Hey, it's Kramer, and this is my morning take on the market from today's CNBC Investing Club morning meeting. I'm going to break form here. Right now, I have to tell you, I think J&J is wrong to be down. We can talk about the market, but I think that we've gone over with, and we've had, you know, this is a company that we have very close relationship with, and I'll say only

it like that.

But it is true, Jeff, that there are people who are selling a stock and they don't know what they're doing. And it looked pretty good this morning, I mean, as it should have, right? You had a strong earnings beat, revenue beat, they raised their outlook for the full year. I have beats pretty much across the board. I know vaccine sales might have been one of the drivers,

but still very strong numbers in pharma, in med tech with China coming back and in consumer the growth.

Now, on the conference call, there was a comment made. I think this explains perhaps why the stock is down.

I don't think it's right that it should be, but they talked about, so they've

had this $60 billion revenue target for 2025 for the pharma business. The street doesn't believe

they'll do 60. The street is at around 54 management.

Okay, so let's understand. So the street doesn't believe J&J's projections. Correct.

Which are 60. 60 billion. And the street's dramatically lower from that.

54 billion.

Right.

Now, the company did say on the call that based on current rates, exchange rates,

that number is actually going to be 57 billion.

So my interpretation of that, there might be some confusion happening. Well, if the street's at 54 versus 60, but you're lowering it by three due to FX, maybe it should be lower. So the different street think that they'll only do 51? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, that would be the apples' apples comparison, but I don't think that's fair at all.

I think when you see this, I mean, I see the stock was up initially. You shout a box. Pre-call. Pre-call. Pre-call. First you hear, all right, well, maybe because they were going to make money in the COVID vaccine, and now they're not. No, everyone knew they were. That was already disclosed. It wasn't in their guidance.

Then people were worried about maybe they said something new on talc.

No, there was absolutely nothing about tact.

It was closed. knew they were. That was already disclosed. It wasn't in their guidance. Then people were worried about maybe they said something new on

Taak. No, there was absolutely nothing about tactly disclosed. The litigation, which is what they've had to do. And they think they'll get the super majority. And they think they'll get the super majority. And that's done in May. So checkbox, no. So then you start thinking, well, did they lower guidance on Well, they did not lower guidance in the pharma. Were they conservative about MedTech?

Absolutely, because they didn guidance on pharma? Well, they did not lower guidance in pharma.

Were they conservative about MedTech?

...