A big company called Bristol-Myers had some good and bad things happen in the first three months of this year. They made more money than people thought they would, but also lost more money because they bought other companies and spent a lot on new medicines. The company thinks it will make less money overall this year than before, but still expects to grow a little bit. Some of their old medicines are not selling as well as they used to, but they have some new ones that might help them in the future. They also want to save money by doing things more efficiently. Read from source...

1. The article title is misleading and exaggerated, as the company reported a Q1 loss that was not narrower than expected, but actually wider by 2 cents per share. This contradicts the positive impression given by the word "expected".
2. The article does not provide any comparison with the previous year's results or with the industry average, which would give a better context to evaluate the company's performance and challenges.
3. The article focuses too much on the decline in Opdivo sales, which represents only a part of the company's revenue stream, while ignoring the growth in other areas, such as Reblozyl or the acquisition of Karuna.
4. The article does not mention the 2024 guidance update, which is an important piece of information for investors and analysts, as it reflects the company's future outlook and plans to deal with the challenges posed by generic competition and new drugs launches.
5. The article uses vague terms such as "a variety of solid tumors" or "potentially first-in-class", which do not convey any specific or verifiable information about the clinical trial results, efficacy, safety, or market potential of the new drug candidates. These terms are often used by biotech companies to create hype and uncertainty around their products, without providing any concrete evidence.
6. The article ends with a negative tone, suggesting that it is difficult for Bristol Myers to compensate for the loss of sales from its blockbuster drugs, and implying that its new drugs are not sufficient or effective enough to offset the decline. This creates a sense of doubt and pessimism among the readers, without providing any supporting data or analysis.