Scanning news headlines earlier this week, I came across an article about Pfizer (PFE) laying off another 6,000 employees as part of its post-Wyeth acquisition cost cutting program. (See Melly Alazraki’s blog at http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/company-news/pfizer-plans-manufacturing-job-cuts/19481620/ .) Being a curious sort of guy, I went onto Google and searched for references to Pfizer layoffs. I found many other links to layoffs all over the world. Durham, NC; NYC; Plattsburgh, NY; Collegeville, PA; Ireland; and Puerto Rico were just a few of the locations that I found where layoffs were taking place.
Pfizer originally announced layoffs approximating 20,000 jobs from its Wyeth acquisition. (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/10/15/pfizer-wyeth-deal-wraps-up-layoffs-to-follow/ ) This week’s announcement in addition to the layoffs announced eight plant closures and reduced operations in six others. (http://www.thestreet.com/story/10759832/1/pfizer-wyeth-combo-leads-to-more-layoffs.html?puc=tscmarketwatch&cm_ven=tscmarketwatch ) Obviously, a lot of extra capacity is being wrung out of the industry. Which could make one wonder what sort of career opportunities might exist in pharmaceuticals in the future?
Clifford S. Mintz, otherwise known as the BioJobBlogger (http://www.biojobblog.com/promo/about/ ) has written a very interesting and relevant blog (http://www.biojobblog.com/2009/11/articles/biojobbuzz/pfizerwyeth-layoff-update/ ) about what’s been happening in the pharmaceuticals industry. He maintains that the traditional vertically integrated industry model is coming to an end with new drug development coming from outside Big Pharma with only marketing and distribution functions remaining.
The points made are good ones. Previous blogs here have echoed similar feelings. What I can’t stop thinking about is where does this all lead? Recent history has taught us that the twin phenomena of the twenty-first century, globalization and the Internet, are driving out middlemen. I remember my old Economics 101 professor teaching that perfect markets require perfect knowledge resulting in zero profits. (Professor, apologies, it’s been more years than I care to remember. All errors in restating your lectures are my fault.) Aren’t the pharmaceutical companies transforming themselves into middlemen?
In my simplistic view of the world, there will be manufacturers and sellers. In order to survive middlemen will have to become large enough to take advantage of economies of scale. There probably won’t be a need for many players in this space. In fact, economic reality may dictate that will only be a small number of global players. (Oligopoly, anyone?)
Consolidation and closure of manufacturing plants with the consequential elimination of jobs is a sure sign of excess capacity in an industry. And, once those plants and jobs are gone, they won’t be coming back any time soon, particularly in the United States. Here’s why. Given local zoning and environmental ordinances in many American communities, building and running a modern manufacturing plant is an expensive and time consuming proposition.
I’ll continue to follow this theme going forward. I suspect that we’ll see more signs of an industry undergoing consolidation.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Showing posts with label Wyeth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wyeth. Show all posts
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Big Pharma – Will It Get Any Better?
I’m still on this kick that life sciences and Big Pharma, in particular, are stuck and aren’t getting better anytime soon. I’ve been out trolling the Net looking for any hints of anything that might indicate either I’m wrong or there’s a turnaround coming soon. And, guess where this is going, I’m not finding much. In fact, I’m not finding anything. (I’m not counting spin doctoring materials churned out by Big Pharma. If you read those you’d run out and load up on their stocks.)
What I am finding tends to support what this blog has been saying for a while, Big Pharma’s not going anywhere anytime soon but down. I’d like to call out a blog which I recently came across whose author, Pharmboy a member at Phil’s Stock World, has recently posted a blog entitled “The Calm Before the Storm – Big Pharma Is Gonna Have Big Problems and Pfizer is the Biggest” (http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/6284-philip-davis/60352-the-calm-before-the-storm-big-pharma-is-gonna-have-big-problems-and-pfizer-is-the-biggest ) that gives a detailed analysis of the trends affecting the industry.
Pharmboy (that’s a great name for a blogger isn’t it?) predicts that Big Pharma revenues will stop growing by 2014. He notes as this blog has that growth will have to come from acquisitions and explains how picking the right science will be essential for making the right investments. This is an important point, because some of the larger pharmaceutical companies are run by what I call professional managers, MBA types with a good handle on numbers, marketing, branding, and the like but who really don’t have a clue about the basic sciences let alone the complex, advanced theories that are behind modern drugs. The recent financial meltdown on Wall Street shows what happens when senior management loses touch with their products.
The blog also lists the major drugs coming off patent in the next several years and estimates that these represented $49.9 billion in 2009 revenues. One point where Pharmboy differs from this blog is that he believes some of the pharmaceutical companies, Novartis (NVS) and Merck (MRK) actually have good drug pipelines while Abbott’s (ABT) is weak but could be augmented by acquisitions.
Pfizer (PFE) is singled out for criticism for paying too much for Wyeth (WYE) and not keeping an eye on the science. He also writes about the inefficiencies and lack of innovation in a larger organization like Pfizer.
I’ve called out Pharmboy’s blog because it’s a very good summary of the issues facing Big Pharma today. What I want to know is when will the main stream media begin to take a closer look here as well? Finally, how about the financial community? When will they begin to challenge the valuations of Big Pharma?
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
What I am finding tends to support what this blog has been saying for a while, Big Pharma’s not going anywhere anytime soon but down. I’d like to call out a blog which I recently came across whose author, Pharmboy a member at Phil’s Stock World, has recently posted a blog entitled “The Calm Before the Storm – Big Pharma Is Gonna Have Big Problems and Pfizer is the Biggest” (http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/6284-philip-davis/60352-the-calm-before-the-storm-big-pharma-is-gonna-have-big-problems-and-pfizer-is-the-biggest ) that gives a detailed analysis of the trends affecting the industry.
Pharmboy (that’s a great name for a blogger isn’t it?) predicts that Big Pharma revenues will stop growing by 2014. He notes as this blog has that growth will have to come from acquisitions and explains how picking the right science will be essential for making the right investments. This is an important point, because some of the larger pharmaceutical companies are run by what I call professional managers, MBA types with a good handle on numbers, marketing, branding, and the like but who really don’t have a clue about the basic sciences let alone the complex, advanced theories that are behind modern drugs. The recent financial meltdown on Wall Street shows what happens when senior management loses touch with their products.
The blog also lists the major drugs coming off patent in the next several years and estimates that these represented $49.9 billion in 2009 revenues. One point where Pharmboy differs from this blog is that he believes some of the pharmaceutical companies, Novartis (NVS) and Merck (MRK) actually have good drug pipelines while Abbott’s (ABT) is weak but could be augmented by acquisitions.
Pfizer (PFE) is singled out for criticism for paying too much for Wyeth (WYE) and not keeping an eye on the science. He also writes about the inefficiencies and lack of innovation in a larger organization like Pfizer.
I’ve called out Pharmboy’s blog because it’s a very good summary of the issues facing Big Pharma today. What I want to know is when will the main stream media begin to take a closer look here as well? Finally, how about the financial community? When will they begin to challenge the valuations of Big Pharma?
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Why has Outsourcing Gone Mainstream in the Pharmaceutical-BioPharmaceutical Industry
Gil Roth the Editor of Contract Pharma magazine invited several people to comment about the outsourcing trends in the industry in honor of the magazine's 10th anniversary. I sent him my thoughts and wanted to share them here as well (along with a few additional details):
At a macro level, the largest changes in the last 10 years that have occurred in the Pharmaceutical/Bio-pharmaceutical outsourcing-contracting-consulting space is how it has become totally main stream and in many ways regarded as a necessity to being competitive in a world where the classic Pharmaceutical Industry model no longer works. Layer on top of that what Thomas Friedman of New York Times fame labeled as “The Flat World” and it is no wonder that the outsourcing band wagon is so much the order of the day.
The way Wall Street would put is that this trend is a result of a “secular change”. That change is rooted in failed pipelines, lower R&D productivity, the rapid ascent of generic drugs (over 70% of US prescriptions in 2008), increased government regulations, the acknowledgment about the effectiveness of the sales force, extraordinary expense profiles, a public who will not or cannot appreciate the value of the product, a hostile congress and the advent of significant health-care reform from the Obama administration. By the way, Wall Street has acknowledged these secular changes by stripping much of the "P/E premium" from large pharmaceuticals stock prices and turned them into relatively poor performers.
When you combine those challenges with the enormous advances in technology and communication that enable global research and development and supply chains, an outsourcing strategy is not only prudent, it is a requirement. It is indeed a very straightforward way to lower the costs of doing business. When one adds on the acknowledgment of the demand generated by the rising wealth and demand for health-care from very rapidly developing countries including India and China, the requisite of using outsourcing as a way to enter those markets is on the top agendas of many senior executives in the industry.
While the Pharmaceutical/Bio-pharmaceutical Industry has been a notoriously slow adapter of change (yes, there are lots of reasons, not the least of which are regulatory) compounded by risk adverse cultures, the one thing they are not is naive. Gone are the days of “top line revenue” is the only thing that is of concern of management. Today there is a focus on “The Bottom Line” which includes unit costs, effectiveness and efficiency among the tactics. Sure there are other strategies being deployed, for example we have identified two camps in the industry, the consolidation camp and the diversification camp. The “consolidators” would include the big pharma mega-mergers (Pfizer-Wyeth, Merck-ScheringPlough, etc.) and include even some of the consolidation seen by several large biotechs. When you couple a parallel path by the big CRO's, contract manufactures, consultants, etc., the appeal of awarding large pieces of business functions in either long term contracts and/or joint ventures becomes attractive. In a similar fashion, the “diversifiers” (Sanofi, Novartis, etc.) want to focus on their new business endeavors such as animal health, consumer pharmaceuticals or diagnostics and therefore are far more likely to look at an outsourcing strategy as a natural way to allow management focus to be aimed at their new strategies.
The outlook, in my opinion even more to come with innovative joint ventures, terms and conditions and capabilities which will aid the industry to continue its path toward attractive business results.
At a macro level, the largest changes in the last 10 years that have occurred in the Pharmaceutical/Bio-pharmaceutical outsourcing-contracting-consulting space is how it has become totally main stream and in many ways regarded as a necessity to being competitive in a world where the classic Pharmaceutical Industry model no longer works. Layer on top of that what Thomas Friedman of New York Times fame labeled as “The Flat World” and it is no wonder that the outsourcing band wagon is so much the order of the day.
The way Wall Street would put is that this trend is a result of a “secular change”. That change is rooted in failed pipelines, lower R&D productivity, the rapid ascent of generic drugs (over 70% of US prescriptions in 2008), increased government regulations, the acknowledgment about the effectiveness of the sales force, extraordinary expense profiles, a public who will not or cannot appreciate the value of the product, a hostile congress and the advent of significant health-care reform from the Obama administration. By the way, Wall Street has acknowledged these secular changes by stripping much of the "P/E premium" from large pharmaceuticals stock prices and turned them into relatively poor performers.
When you combine those challenges with the enormous advances in technology and communication that enable global research and development and supply chains, an outsourcing strategy is not only prudent, it is a requirement. It is indeed a very straightforward way to lower the costs of doing business. When one adds on the acknowledgment of the demand generated by the rising wealth and demand for health-care from very rapidly developing countries including India and China, the requisite of using outsourcing as a way to enter those markets is on the top agendas of many senior executives in the industry.
While the Pharmaceutical/Bio-pharmaceutical Industry has been a notoriously slow adapter of change (yes, there are lots of reasons, not the least of which are regulatory) compounded by risk adverse cultures, the one thing they are not is naive. Gone are the days of “top line revenue” is the only thing that is of concern of management. Today there is a focus on “The Bottom Line” which includes unit costs, effectiveness and efficiency among the tactics. Sure there are other strategies being deployed, for example we have identified two camps in the industry, the consolidation camp and the diversification camp. The “consolidators” would include the big pharma mega-mergers (Pfizer-Wyeth, Merck-ScheringPlough, etc.) and include even some of the consolidation seen by several large biotechs. When you couple a parallel path by the big CRO's, contract manufactures, consultants, etc., the appeal of awarding large pieces of business functions in either long term contracts and/or joint ventures becomes attractive. In a similar fashion, the “diversifiers” (Sanofi, Novartis, etc.) want to focus on their new business endeavors such as animal health, consumer pharmaceuticals or diagnostics and therefore are far more likely to look at an outsourcing strategy as a natural way to allow management focus to be aimed at their new strategies.
The outlook, in my opinion even more to come with innovative joint ventures, terms and conditions and capabilities which will aid the industry to continue its path toward attractive business results.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Big Pharma’s Wanna-be’s
I’ve been blogging for awhile about the life sciences industry and things have started to get lively. Between the economy and its impact on the financial markets and the recent spate of mergers, Larry and I haven’t been lacking for blogging topics.
While following the industry and researching for my blogs, I’ve been noticing that the industry’s excess capacity is slowly merging itself away. A recent article in Barron’s described Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) as a mid-sized pharmaceutical company. This got me thinking, who’s in Big Pharma now? Don’t worry, this blog won’t become a tedious list of company names designed to fill space. (BTW, I personally use CNBC’s Pharma Watch List at http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 for those of you who really enjoy lists of company names.) Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and Wyeth (NYSE: WYE) are merging. So too, are Merck (NYSE: MRK) and Schering-Plough (NYSE: SGP), unless Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) have something to say about it. Roche (SWX Europe: ROG) and Genentech (NYSE: DNA) are finally getting together. Jim Cramer of CNBC was speculating about Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and
Celera (NYSE: CRA) getting together awhile back. (I wonder if I really need to say “Jim Cramer of CNBC”. Is there anybody on the planet who doesn’t know Jim especially after Jon Stewart got finished with him the other night? But, I digress.) Hey, wait a second, this is starting to turn into one of those tedious lists I was griping about several sentences ago.
Let’s pull out two of those names, Johnson & Johnson and Abbott Laboratories and talk about them for a few minutes. They get tossed in everybody’s list of Big Pharma companies but are they really pharmaceutical companies? Yes, they do research and development, market drugs, and go cap in hand to the FDA like the Merck’s, Pfizer’s, and Lilly’s. But, what about all those other things that they do?
First, both companies have significant businesses in the medical devices sector. Definitely healthcare related. Complicated products with healthy (no pun intended) gross margins, I’ll bet. But, don’t they have similarities to drugs? Insurance companies and Medicare pay for them. Hospitals and similar healthcare providers don’t want a lot of vendors’ similar products with just different enough procedures cluttering their storage rooms and confusing their staffs. Product risk? Remember heart defribulators? I’ll bet Boston Scientific does. That one made Vioxx look a sandlot stickball game.
Next, Johnson & Johnson has a consumer products business, mostly high end goods or their own highly respected brand name products. But, many businesses are finding that highly respected brands are not as recession proof as they once were. Then, there’s what I call the Wal-mart effect. Consumer products companies have been resigning themselves to having to deal with the likes of Wal-mart and the few other remaining retail distributors in this country. Also, consumer products have competitors, names like Proctor & Gamble (NYSE: PG) and Colgate-Palmolive (NYSE: CL) which don’t normally appear in blogs like ours.
Finally, let’s talk about management. Johnson & Johnson has Bill Weldon and Abbott has Miles White. How do they manage the complexity and challenges of such disparate businesses? How are their successors developed and chosen? Anyone of the three business lines described require long careers to master and are different enough to be fairly brutal with newcomers who dabble. Anyone who doubts this should check with Bob Nardelli, formerly of Home Depot, who now works for $1 a year at Chrysler. (I can even get a better rate than that.)
Some argue that buying shares in companies like Johnson & Johnson and Abbott Laboratories is liking buying shares in a mutual fund. I don’t buy it. Mutual funds have administration fees and not the corporate overheads that these companies have. Investors thinking of investing in the life sciences sector should be looking at either specific stocks or actual mutual funds.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
While following the industry and researching for my blogs, I’ve been noticing that the industry’s excess capacity is slowly merging itself away. A recent article in Barron’s described Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) as a mid-sized pharmaceutical company. This got me thinking, who’s in Big Pharma now? Don’t worry, this blog won’t become a tedious list of company names designed to fill space. (BTW, I personally use CNBC’s Pharma Watch List at http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 for those of you who really enjoy lists of company names.) Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and Wyeth (NYSE: WYE) are merging. So too, are Merck (NYSE: MRK) and Schering-Plough (NYSE: SGP), unless Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) have something to say about it. Roche (SWX Europe: ROG) and Genentech (NYSE: DNA) are finally getting together. Jim Cramer of CNBC was speculating about Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and
Celera (NYSE: CRA) getting together awhile back. (I wonder if I really need to say “Jim Cramer of CNBC”. Is there anybody on the planet who doesn’t know Jim especially after Jon Stewart got finished with him the other night? But, I digress.) Hey, wait a second, this is starting to turn into one of those tedious lists I was griping about several sentences ago.
Let’s pull out two of those names, Johnson & Johnson and Abbott Laboratories and talk about them for a few minutes. They get tossed in everybody’s list of Big Pharma companies but are they really pharmaceutical companies? Yes, they do research and development, market drugs, and go cap in hand to the FDA like the Merck’s, Pfizer’s, and Lilly’s. But, what about all those other things that they do?
First, both companies have significant businesses in the medical devices sector. Definitely healthcare related. Complicated products with healthy (no pun intended) gross margins, I’ll bet. But, don’t they have similarities to drugs? Insurance companies and Medicare pay for them. Hospitals and similar healthcare providers don’t want a lot of vendors’ similar products with just different enough procedures cluttering their storage rooms and confusing their staffs. Product risk? Remember heart defribulators? I’ll bet Boston Scientific does. That one made Vioxx look a sandlot stickball game.
Next, Johnson & Johnson has a consumer products business, mostly high end goods or their own highly respected brand name products. But, many businesses are finding that highly respected brands are not as recession proof as they once were. Then, there’s what I call the Wal-mart effect. Consumer products companies have been resigning themselves to having to deal with the likes of Wal-mart and the few other remaining retail distributors in this country. Also, consumer products have competitors, names like Proctor & Gamble (NYSE: PG) and Colgate-Palmolive (NYSE: CL) which don’t normally appear in blogs like ours.
Finally, let’s talk about management. Johnson & Johnson has Bill Weldon and Abbott has Miles White. How do they manage the complexity and challenges of such disparate businesses? How are their successors developed and chosen? Anyone of the three business lines described require long careers to master and are different enough to be fairly brutal with newcomers who dabble. Anyone who doubts this should check with Bob Nardelli, formerly of Home Depot, who now works for $1 a year at Chrysler. (I can even get a better rate than that.)
Some argue that buying shares in companies like Johnson & Johnson and Abbott Laboratories is liking buying shares in a mutual fund. I don’t buy it. Mutual funds have administration fees and not the corporate overheads that these companies have. Investors thinking of investing in the life sciences sector should be looking at either specific stocks or actual mutual funds.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Monday, March 16, 2009
Pharmaceutical Industry Consolidation-And the Winner is Pfizer, Merck or Roche????
And the Winner is Pfizer, Merck or Roche????
We promised our view on the potential results of the 3 "super-mega-global-mergers" that have taken place in the last 60 days and we don't wish to disappoint. As we don't want to keep you in suspense, we think that Roche is getting the most “bang for the buck”, BUT it is highly dependent on the non-integration of Genentech.
Let's start with the contenders-first Pfizer-Wyeth. No surprise here, we think PFE vastly overpaid to get a potpourri of businesses with a dog's breakfast of vaccines, biotechs, consumers and some underwhelming pipeline potential. It seems to us that the major drive here is “synergy”, that is reducing workforce size by nearly 20,000 while plugging some of the $11-13 billion hole that Lipitor going off patent in 2011 creates. The stock market has not exactly been “irrationally exuberant” about Pfizer's 10 year $258 billion spending spree for Warner Lambert, Pharmacia and now Wyeth and has inversely rewarded share holders with a nearly 70% reduction in market capitalization from the day of the Warner Lambert deal close (Pfizer's market cap about $300 billion) to this week's $95 billion. Need we say more?
Merck strikes as a version of more of the same. Paying a 30%+ premium (about $41 billion) to combine 2 feeble pipelines and some redundancy (maybe another 20,000 people reduced), "diverse" and/or non-intersecting cultures doesn't strike us as “happy days are here again”. In fact while Pfizer-Wyeth pretends to be a “diversification” play as opposed to a "consolidation", Merck-ScheringPlough doesn't even try to excuse itself with such rhetoric. There is Dick Clark's (Merck's CEO) trying to convince us that Schering Plough is somewhat of an international powerhouse (try telling that to executives of any of Europe's Big 3 pharmaceutical houses), and that Remicade will drive sales of several billion more-can you spell J&J? The reverse acquisition route seems spurious at best-we're no lawyers but can't imagine the transparency of this shenanigan and how it may play with the legal eagles of J&J in New Brunswick. Can we forget about potential in fighting between Fred Hassan (Schering's CEO) and the aforementioned Mr. Clark?
So, back to Roche-Genentech. Sure $95 a share is rich and many a scientist in South San Francisco is going to feel more like a Microsoft Millionaire from the 1980's and therein may lie Roche's opportunity and challenge. Genentech's pipeline is deep and rich with well over two dozen promising candidates and more to come. Much of this has been attributed and rightly so to a combination of brilliant scientists and a laissez faire culture with heralded beer blasts, parties and freedom to explore favorite projects, some of which have become major drugs. The trick is whether Roche's CEO, Franz Humer and his merry band from Basel can convince Art Levinson and Genentech's San Francisco based minions that it's business as usual and that things can only get better from here. We're going to guess that while this is a classic consolidation play, the boys of Basel will do it right.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Larry Rothman
We promised our view on the potential results of the 3 "super-mega-global-mergers" that have taken place in the last 60 days and we don't wish to disappoint. As we don't want to keep you in suspense, we think that Roche is getting the most “bang for the buck”, BUT it is highly dependent on the non-integration of Genentech.
Let's start with the contenders-first Pfizer-Wyeth. No surprise here, we think PFE vastly overpaid to get a potpourri of businesses with a dog's breakfast of vaccines, biotechs, consumers and some underwhelming pipeline potential. It seems to us that the major drive here is “synergy”, that is reducing workforce size by nearly 20,000 while plugging some of the $11-13 billion hole that Lipitor going off patent in 2011 creates. The stock market has not exactly been “irrationally exuberant” about Pfizer's 10 year $258 billion spending spree for Warner Lambert, Pharmacia and now Wyeth and has inversely rewarded share holders with a nearly 70% reduction in market capitalization from the day of the Warner Lambert deal close (Pfizer's market cap about $300 billion) to this week's $95 billion. Need we say more?
Merck strikes as a version of more of the same. Paying a 30%+ premium (about $41 billion) to combine 2 feeble pipelines and some redundancy (maybe another 20,000 people reduced), "diverse" and/or non-intersecting cultures doesn't strike us as “happy days are here again”. In fact while Pfizer-Wyeth pretends to be a “diversification” play as opposed to a "consolidation", Merck-ScheringPlough doesn't even try to excuse itself with such rhetoric. There is Dick Clark's (Merck's CEO) trying to convince us that Schering Plough is somewhat of an international powerhouse (try telling that to executives of any of Europe's Big 3 pharmaceutical houses), and that Remicade will drive sales of several billion more-can you spell J&J? The reverse acquisition route seems spurious at best-we're no lawyers but can't imagine the transparency of this shenanigan and how it may play with the legal eagles of J&J in New Brunswick. Can we forget about potential in fighting between Fred Hassan (Schering's CEO) and the aforementioned Mr. Clark?
So, back to Roche-Genentech. Sure $95 a share is rich and many a scientist in South San Francisco is going to feel more like a Microsoft Millionaire from the 1980's and therein may lie Roche's opportunity and challenge. Genentech's pipeline is deep and rich with well over two dozen promising candidates and more to come. Much of this has been attributed and rightly so to a combination of brilliant scientists and a laissez faire culture with heralded beer blasts, parties and freedom to explore favorite projects, some of which have become major drugs. The trick is whether Roche's CEO, Franz Humer and his merry band from Basel can convince Art Levinson and Genentech's San Francisco based minions that it's business as usual and that things can only get better from here. We're going to guess that while this is a classic consolidation play, the boys of Basel will do it right.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Larry Rothman
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Abbott Labs – Back to the Future
When I blogged recently about Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT), I hadn’t expected to come back for a while. But, as I’m learning in the Blogosphere, things change.
Abbott is increasing its quarterly dividend 11%, its thirty-seventh annual increase (www.smartmoney.com/news/on/?story=ON-20090220-000734-1120 ). This was an opportunity to return and blog some more. Miles D. White, Abbott’s CEO, was upholding Guy’s Eighth Rule of Being a CEO, when in trouble, talk about the dividend, better yet, increase it.
The old saw about those who do not remember the lessons of history being doomed to repeat will really come into play here. What we’re seeing here is another of the large pharmaceuticals (does Abbott really even qualify as Big Pharma?) trying to keep up the pretense that it’s business as usual. Unfortunately, I’m only reminded of those recently unemployed who struggle to maintain their standard of living in order to convince their families and neighbors that everything is alright. One has to ask are they only really kidding themselves.
Monies that will be needed in the future are being dispensed today to keep the shareholders complacent. I still don’t see any reasons why Abbott Labs, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, won’t be traipsing up to the Hill in Washington in a few years looking for a bailout. Finding someone to blame other than themselves could be hard, especially by then. Big Auto blamed the banks. The banks blamed their borrowers. Giving that the drug industry will looking to the government for help, I suspect that they won’t be blaming Washington. But, hey, dumber things have happened.
I keep harping on companies like Abbott and Pfizer and issues like acquisitions (i.e., Wyeth), pursuit of the next “blockbuster” drug, and dividend increases because these are all busted strategies. Other industries like Big Auto and financial services have tried some or all of these and have come to naught. Why should things be any different this time?
A friend of mine (contrary to what Larry says, I do have some) once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Get the picture. I know that I’m using up my quota of clichés in this blog but isn’t that what they’re for, right?
We’re looking at an industry that’s on the cusp of changes that will be seismic in nature. There will be winners and losers. So far, I’ve been focusing on the behaviors that will signify the losers. Shortly, I’ll begin to blog about the characteristics of the winners. This is an industry in transition and we won’t be lacking things to blog about.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Abbott is increasing its quarterly dividend 11%, its thirty-seventh annual increase (www.smartmoney.com/news/on/?story=ON-20090220-000734-1120 ). This was an opportunity to return and blog some more. Miles D. White, Abbott’s CEO, was upholding Guy’s Eighth Rule of Being a CEO, when in trouble, talk about the dividend, better yet, increase it.
The old saw about those who do not remember the lessons of history being doomed to repeat will really come into play here. What we’re seeing here is another of the large pharmaceuticals (does Abbott really even qualify as Big Pharma?) trying to keep up the pretense that it’s business as usual. Unfortunately, I’m only reminded of those recently unemployed who struggle to maintain their standard of living in order to convince their families and neighbors that everything is alright. One has to ask are they only really kidding themselves.
Monies that will be needed in the future are being dispensed today to keep the shareholders complacent. I still don’t see any reasons why Abbott Labs, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, won’t be traipsing up to the Hill in Washington in a few years looking for a bailout. Finding someone to blame other than themselves could be hard, especially by then. Big Auto blamed the banks. The banks blamed their borrowers. Giving that the drug industry will looking to the government for help, I suspect that they won’t be blaming Washington. But, hey, dumber things have happened.
I keep harping on companies like Abbott and Pfizer and issues like acquisitions (i.e., Wyeth), pursuit of the next “blockbuster” drug, and dividend increases because these are all busted strategies. Other industries like Big Auto and financial services have tried some or all of these and have come to naught. Why should things be any different this time?
A friend of mine (contrary to what Larry says, I do have some) once said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Get the picture. I know that I’m using up my quota of clichés in this blog but isn’t that what they’re for, right?
We’re looking at an industry that’s on the cusp of changes that will be seismic in nature. There will be winners and losers. So far, I’ve been focusing on the behaviors that will signify the losers. Shortly, I’ll begin to blog about the characteristics of the winners. This is an industry in transition and we won’t be lacking things to blog about.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Pfizer-Wyeth Redux--We Can't Help It!
I’m back on the Pfizer-Wyeth again. I can’t help myself. I feel as if l’m in that dream we’ve all had of being in a slow motion crash again and again. Here’s why.
Let’s start with the overall economy. Since last autumn, we have CEO’s either being excoriated in the press or by Congress. Obviously, there have been some serious shortfalls in abilities here. Now, let me ask a question, just because Big Pharma hasn’t been dragged up to the Hill yet by Congress doesn’t mean that they won’t be. (Doesn’t mean that they will be either, but old Guy’s sticking his neck out again.) Honestly, there’s some good potential here. Have we seen anything yet from Big Pharma’s CEO’s to distinguish them from their colleagues in banking or automobiles? This is where I’d really like to get some reader feedback.
Next, let’s talk about sticking the collective heads in the sand and hoping that problems will go away. Let’s face it. Barack Obama has won the election. He took the oath of office (twice) and he’s now the President of the United States (POTUS for you acronym freaks out there). Despite some Republican protests, President Obama’s stimulus package has been passed and signed. So, anyone who doesn’t think healthcare reform isn’t coming soon to a hospital near you had better wake up and smell the coffee. Especially, if they’re in the drug or medical device businesses.
Another one of my favorite gripes about the healthcare industry, and most other industries as well, is it’s fascination with mergers and acquisitions. Don’t get me wrong in the right circumstances, with the right reasons and for the right price, these types of deals can make a lot of sense. But, please notice the qualifiers that I listed. There generally aren’t too many deals that meet those criteria and then, if there happens to be a bidding war then any value goes right out of the window. How many M&A deals over the last thirty years, in any industry, have lived up to their oft overhyped potential?
Finally, let’s get down to basics. Business is all about making things and then selling them. Good products and services with good customer service attract customers who pay their bills and come back to buy more. While you’re at it, hire good employees, treat them right, and improve your productivity as a consequence. But, Big Pharma seems to be ignoring this model. Many of them are moving to a portfolio model of buying new drugs, outsourcing everything that they can, and making their profits on the resulting margins. Not bad business if you can get it, but how many companies can be in that kind of a business. Possibly a few, but, certainly not as many as are in the pharmaceutical industry today.
Oh, and let me add that with few exceptions they are optimizing the "blockbuster" model that no longer works. And, has anyone explained the law of large numbers to these people--combining two multi -10's of billion dollars business into one, taking on "synergy targets" has been at best short on results albeit high on promises.
So, let’s see what happens this year. If I’m wrong, I think I’ll find out soon enough.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Let’s start with the overall economy. Since last autumn, we have CEO’s either being excoriated in the press or by Congress. Obviously, there have been some serious shortfalls in abilities here. Now, let me ask a question, just because Big Pharma hasn’t been dragged up to the Hill yet by Congress doesn’t mean that they won’t be. (Doesn’t mean that they will be either, but old Guy’s sticking his neck out again.) Honestly, there’s some good potential here. Have we seen anything yet from Big Pharma’s CEO’s to distinguish them from their colleagues in banking or automobiles? This is where I’d really like to get some reader feedback.
Next, let’s talk about sticking the collective heads in the sand and hoping that problems will go away. Let’s face it. Barack Obama has won the election. He took the oath of office (twice) and he’s now the President of the United States (POTUS for you acronym freaks out there). Despite some Republican protests, President Obama’s stimulus package has been passed and signed. So, anyone who doesn’t think healthcare reform isn’t coming soon to a hospital near you had better wake up and smell the coffee. Especially, if they’re in the drug or medical device businesses.
Another one of my favorite gripes about the healthcare industry, and most other industries as well, is it’s fascination with mergers and acquisitions. Don’t get me wrong in the right circumstances, with the right reasons and for the right price, these types of deals can make a lot of sense. But, please notice the qualifiers that I listed. There generally aren’t too many deals that meet those criteria and then, if there happens to be a bidding war then any value goes right out of the window. How many M&A deals over the last thirty years, in any industry, have lived up to their oft overhyped potential?
Finally, let’s get down to basics. Business is all about making things and then selling them. Good products and services with good customer service attract customers who pay their bills and come back to buy more. While you’re at it, hire good employees, treat them right, and improve your productivity as a consequence. But, Big Pharma seems to be ignoring this model. Many of them are moving to a portfolio model of buying new drugs, outsourcing everything that they can, and making their profits on the resulting margins. Not bad business if you can get it, but how many companies can be in that kind of a business. Possibly a few, but, certainly not as many as are in the pharmaceutical industry today.
Oh, and let me add that with few exceptions they are optimizing the "blockbuster" model that no longer works. And, has anyone explained the law of large numbers to these people--combining two multi -10's of billion dollars business into one, taking on "synergy targets" has been at best short on results albeit high on promises.
So, let’s see what happens this year. If I’m wrong, I think I’ll find out soon enough.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Wow - What a Week for Pharma M&A and Our Opinions on What's What
Larry and I have been blogging a lot recently about the Pfizer/Wyeth merger and some other possibilities. I want to spend a little more time because I think that it’s fundamental to what’s happening in Big Pharma right now. Also, with Tom Daschle dropping out of consideration for a Cabinet post, President Obama won’t be able to start his agenda for U.S. healthcare policy for a while, so we have some time to focus on M&A activity in the BioPharmaceutical Sector.
While I’m still not a big believer in the sense or economics of mergers in the drug industry, they sure generate a lot of ink in the press. (Or, are they are electrons in the age of blogs? I’m having a difficult time adapting my metaphors to the Internet age.) I get the reasons, falling stock prices, lots of cash on drug company balance sheets, and CEO’s desperate to do anything to appear to be adding growth to the top line. Also, the lack of any real news seems to engender a lot of wishful thinking out there in the media.
Here’s one example. Jim Cramer over at CNBC recently blogged (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28813740 ) about the possibility of a merger between Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and Celera (NYSE: CRA). Seems that Abbott’s CEO, Miles White, has been talking about the possibility of acquisitions (But then don’t CEO’s always talk about this? This is Guy’s Third Rule of Being a CEO.), and they are both already working together in the area of personalized medicine. Jim admits freely that he is only speculating here, but, given the article in Barron’s which came out today chiding him about his track record in making predictions, I don’t think I’ll put much into this one. I did find Jim’s summary of personalized medicine interesting and I’ll return to this in a future blog.
Meanwhile, Mike Huckman is keeping hopes alive over at his blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29014145 ) about the possibility of Roche (SWX Europe: ROG) acquiring Genentech (NYSE: DNA) in a hostile takeover. This was his second prediction for the pharmaceutical industry in 2009. Now, I’m not picking on Mike. I have a lot of respect for him. But, looking at his photo on his blog, I think I can safely say that I’m a few years older than him. OK, maybe more than a few years. Anyway, my point is that since 1976 when Robert Swanson and Dr. Herbert Boyer launched Genentech, I’ve been hearing people talk about a hostile takeover. It’s a perennial. Also, as I’ve blogged before, this kind of deal doesn’t make sense to me.
This week, Merck's (NYSE: MRK) CEO, Richard Clark stepped back from their long standing high and mighty point of view against mergers and "hinted" (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/02/03/as-sales-slump-merck-ceo-clark-looks-to-acquisitions/ ) by saying “I don’t think any CEO in this environment can categorically rule out any transaction,” Clark said, according to Dow Jones Newswires. “There are opportunities across the whole spectrum we would look at.” We're not that clear on the position Andrew Witty, Glaxo's new CEO is taking first saying that there will be no acquisitions, and then suggesting "bolt-ons" and then suggesting that acquisitions will take a prominent role as Glaxo looks to back away from the traditional big pharma "Blockbuster" model and move further into consumer, vaccine and emerging markets (http://www.natap.org/2009/newsUpdates/010909_05.htm ). It may be of some interest that almost simultaneously and representing only about 1% of the value of the Pfizer-Wyeth deal, Glaxo acquired UCB's emerging market business for $687 million. In the meanwhile, Astellas launched a $1 billion hostile tender for CV Therapeutics (http://www.dealmakersforum.com/) and rumors continue to abound about a potential BristolMyers-Squibb-Sanofi hook up. Quite a week!
Other possibilities exist including Carl Icahn's continuing pursuit of "enhancing shareholder value" (e.g. sale to a Big Pharma company) at Biogen-Idec . That’s the fun thing about this kind of market, anyone can speculate about anything, even me. Let’s see what happens, I think that this is going to be a very interesting year.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
While I’m still not a big believer in the sense or economics of mergers in the drug industry, they sure generate a lot of ink in the press. (Or, are they are electrons in the age of blogs? I’m having a difficult time adapting my metaphors to the Internet age.) I get the reasons, falling stock prices, lots of cash on drug company balance sheets, and CEO’s desperate to do anything to appear to be adding growth to the top line. Also, the lack of any real news seems to engender a lot of wishful thinking out there in the media.
Here’s one example. Jim Cramer over at CNBC recently blogged (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28813740 ) about the possibility of a merger between Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) and Celera (NYSE: CRA). Seems that Abbott’s CEO, Miles White, has been talking about the possibility of acquisitions (But then don’t CEO’s always talk about this? This is Guy’s Third Rule of Being a CEO.), and they are both already working together in the area of personalized medicine. Jim admits freely that he is only speculating here, but, given the article in Barron’s which came out today chiding him about his track record in making predictions, I don’t think I’ll put much into this one. I did find Jim’s summary of personalized medicine interesting and I’ll return to this in a future blog.
Meanwhile, Mike Huckman is keeping hopes alive over at his blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/29014145 ) about the possibility of Roche (SWX Europe: ROG) acquiring Genentech (NYSE: DNA) in a hostile takeover. This was his second prediction for the pharmaceutical industry in 2009. Now, I’m not picking on Mike. I have a lot of respect for him. But, looking at his photo on his blog, I think I can safely say that I’m a few years older than him. OK, maybe more than a few years. Anyway, my point is that since 1976 when Robert Swanson and Dr. Herbert Boyer launched Genentech, I’ve been hearing people talk about a hostile takeover. It’s a perennial. Also, as I’ve blogged before, this kind of deal doesn’t make sense to me.
This week, Merck's (NYSE: MRK) CEO, Richard Clark stepped back from their long standing high and mighty point of view against mergers and "hinted" (http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/02/03/as-sales-slump-merck-ceo-clark-looks-to-acquisitions/ ) by saying “I don’t think any CEO in this environment can categorically rule out any transaction,” Clark said, according to Dow Jones Newswires. “There are opportunities across the whole spectrum we would look at.” We're not that clear on the position Andrew Witty, Glaxo's new CEO is taking first saying that there will be no acquisitions, and then suggesting "bolt-ons" and then suggesting that acquisitions will take a prominent role as Glaxo looks to back away from the traditional big pharma "Blockbuster" model and move further into consumer, vaccine and emerging markets (http://www.natap.org/2009/newsUpdates/010909_05.htm ). It may be of some interest that almost simultaneously and representing only about 1% of the value of the Pfizer-Wyeth deal, Glaxo acquired UCB's emerging market business for $687 million. In the meanwhile, Astellas launched a $1 billion hostile tender for CV Therapeutics (http://www.dealmakersforum.com/) and rumors continue to abound about a potential BristolMyers-Squibb-Sanofi hook up. Quite a week!
Other possibilities exist including Carl Icahn's continuing pursuit of "enhancing shareholder value" (e.g. sale to a Big Pharma company) at Biogen-Idec . That’s the fun thing about this kind of market, anyone can speculate about anything, even me. Let’s see what happens, I think that this is going to be a very interesting year.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Saturday, January 31, 2009
The Pfizer-Wyeth Merger - We Were Wrong – They are WRONGER
OK, I was wrong, but there is no mea culpa needed. The Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and Wyeth (NYSE: WFE) deal has been announced and somehow financing was arranged. The hubbub in the media seems to support my opinion that this a bad deal for Pfizer’s shareholders, especially if you’re one of the 19,000+ employees who will likely lose their job in this deal. (Wanna bet that after President Obama gets through bashing banks for paying out $18 billion in TARP funds for bonuses, he’ll be setting his sights on Big Pharma.) Although, Jeff Kindler may still be trying to put a positive spin on things. Jeff better be good at spin meistering with a 50% reduction in Pfizer’s dividend-anyone notice that after an initial run up, both PFE and WYE retreated rather significantly based on some on Wall Street who don't view this merger as a layup after all.
Mike Huckman’s been busy doing the post-game review on this deal. Check out his blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 ), in particular, his January 27th and 28th blogs. He offers some interesting perspectives and also links to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the deal. Other than the companies themselves and their hired flacks, I haven’t come across any serious commentators who think that this is a good deal.
I’m going to keep sticking my neck out on this one though. The virulent press reaction and Kindler’s ability to keep the financing together for this deal are my two main reasons.
First, the press reaction. Pfizer is simply buying revenue (at a very high price we add) to offset its looming loss of Lipitor to the generics. Kindler’s been trying to keep his job and has been shuffling assets around in a corporate finance version of three card monte. More people are going to be looking at this deal and start questioning it. I don’t expect anyone to be riding to the rescue with a counteroffer. Anybody remember Boston Scientific (NYSE: BSX) and Guidant? Let’s see, how many billions in overvalued assets did Boston write off the other day? Many pundits (and we agree) think that Pfizer would have been far better off buying several biotechnology companies (e.g., Biogen-Idec, Gilead, Genzyme or as we have advocated Amgen all would have helped) and why justify re-entering the Consumer business when two years ago, Kindler and company claimed they were selling the Pfizer Consumer business to J&J (NYSE: JNJ) so they could "focus' on Pharmaceuticals.
Next, let’s talk about that bank financing. I haven’t come across any details about which financial institutions or investors are behind the $22.5 billion in external financing or its terms. In these times of credit crisis, I’m sure that they are very interesting. By the way, another $47.5 billion will come from internal financing. One commentator noted that Pfizer would probably have to repatriate offshore cash to help with the deal. I suspect that this could mean paying US corporate taxes. Again, not a great deal for shareholders. Given the lack of value that deal produces along with the job losses noted above, I wonder if banks might start rethinking their loan arrangements. Sooner or later, Washington, DC is going to start asking what’s happening with all the money being forked over to the financial services sector. Executive bonuses and job losses don’t seem like a good return for taxpayers’ money. Somebody’s going to start paying attention here.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Mike Huckman’s been busy doing the post-game review on this deal. Check out his blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 ), in particular, his January 27th and 28th blogs. He offers some interesting perspectives and also links to a Wall Street Journal analysis of the deal. Other than the companies themselves and their hired flacks, I haven’t come across any serious commentators who think that this is a good deal.
I’m going to keep sticking my neck out on this one though. The virulent press reaction and Kindler’s ability to keep the financing together for this deal are my two main reasons.
First, the press reaction. Pfizer is simply buying revenue (at a very high price we add) to offset its looming loss of Lipitor to the generics. Kindler’s been trying to keep his job and has been shuffling assets around in a corporate finance version of three card monte. More people are going to be looking at this deal and start questioning it. I don’t expect anyone to be riding to the rescue with a counteroffer. Anybody remember Boston Scientific (NYSE: BSX) and Guidant? Let’s see, how many billions in overvalued assets did Boston write off the other day? Many pundits (and we agree) think that Pfizer would have been far better off buying several biotechnology companies (e.g., Biogen-Idec, Gilead, Genzyme or as we have advocated Amgen all would have helped) and why justify re-entering the Consumer business when two years ago, Kindler and company claimed they were selling the Pfizer Consumer business to J&J (NYSE: JNJ) so they could "focus' on Pharmaceuticals.
Next, let’s talk about that bank financing. I haven’t come across any details about which financial institutions or investors are behind the $22.5 billion in external financing or its terms. In these times of credit crisis, I’m sure that they are very interesting. By the way, another $47.5 billion will come from internal financing. One commentator noted that Pfizer would probably have to repatriate offshore cash to help with the deal. I suspect that this could mean paying US corporate taxes. Again, not a great deal for shareholders. Given the lack of value that deal produces along with the job losses noted above, I wonder if banks might start rethinking their loan arrangements. Sooner or later, Washington, DC is going to start asking what’s happening with all the money being forked over to the financial services sector. Executive bonuses and job losses don’t seem like a good return for taxpayers’ money. Somebody’s going to start paying attention here.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Monday, January 26, 2009
Pfizer and Wyeth – What’s in for Pfizer’s Shareholders?
This week stories began circulating about a potential merger between Pfizer (NYSE : PFE) and Wyeth (NYSE: WFE). Larry’s already written about what it could mean for the pharmaceutical industry if it happens. I’d like to focus on what it means to Pfizer’s shareholders. Personally, I think that it’s nothing more than a defensive ploy on the part of Pfizer. I refer my readers to my January 5th blog of this year for my thinking on large life sciences mergers and acquisitions given the current financial climate.
In this week’s Barron’s, correspondent Jacqueline Doherty writes in the Follow-Up section about the proposed deal and she offers an interesting analysis. I find one point particularly interesting. Acquiring Wyeth would give Pfizer the over-the-counter products Advil and Robitussin. Didn’t Pfizer recently sell off some very valuable consumer products to Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ)? Sounds like management is a bit confused if you ask me.
Acquiring Wyeth will probably dilute Pfizer’s earnings for some time. How long? I don’t know and I haven’t seen anything published yet. But, it’s a reasonable expectation. Doherty suggests that a combined firm would still have Pfizer’s earnings down by 11% from the prior year. I suspect that we have yet another management buying earnings. Why it should work here when it hasn’t anyplace else, I don’t understand.
Pfizer’s dividend yield is respectable (Barron’s states 7.2%), but, two things about this. First, above normal dividend yields, especially in times like these, normally indicate some sort of market risk. Next, how much longer will this dividend continue? Even General Electric (NYSE: GE) has had to cut its dividend! Depending on how Pfizer finances this deal, the dividend might be at risk. Normally once safe healthcare brands are not as recession-proof as they once were. Johnson & Johnson is learning this to its own chagrin. Of course, there’s the possibility of good things to come from Wyeth’s pipeline. Just how realistic is that though?
Pfizer’s CEO, Jeffrey Kindler, appears to be struggling with what to do. I don’t want to criticize him. He’s in a tough spot like every Big Pharma CEO today. A big acquisition would build momentum and excitement in the press and buy time in the hopes that something, anything, happens outside in the real world. Kind of like what the Federal government and Big Auto are doing, huh?
I’m still not convinced that deals like Pfizer and Wyeth are nothing more than hype being churned by people anxious for a story, any story, to add some pizzazz to what is an otherwise bleak market situation. From a shareholder perspective, this isn’t a god long term play. No, I really don’t think that we’ll see these deals happen. (And, even if announced, completing the financing is another story for another blog.)
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
In this week’s Barron’s, correspondent Jacqueline Doherty writes in the Follow-Up section about the proposed deal and she offers an interesting analysis. I find one point particularly interesting. Acquiring Wyeth would give Pfizer the over-the-counter products Advil and Robitussin. Didn’t Pfizer recently sell off some very valuable consumer products to Johnson & Johnson (NYSE: JNJ)? Sounds like management is a bit confused if you ask me.
Acquiring Wyeth will probably dilute Pfizer’s earnings for some time. How long? I don’t know and I haven’t seen anything published yet. But, it’s a reasonable expectation. Doherty suggests that a combined firm would still have Pfizer’s earnings down by 11% from the prior year. I suspect that we have yet another management buying earnings. Why it should work here when it hasn’t anyplace else, I don’t understand.
Pfizer’s dividend yield is respectable (Barron’s states 7.2%), but, two things about this. First, above normal dividend yields, especially in times like these, normally indicate some sort of market risk. Next, how much longer will this dividend continue? Even General Electric (NYSE: GE) has had to cut its dividend! Depending on how Pfizer finances this deal, the dividend might be at risk. Normally once safe healthcare brands are not as recession-proof as they once were. Johnson & Johnson is learning this to its own chagrin. Of course, there’s the possibility of good things to come from Wyeth’s pipeline. Just how realistic is that though?
Pfizer’s CEO, Jeffrey Kindler, appears to be struggling with what to do. I don’t want to criticize him. He’s in a tough spot like every Big Pharma CEO today. A big acquisition would build momentum and excitement in the press and buy time in the hopes that something, anything, happens outside in the real world. Kind of like what the Federal government and Big Auto are doing, huh?
I’m still not convinced that deals like Pfizer and Wyeth are nothing more than hype being churned by people anxious for a story, any story, to add some pizzazz to what is an otherwise bleak market situation. From a shareholder perspective, this isn’t a god long term play. No, I really don’t think that we’ll see these deals happen. (And, even if announced, completing the financing is another story for another blog.)
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Friday, January 23, 2009
Pfizer-Wyeth-Are We Kidding? If Not, Who and What is Next??
A Pfizer Wyeth Merger—Are We Kidding? If not, Who's Next??
This morning, January 23rd, The Wall Street Journal “speculates” that there have been talks between Pfizer and Wyeth about a combined company, although they quickly point out that there is nothing imminent. My colleague Guy de Lastin recently wrote in this blog that there isn't a rational business reason for big pharmaceutical company mergers this year and has been notably supported in The Journal with "The record of big mergers and acquisitions in big pharma has just not been good. There's just been an enormous amount of shareholder wealth destroyed," said Gary Pisano, a Harvard Business School professor who has written about the issue.
Admittedly there are contravening forces at play here-Pfizer among others has been notably non-productive in its R&D sector spending over $7.5 billion a year with little tangible payoff—in fact they announced 800+ layoffs for this particular group in the last week or so. On the other hand, Wyeth has had a bit more success with a newly re-engineered R&D organization—having said that, both companies have major blockbusters, Lipitor and Enbrel come from acquisitions, not in house development. Clearly there are enormous “synergy targets” should two such massive businesses merge. Combine these factors with an investment community that is pushing for consolidation, and a lower market cap this year than last mixed together with a cash position of over $25 billion for Pfizer and a market capitalization of just over $50 billion for Wyeth—maybe, just maybe this could happen.
If Pfizer-Wyeth becomes a reality, we enter a new realm of what we call “Super-Mega-Global” Pharmaceutical giants. This may force other merely mega-globals into a merger frenzy. Europe's big 3, Glaxo, Novartis and Sanofi may view the world in a different way and look in their backyards at the likes of AstraZeneca, Bayer and even Roche as feeding fodder. How about the likes of Merck, J&J, Abbott or BristolMyers looking over the landscape at each other or such potentially delectable morsels as Amgen, ScheringPlough or others or each other or some large generics, or...... You get the point, in an industry known for follow-the-leader mentality, the investment bankers, lawyers and our friends the consultants are in for some major paydays.
Contributed by Larry Rothman
This morning, January 23rd, The Wall Street Journal “speculates” that there have been talks between Pfizer and Wyeth about a combined company, although they quickly point out that there is nothing imminent. My colleague Guy de Lastin recently wrote in this blog that there isn't a rational business reason for big pharmaceutical company mergers this year and has been notably supported in The Journal with "The record of big mergers and acquisitions in big pharma has just not been good. There's just been an enormous amount of shareholder wealth destroyed," said Gary Pisano, a Harvard Business School professor who has written about the issue.
Admittedly there are contravening forces at play here-Pfizer among others has been notably non-productive in its R&D sector spending over $7.5 billion a year with little tangible payoff—in fact they announced 800+ layoffs for this particular group in the last week or so. On the other hand, Wyeth has had a bit more success with a newly re-engineered R&D organization—having said that, both companies have major blockbusters, Lipitor and Enbrel come from acquisitions, not in house development. Clearly there are enormous “synergy targets” should two such massive businesses merge. Combine these factors with an investment community that is pushing for consolidation, and a lower market cap this year than last mixed together with a cash position of over $25 billion for Pfizer and a market capitalization of just over $50 billion for Wyeth—maybe, just maybe this could happen.
If Pfizer-Wyeth becomes a reality, we enter a new realm of what we call “Super-Mega-Global” Pharmaceutical giants. This may force other merely mega-globals into a merger frenzy. Europe's big 3, Glaxo, Novartis and Sanofi may view the world in a different way and look in their backyards at the likes of AstraZeneca, Bayer and even Roche as feeding fodder. How about the likes of Merck, J&J, Abbott or BristolMyers looking over the landscape at each other or such potentially delectable morsels as Amgen, ScheringPlough or others or each other or some large generics, or...... You get the point, in an industry known for follow-the-leader mentality, the investment bankers, lawyers and our friends the consultants are in for some major paydays.
Contributed by Larry Rothman
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Follow-up Interview with Ken Kam (Part 1)
Last month, Larry and I had the opportunity to interview Ken Kam of Marketocracy (www.marketocracy.com) about the drug industry and Elan Corporation PLC, currently conducting clinical trials on a drug, Tysabri, which could be used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease, in particular. Ken predicted a bright future for Elan. Then came two pieces of bad news and Elan’s price came down 60% from its recent high.
Larry and I wanted to follow up with Ken and talk about what happened and what he thinks about Elan’s future. Ken graciously made himself available for us recently and what follows is a summary of our conversation.
When we asked Ken what happened, he replied that these things happen when a company’s value is tied up in clinical trial data, because a lot of investors react to just the headline He feels that when the dust settles people will have a different view when they look at the data. The confidence level for the trial results was at 92% instead of the expected 95%. But, despite trial data showing drug safety and being very close to efficacy at the top level, the stock began moving downward. That was the first piece of bad news. Then came the second.
An announcement came out later indicating that twelve cases of vascular edema and three deaths. As Ken put it, although the three deaths were unrelated to the trial and the cases of vascular edema were safely resolved, unexpected deaths and complications are never good when associated with clinical trial results. (Although, recently neither Ken nor Larry could retrieve that news item.) However, Ken feels that CNBC got the story right in Mike Huckman’s broadcast where he differentiated between those trial participants who had the gene for the disease and those who didn’t. The results for both groups would obviously be different which Huckman got but the market didn’t follow his lead. As the bad news was coming from a medical conference, Ken said, it is very important and can really drive the stock. And, in this case, a lot of people piled on. In addition, there were two cases of PML from the users of Tysabri in Europe. Although it looks like both patients will survive, one is already home from the hospital, PML can be deadly.
Ken went on to say that investors need to look past the headlines and get into the specifics to understand what’s going on. Analysts can be off the mark with knee jerk reactions. It takes a long time for a drug to build a reputation. In Ken’s opinion, Bapineuzumab warrants going to Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 trials are to determine safety and how to dose. Phase 3 results are the ones that really count.
Ken told us that 14,000 patients have been taking Tysabri for over a year. 30,000 patients are now currently taking the drug. He believes that Tysabri is more effective than any other drug on the market for treating multiple sclerosis. His opinion is based on his review of the clinical trial results as well as from members of his online investment community at www.marketocracy.com.
I’m stopping here for now. I’ll continue our interview with Ken Kam in my next blog which will be posted in two days. In it, Ken will talk about his opinions on Elan’s future and another opportunity in the pharmaceutical sector.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Larry and I wanted to follow up with Ken and talk about what happened and what he thinks about Elan’s future. Ken graciously made himself available for us recently and what follows is a summary of our conversation.
When we asked Ken what happened, he replied that these things happen when a company’s value is tied up in clinical trial data, because a lot of investors react to just the headline He feels that when the dust settles people will have a different view when they look at the data. The confidence level for the trial results was at 92% instead of the expected 95%. But, despite trial data showing drug safety and being very close to efficacy at the top level, the stock began moving downward. That was the first piece of bad news. Then came the second.
An announcement came out later indicating that twelve cases of vascular edema and three deaths. As Ken put it, although the three deaths were unrelated to the trial and the cases of vascular edema were safely resolved, unexpected deaths and complications are never good when associated with clinical trial results. (Although, recently neither Ken nor Larry could retrieve that news item.) However, Ken feels that CNBC got the story right in Mike Huckman’s broadcast where he differentiated between those trial participants who had the gene for the disease and those who didn’t. The results for both groups would obviously be different which Huckman got but the market didn’t follow his lead. As the bad news was coming from a medical conference, Ken said, it is very important and can really drive the stock. And, in this case, a lot of people piled on. In addition, there were two cases of PML from the users of Tysabri in Europe. Although it looks like both patients will survive, one is already home from the hospital, PML can be deadly.
Ken went on to say that investors need to look past the headlines and get into the specifics to understand what’s going on. Analysts can be off the mark with knee jerk reactions. It takes a long time for a drug to build a reputation. In Ken’s opinion, Bapineuzumab warrants going to Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 2 trials are to determine safety and how to dose. Phase 3 results are the ones that really count.
Ken told us that 14,000 patients have been taking Tysabri for over a year. 30,000 patients are now currently taking the drug. He believes that Tysabri is more effective than any other drug on the market for treating multiple sclerosis. His opinion is based on his review of the clinical trial results as well as from members of his online investment community at www.marketocracy.com.
I’m stopping here for now. I’ll continue our interview with Ken Kam in my next blog which will be posted in two days. In it, Ken will talk about his opinions on Elan’s future and another opportunity in the pharmaceutical sector.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Contributed by Guy de Lastin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)