market and agree among themselves on what prices to set. A trust is a group of companies that work together to force other, usually smaller, companies out of the market. Each of these is regulated by the federal government and is prevented as much as possible, so as to allow smaller companies the ability to be economically competitive. In his article, Richard Verrier looks into recent investigations into anti-trust violations by several major movie theater chains like AMC, Regal, and Cinemark.

Many complaints and lawsuits have been filed over the years by owners of smaller theaters, who claim that the major theaters have been involved in a practice called “clearance,” in which the smaller theaters are prevented from playing newly released movies. Is this practice considered a violation of anti-trust laws, though? While a Supreme Court decision in 1948 required that movie studios give up ownership in movie theaters, larger theaters still have the financial clout necessary to have some control over where popular movies will be played first.

Thus, the Department of Justice's anti-trust division has been spurred into action in an attempt to determine if clearances are against federal law. To the large chains, it's simply a matter of economic reasoning. The film studios have the supply, and the movie theaters have the demand. If a company like AMC wants a specific movie from the studio, it will effectively be providing more revenue to the studio, because the purchase of the film will involve hundreds of theaters across the country, while the purchase by a small company like IPic Entertainment will only involve a dozen or so. The studio will be more willing to give in to AMC's requests, because AMC provides more business.

With the Department of Justice on the case, we can assume that the matter will eventually be settled. The conclusion of this argument, however, could mean big things for small businesses. If the DoJ concludes that the major theater companies are not breaking any laws, then the small companies will be at a distinct disadvantage. If the DoJ rules that the major companies are breaking anti-trust laws through the use of clearances, then governmental entities may get more involved in economic issues that are out of their jurisdiction. What will it come down to: the natural order of economics, or the imposed order of government regulation?

***************************************************************************************************

Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************

Global Economy Feeling the Effects of America's Powerful Dollar

4/13/15 - Over the past nine months, the value of the dollar has increased dramatically, and Americans are loving it. While the average person is now able to get much further in other countries with the same amount of money as in previous years, Tom Petruno's L.A. Times article predicts that the dollar's raised value will have negative repercussions for the global economy and even the American economy in the long run. Devaluation of currency is becoming a trend around the world, and that will be bad for everyone.


The value of a euro has decreased by 25%, now at just $1.09, from $1.37 a year ago. In countries that don't use the euro, the difference is even greater: 30% in Sweden, 40% in Brazil, and 61% in Russia. This causes more Americans to change their vacation plans, leading to a preference for foreign, rather than domestic, travel destinations. While this is helpful in providing revenue for other countries, American tourist destinations like California and New York find it harder to bring in foreign visitors, as costs are rising from their perspective.


Petruno's research shows that the rising value of the dollar may not be due to an improvement in the American economy, but rather a devaluation of comparative currencies. When the currency of a country lowers in value, prices of goods go down, which causes consumers to purchase more of these “on sale” goods. Petruno believes that this phenomenon of devaluing currency is actually being assisted by federal governments in an attempt to increase demand and aid economic growth. Unfortunately, if this continues, each country will have to devalue their currency more and more to compete with each other, and America will be one of the only consumers in a sea of low prices, which will in turn harm the selling power of American companies.


Fortunately for Californian companies, a large amount of foreign investment comes from China. Since the value of China's currency has remained relatively steady compared to that of the dollar, Chinese tourists to the L.A. area have maintained a consistent degree of purchasing power. U.S. imports are up, and although the costs for these imports have lowered, more importing means less investment in domestic production.


U.S. companies lose money by reduced competitiveness against foreign companies, but more immediately, lose money due to the conversion factor between currencies. As the dollar's value goes up, and the value of foreign currency goes down, American companies are forced to accept less money from a sale than would have been earned previously. However, this has a lesser effect on the American economy as a whole, since the U.S. economy does not rely heavily on exports.


Although the value of the dollar is up, businesses are making less money because of the aforementioned competition and reduced foreign sales. Because of this, quarterly earnings are down, and stocks may begin to plunge because of it. Even in the European stock market, which has been on the rise, American investors receive reduced returns on their investments as the falling value of the euro removes some of the value of the stock.


Petruno concludes that the devaluation game is a slippery slope. Best-case scenario is that demand will move to other countries, improving the global economy without hurting American companies enough to start another recession. Worst-case scenario is that the currencies will be forced into a downward spiral, leading to debt defaults by foreign governments and leading to trouble in the economies of every country. Devaluation is a wild card, according to Petruno, and it can be difficult to predict exactly what will happen because of it. He concludes that it all may come down to whatever China decides —whether to give in to devaluation or keep up the value of its currency.

***************************************************************************************************

Find out more about us at www.sepulvedaescrow.net. Any Questions? Contact our Escrow Expert! Sepulveda Escrow Corporation (818) 838-1831. Follow our company on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Google+.

***************************************************************************************************