After several weeks of visiting various websites for pharmaceutical companies and their front organizations, I’ve gotten a little tired of reading the same old, same old over and over again. To recap for those of you joining late, I’ve been out on the cyberhighway visiting Big Pharma’s and their trade groups’ websites looking for any sign of their being aware of the impending financial disaster about to overtake them. Needless to say, I haven’t found much.
I’ve always thought that I was reasonably knowledgeable about what goes down in the life sciences industry. But, I’ve been shocked by the sameness of the various sites that I’ve been visiting and the total lack of any sense of awareness of the industry’s impending problems.
I spent some time with Larry this week going over the results to date. We feel that we’ve done sufficient research so far and don’t think that blogging about additional site visits are going to add much at this time and we don’t want to run the risk of boring our readers. So, we’re going to change our approach a bit. We’d been planning this anyway but we’re going to speed things up a bit. (But, if any of you out there are aware of any pharmaceutical sites that we should visit, please send them in.)
Starting this week, we’re going to start looking for the analysts and other industry pundits are saying. We also want to go back and do something that we haven’t done for a while – live interviews with some people whom we’ve met with before.
This week while doing my research, I came across Derek Lowe’s Seeking Alpha website (http://seekingalpha.com ) and an article that he wrote titled Big Pharma’s Future Death Spiral (http://seekingalpha.com/article/162227-big-pharma-s-future-death-spiral ). The author summarizes and comments on a presentation called The Pharma Titanic: It's Time to Root for the Iceberg given by Stefan Loren of Westwicke Partners, a Baltimore based financial firm. (What’s with all these Titanic analogies?) Stefan does a very good job of hitting on the major issues confronting Big Pharma. In particular, he not only discusses the vanishing product pipeline issue but goes into how poorly new product research and development have been managed. Derek’s comments are also very good. I recommend visiting the site and reading the article.
I came across another interesting link to Stefan’s work (http://www.chemoutsourcing.com/ChemOutsourcing08final.pdf ). The link shows a Powerpoint presentation entitled Is the Pharmaceutical Industry Exposing Itself to Unacceptable Risk by Expanding Offshore Outsourcing? The presentation is a very good summary of current trends and future outcomes. And, while not all gloom and doom, Stefan hints at a very different future.
I’m encouraged by articles like these because some people connected with the industry don’t have their heads in the sand. (Although, they generally don’t work for pharmaceutical companies.) We’ll continue to seek out these folks and hope to visit with some of them in the future.
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 Big Pharma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Pharma. Show all posts
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
I Now Understand Why the Titanic Hit the Iceberg
Since I began this journey across the Internet looking for Big Pharma’s story about how they’re viewing and dealing with the issues coming at them. To date, what I’ve found has not been very encouraging. The industry seems oblivious to the threats heading its way. I’m reminded of the RMS Titanic sailing along in the dark, oblivious to the lurking iceberg until, wham! , impact, and we all know what happened eventually to Leonard DiCaprio.
Larry suggested that I visit some of the smaller firms to see if the same lack of concern is prevalent. That’s where we’re going this week.
I started with one of the generics, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (http://www.tevapharm.com/ ). OK, they’re one of the threats, but, I wanted to see what their view is. Interestingly, it’s not terribly different from the larger pharmaceuticals’ and industry associations’ websites that I’d visited earlier.
There is one significant difference between Teva’s website and the others visited. That’s a page (http://www.tevapharm.com/about/generic.asp ) that gives a fairly good summary of what the generics industry is all about. But, nothing gives a clue about the competitive threat that generics present to Big Pharma. It’s almost like they’re embarrassed to bring the subject up. So, what gives?
Next, I went to Amgen’s website (http://www.amgen.com/ ). I found this site to be a bit more focused on the science behind drugs and in particular their approach to research. Their pipeline page (http://www.amgen.com/science/pipe.html ) presents the molecules (sounds scientific right?) under study and which modalities are being used. But, again, there’s not a lot about the future of the industry. The closest I came to an industry overview was a presentation to financial analysts (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Mzk2MzUyfENoaWxkSUQ9NDAyMjU0fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1 ) that hints at some of the issues that I’ve been railing about for months. But, that’s about all that I get.
I understand that publically traded companies have stock exchange and SEC rules about what they can say, how they say it, and when they say it. Yet, the cookie cutter approach that I’ve seen across various websites visited so far is inexplicable to me. I’ve heard the joke about how large corporations all use the same consultants hence they’re all alike. I just never thought that it would be true. If their websites are all alike then what about their strategies and business models?
Everything that I’ve seen so far only reinforces to me the storm which is waiting to break over Big Pharma. Momentum, or, is it inertia, seems to be drawing the pharmaceutical industry into a Black Hole from which there will be no escape.
I’ll be looking for more behind this story in future blogs and continue looking for evidence of coming demise 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
Larry suggested that I visit some of the smaller firms to see if the same lack of concern is prevalent. That’s where we’re going this week.
I started with one of the generics, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (http://www.tevapharm.com/ ). OK, they’re one of the threats, but, I wanted to see what their view is. Interestingly, it’s not terribly different from the larger pharmaceuticals’ and industry associations’ websites that I’d visited earlier.
There is one significant difference between Teva’s website and the others visited. That’s a page (http://www.tevapharm.com/about/generic.asp ) that gives a fairly good summary of what the generics industry is all about. But, nothing gives a clue about the competitive threat that generics present to Big Pharma. It’s almost like they’re embarrassed to bring the subject up. So, what gives?
Next, I went to Amgen’s website (http://www.amgen.com/ ). I found this site to be a bit more focused on the science behind drugs and in particular their approach to research. Their pipeline page (http://www.amgen.com/science/pipe.html ) presents the molecules (sounds scientific right?) under study and which modalities are being used. But, again, there’s not a lot about the future of the industry. The closest I came to an industry overview was a presentation to financial analysts (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9Mzk2MzUyfENoaWxkSUQ9NDAyMjU0fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1 ) that hints at some of the issues that I’ve been railing about for months. But, that’s about all that I get.
I understand that publically traded companies have stock exchange and SEC rules about what they can say, how they say it, and when they say it. Yet, the cookie cutter approach that I’ve seen across various websites visited so far is inexplicable to me. I’ve heard the joke about how large corporations all use the same consultants hence they’re all alike. I just never thought that it would be true. If their websites are all alike then what about their strategies and business models?
Everything that I’ve seen so far only reinforces to me the storm which is waiting to break over Big Pharma. Momentum, or, is it inertia, seems to be drawing the pharmaceutical industry into a Black Hole from which there will be no escape.
I’ll be looking for more behind this story in future blogs and continue looking for evidence of coming demise 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
Saturday, September 4, 2010
On the Cyberroad
I think that I’ve finally managed to break away from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (http://www.phrma.org/ ) and its world view. Now, I’m continuing my journey across the Internet looking for Big Pharma’s story.
This week I wanted to move away from Big Pharma’s lobbyists and other front organizations. I went to the websites of two large pharmaceutical companies, Merck and Pfizer. These are two major players in the industry and seemed like a good place to start.
I’ll start with Merck (http://www.merck.com/ ). The usual trappings of a Fortune 500 company were there along with what I’m coming to expect at a large pharmaceutical company. Looking at the site, one could get the impression that this is an altruistic organization worried about patients, the environment, and helping small businesses. (Alright, I admit it, I’m a little bit cynical.)
But, I found what I came looking for, Merck’s pipeline (http://www.merck.com/research/pipeline/home.html?WT.svl=content ). I have to admit from a purely technical perspective, this was done very nicely. Now, let’s talk about the content.
Phase II, Phase III, and Under Review drugs are listed in addition to research areas. Three categories of drugs can be highlighted, biologics, small molecule, and vaccines. Clinical trial results can be linked to for drugs in Phase III and Under Review.
I’m the last guy who can say what’s a good drug or a bad drug from a financial perspective. And, Merck’s site doesn’t include financial forecasts for these potential drugs probably for very good SEC and FDA reasons. Although, I’m probably not going too far out on a limb here by saying that internally Merck is forecasting the financial potential of these drugs.
But, except for a mention to now looking at biologics, there’s nothing about what their philosophy is or why they are doing what they do. Yes, they talk about doing good things and saving lives and that’s about it. I just don’t see an exciting story that tells me that these guys are going to be tomorrow’s breakout story.
Let’s take a quick look at Pfizer’s site (http://www.pfizer.com/home/ ). Here we have all the state of the art social media, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn. When I went looking for their pipeline I found a twenty-two page PDF document (http://media.pfizer.com/files/research/pipeline/2010_0127/pipeline_2010_0127.pdf ). (They really could learn something from Merck.)
Like at Merck’s site, I couldn’t find any reference to where Pfizer saw it’s future heading. From both sites I came away with a picture in my mind of countless lab techs all over the world mindlessly droning away at testing compounds for some vague end. I’m reminded of players at a roulette wheel in a casino. Play enough numbers long enough and sooner or later, you’ll win. Didn’t this get Wall Street in trouble a while back?
My journey so far hasn’t shown me any insights yet into why Big Pharma will turn around. If they have any, they should bring them to the fore better than they’ve done so far. Come back next week to see what I’ve found.
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
This week I wanted to move away from Big Pharma’s lobbyists and other front organizations. I went to the websites of two large pharmaceutical companies, Merck and Pfizer. These are two major players in the industry and seemed like a good place to start.
I’ll start with Merck (http://www.merck.com/ ). The usual trappings of a Fortune 500 company were there along with what I’m coming to expect at a large pharmaceutical company. Looking at the site, one could get the impression that this is an altruistic organization worried about patients, the environment, and helping small businesses. (Alright, I admit it, I’m a little bit cynical.)
But, I found what I came looking for, Merck’s pipeline (http://www.merck.com/research/pipeline/home.html?WT.svl=content ). I have to admit from a purely technical perspective, this was done very nicely. Now, let’s talk about the content.
Phase II, Phase III, and Under Review drugs are listed in addition to research areas. Three categories of drugs can be highlighted, biologics, small molecule, and vaccines. Clinical trial results can be linked to for drugs in Phase III and Under Review.
I’m the last guy who can say what’s a good drug or a bad drug from a financial perspective. And, Merck’s site doesn’t include financial forecasts for these potential drugs probably for very good SEC and FDA reasons. Although, I’m probably not going too far out on a limb here by saying that internally Merck is forecasting the financial potential of these drugs.
But, except for a mention to now looking at biologics, there’s nothing about what their philosophy is or why they are doing what they do. Yes, they talk about doing good things and saving lives and that’s about it. I just don’t see an exciting story that tells me that these guys are going to be tomorrow’s breakout story.
Let’s take a quick look at Pfizer’s site (http://www.pfizer.com/home/ ). Here we have all the state of the art social media, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and LinkedIn. When I went looking for their pipeline I found a twenty-two page PDF document (http://media.pfizer.com/files/research/pipeline/2010_0127/pipeline_2010_0127.pdf ). (They really could learn something from Merck.)
Like at Merck’s site, I couldn’t find any reference to where Pfizer saw it’s future heading. From both sites I came away with a picture in my mind of countless lab techs all over the world mindlessly droning away at testing compounds for some vague end. I’m reminded of players at a roulette wheel in a casino. Play enough numbers long enough and sooner or later, you’ll win. Didn’t this get Wall Street in trouble a while back?
My journey so far hasn’t shown me any insights yet into why Big Pharma will turn around. If they have any, they should bring them to the fore better than they’ve done so far. Come back next week to see what I’ve found.
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, August 29, 2010
First Stop – Hey, I Didn’t Get too Far
As our readers may recall, I’ve begun a journey across the Internet looking for evidence from Big Pharma that there really is a good story out there for them and that they’re just going through a slump right now like everyone else. Well, imagine my chagrin when I found myself back at where I first started, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (http://www.phrma.org/ ), one of Big Pharma’s lobbying groups.
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010, I caught a segment about drug prices on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/cost-brand-drugs-soars-hurting-elderly-americans-fixed/story?id=11478210 ). The story was based on a recent AARP report (http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/health-care/i43-watchdog.pdf ) which stated that the prices of brand name drugs used by elderly Americans were increasing more rapidly than inflation. The correspondent cited that such drugs rose in price by 41.5% in the five year period from 2004 to 2009 while the Consumer Price Index rose by 13.3%.
Now, here’s where it starts to get interesting. ABC asked for an interview with PhRMA and was refused. Submitted written questions were ignored. But, PhRMA did issue a statement, and I’m quoting directly from ABC here, “called the AARP report "distorted and misleading" for not including cheaper generic equivalents which account for 75 percent of prescriptions filled.” Did you get that? Big Pharma’s lobbyists are taking credit for lower drug prices because of generics! You can’t make this stuff up.
I went to PhRMA’s website to see this for myself (http://www.phrma.org/news/news/phrma_statement_aarp_report ). One thing I want to do is to thank ABC for clarifying PhRMA’s statements because I had to read it about half a dozen times before I understood what they were trying to say. The report even claims that increases for drugs were the lowest since 1961. I didn’t go back and check their sources and I can only speak anecdotally about what I hear going on around me with family and friends and I have a hard time with that.
This is where I start to question the long term viability of Big Pharma as well as their ability to get out of their own way. I’ve blogged before about the threat of generics to Big Pharma’s brand name drugs. Check on Google and you’ll find many links to this topic. This was a factor in Big Pharma’s future even before there was a World Wide Web. Now, when their backs are to the wall, they justify themselves by citing the lower prices of generics. Are we seeing a shift here? Is Big Pharma moving to a commodity type model? Might we see more consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry? Could possibly Big Pharma not realize this themselves? Follow my journey for the next several weeks and we’ll see.
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
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010, I caught a segment about drug prices on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/cost-brand-drugs-soars-hurting-elderly-americans-fixed/story?id=11478210 ). The story was based on a recent AARP report (http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/health-care/i43-watchdog.pdf ) which stated that the prices of brand name drugs used by elderly Americans were increasing more rapidly than inflation. The correspondent cited that such drugs rose in price by 41.5% in the five year period from 2004 to 2009 while the Consumer Price Index rose by 13.3%.
Now, here’s where it starts to get interesting. ABC asked for an interview with PhRMA and was refused. Submitted written questions were ignored. But, PhRMA did issue a statement, and I’m quoting directly from ABC here, “called the AARP report "distorted and misleading" for not including cheaper generic equivalents which account for 75 percent of prescriptions filled.” Did you get that? Big Pharma’s lobbyists are taking credit for lower drug prices because of generics! You can’t make this stuff up.
I went to PhRMA’s website to see this for myself (http://www.phrma.org/news/news/phrma_statement_aarp_report ). One thing I want to do is to thank ABC for clarifying PhRMA’s statements because I had to read it about half a dozen times before I understood what they were trying to say. The report even claims that increases for drugs were the lowest since 1961. I didn’t go back and check their sources and I can only speak anecdotally about what I hear going on around me with family and friends and I have a hard time with that.
This is where I start to question the long term viability of Big Pharma as well as their ability to get out of their own way. I’ve blogged before about the threat of generics to Big Pharma’s brand name drugs. Check on Google and you’ll find many links to this topic. This was a factor in Big Pharma’s future even before there was a World Wide Web. Now, when their backs are to the wall, they justify themselves by citing the lower prices of generics. Are we seeing a shift here? Is Big Pharma moving to a commodity type model? Might we see more consolidation in the pharmaceutical industry? Could possibly Big Pharma not realize this themselves? Follow my journey for the next several weeks and we’ll see.
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, August 23, 2010
Pharmservices Blog Named among Top 10 Pharmaceutical Blogs in the World!
We have been informed that the blog "Pharmatching" based in Germany had selected our blog included on their “Best Pharma Websites List”, the 10 top sites in their opinion. This marks the second time in two years where our blog has been cited as among the best in the world - we are truly humbled.
The entire list can be seen at https://www.pharmatching.com/blog/2010/08/the-best-pharma-life-sciences-biotech-websites-part-1/ . Pharmatching wrote of us:
This Blog discusses issues related to the politics, finance and technology and their impact on the industry. Always great thoughts and interesting views.
We would like to thank both Pharmatching and you, our readers, for following us and letting us know that we’re adding some value. Additionally, much of the credit for the high quality of our blog is due to my colleague, Guy de Lastin. Guy has continued to provide thought provoking, well researched articles that have attracted many to our blog.
We’ll continue to write about Big Pharma and the challenges that the entire life sciences sector faces. Stay tuned as we go out onto the Web to see what Big Pharma is actually saying about themselves in our next series of blogs.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Larry
The entire list can be seen at https://www.pharmatching.com/blog/2010/08/the-best-pharma-life-sciences-biotech-websites-part-1/ . Pharmatching wrote of us:
This Blog discusses issues related to the politics, finance and technology and their impact on the industry. Always great thoughts and interesting views.
We would like to thank both Pharmatching and you, our readers, for following us and letting us know that we’re adding some value. Additionally, much of the credit for the high quality of our blog is due to my colleague, Guy de Lastin. Guy has continued to provide thought provoking, well researched articles that have attracted many to our blog.
We’ll continue to write about Big Pharma and the challenges that the entire life sciences sector faces. Stay tuned as we go out onto the Web to see what Big Pharma is actually saying about themselves in our next series of blogs.
As always, we welcome your feedback. Please contact us at larryrothmansblog@gmail.com. We look forward to hearing from you.
Larry
Sunday, August 22, 2010
More Visits to Big Pharma
In my last blog, I went looking for Big Pharma. I came across one of their lobbying groups, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (http://www.phrma.org/ ), and didn’t find much of a story. So, I decided to head over to the other major Big Pharma lobbying group, Biotechnology Industry Group (http://www.bio.org/ ), and see what they had to say.
I found another site without content, at least relevant to an explanation of how an industry will grow out of its slump. The site is busy with all the de rigueur flash for a modern website. Although, I didn’t see Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media application. (But, I’ll bet they’ll be there soon.)
Like PhRMA’s site, there’s a lot going on but no general theme. One link looks suspiciously like a paid advertisement. Overall, this site reminds me of the saying that a horse is a camel designed by committee. There’s something for everyone. The prerequisite “green” sections are even there but don’t seem to tie together.
This is what I think is wrong with Big Pharma today. There is no direction. Everything is reactive, trying to please whomever the particular gods of the moment happen to be. Let’s hope they don’t get the idea that human sacrifice is needed. Nope, sorry, it’s been done. Just look at the layoffs of all the talent from many major pharmaceutical companies over the past several years. They’ll soon find that their best and brightest have been sacrificed to false gods as others have found throughout history.
I’m starting on a journey with this series of blogs. I’ll be traveling around the Web looking for Big Pharma’s story in its own words. But I want to get past the publicists’ hype. If you read the blurbs coming out of the executive suites, everything is fine. Pipelines are strong, healthcare reform is a non-issue, and on and on. I’m reminded of what IBM dispensed from Armonk when John Akers was still in charge.
My trip will go past the type of sites that I’ve been to lately. I’ll be looking for the real story because I know it’s there. Big Pharma is an industry in a state of flux as this blog has been reiterating since its inception. I believe that time is running out for Big Pharma. They’re going to hit the proverbial “tipping point”. Yes, the coffers are still full of cash, but revenue is beginning to sputter, and while cost cutting can keep the bottom line looking healthy for a while even a first year investment analyst knows that game gets played out eventually.
So, keep an eye on this blog as I go in search of Big Pharma’s future.
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
I found another site without content, at least relevant to an explanation of how an industry will grow out of its slump. The site is busy with all the de rigueur flash for a modern website. Although, I didn’t see Twitter, Facebook, or any other social media application. (But, I’ll bet they’ll be there soon.)
Like PhRMA’s site, there’s a lot going on but no general theme. One link looks suspiciously like a paid advertisement. Overall, this site reminds me of the saying that a horse is a camel designed by committee. There’s something for everyone. The prerequisite “green” sections are even there but don’t seem to tie together.
This is what I think is wrong with Big Pharma today. There is no direction. Everything is reactive, trying to please whomever the particular gods of the moment happen to be. Let’s hope they don’t get the idea that human sacrifice is needed. Nope, sorry, it’s been done. Just look at the layoffs of all the talent from many major pharmaceutical companies over the past several years. They’ll soon find that their best and brightest have been sacrificed to false gods as others have found throughout history.
I’m starting on a journey with this series of blogs. I’ll be traveling around the Web looking for Big Pharma’s story in its own words. But I want to get past the publicists’ hype. If you read the blurbs coming out of the executive suites, everything is fine. Pipelines are strong, healthcare reform is a non-issue, and on and on. I’m reminded of what IBM dispensed from Armonk when John Akers was still in charge.
My trip will go past the type of sites that I’ve been to lately. I’ll be looking for the real story because I know it’s there. Big Pharma is an industry in a state of flux as this blog has been reiterating since its inception. I believe that time is running out for Big Pharma. They’re going to hit the proverbial “tipping point”. Yes, the coffers are still full of cash, but revenue is beginning to sputter, and while cost cutting can keep the bottom line looking healthy for a while even a first year investment analyst knows that game gets played out eventually.
So, keep an eye on this blog as I go in search of Big Pharma’s future.
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, August 15, 2010
Visiting Big Pharma
For those of you who have been following my blogs (and Larry and I are grateful to all of you, feel free to refer us to your friends), you know that I talk about “Big Pharma” a lot. Sometimes I think I get a little carried away and give folks the impression that Big Pharma is a group of people who get together in Starbucks for a latte every once and again.
I’m not sure anyone has an exact definition of who or what is in Big Pharma and it’s probably a lot like the one for art – I’ll know it when I see it.
So, I went looking for Big Pharma. Who knows, I thought to myself, maybe I’ll end up with a latte.
Stopping at one of my favorite Web research tools, Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/ ), to see what I could find I went looking for this nebulous group. Well, it turns out that there’s an entry and I’m happy to say Big Pharma is alive and well if not drinking lattes. Interestingly, keying in “Big Pharma” in the Wikipedia search field yields, drum roll please, the “pharmaceutical lobby.” I have to admit that for the all the advertising money that Big Pharma spends they’re really ought to look for some better talent if this is the best that they can get for their money. (Larry, maybe you should think about coming out of retirement, there’s money to be made here.)
According to Wikipedia, the top twenty pharmaceutical companies are represented by two trade groups, an expensive way of saying lobbyists. Being the wanderer that I am, I visited one of these trade groups’ websites. I selected Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (http://www.phrma.org/ ). I must admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. Here’s why.
The site has all the requisite bells and whistles that are expected these days, Twitter, RSS syndication, electronic newsletters, even Facebook. What I couldn’t find a lot of was content. Oh, sure, there were many words. But, I couldn’t escape the sense that this was a very defensive site. (Spoiler alert – here’s where I go into my spiel about Big Pharma going away.)
PhRMA’s mission statement on the site says their goal is “is to conduct effective advocacy for public policies that encourage discovery of important new medicines for patients by pharmaceutical/biotechnology research companies.” What does that mean? Seriously, I’m not playing dumb here. I feel that they are trying to be all things to all people with this site.
If Big Pharma is really introducing new products and driving for revenue growth then why all the self justification? Does Big Pharma know something that we don’t?
Tune in next week for the next installment of my 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
I’m not sure anyone has an exact definition of who or what is in Big Pharma and it’s probably a lot like the one for art – I’ll know it when I see it.
So, I went looking for Big Pharma. Who knows, I thought to myself, maybe I’ll end up with a latte.
Stopping at one of my favorite Web research tools, Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/ ), to see what I could find I went looking for this nebulous group. Well, it turns out that there’s an entry and I’m happy to say Big Pharma is alive and well if not drinking lattes. Interestingly, keying in “Big Pharma” in the Wikipedia search field yields, drum roll please, the “pharmaceutical lobby.” I have to admit that for the all the advertising money that Big Pharma spends they’re really ought to look for some better talent if this is the best that they can get for their money. (Larry, maybe you should think about coming out of retirement, there’s money to be made here.)
According to Wikipedia, the top twenty pharmaceutical companies are represented by two trade groups, an expensive way of saying lobbyists. Being the wanderer that I am, I visited one of these trade groups’ websites. I selected Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (http://www.phrma.org/ ). I must admit I was somewhat underwhelmed. Here’s why.
The site has all the requisite bells and whistles that are expected these days, Twitter, RSS syndication, electronic newsletters, even Facebook. What I couldn’t find a lot of was content. Oh, sure, there were many words. But, I couldn’t escape the sense that this was a very defensive site. (Spoiler alert – here’s where I go into my spiel about Big Pharma going away.)
PhRMA’s mission statement on the site says their goal is “is to conduct effective advocacy for public policies that encourage discovery of important new medicines for patients by pharmaceutical/biotechnology research companies.” What does that mean? Seriously, I’m not playing dumb here. I feel that they are trying to be all things to all people with this site.
If Big Pharma is really introducing new products and driving for revenue growth then why all the self justification? Does Big Pharma know something that we don’t?
Tune in next week for the next installment of my 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
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Big Pharma – More Doubts
If you’ve been following my blogs lately then you know that I’ve announced the end of Big Pharma as we know it and since I’ve been trying to prove it. When I started this series, I thought that this might prove controversial but as I’ve been researching and blogging, I’ve come to realize that I’m probably not alone here.
Another point that I’m realizing is that some of these warning signs have been around for awhile. Maybe not with billboards and newspaper advertisements but the signs are there if you look closely enough. (Larry does say that I have too much time on my hands.)
For example, while researching, a fancy way of saying surfing the Net, I came across a report on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) website (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/pharmaceutical/drugexsum.shtm ) entitled The Pharmaceutical Industry: A Discussion of Competitive and AntitrustIssues in an Environment of Change. The report is dated June 25, 2007 and is meant to address possible antitrust practices but I believe is a clue to how Big Pharma’s practices will work against it in the long term. Also, note that this is over two years before healthcare reform legislation was passed and even before most people even thought that Barack Obama had a chance of becoming President of the United States.
The report notes four changes in the pharmaceutical industry and discusses them from an antitrust perspective. I don’t wish to blog about that but what these changes mean to an industry that’s going through a period of elimination and consolidation.
First, the report notes that information technology is becoming a driver of competitive advantage for drug companies. My take is that early innovators who can make the big investments here will pull ahead of their competitors.
Second, the authors make the point that pharmaceutical companies could then segment their pricing strategies to different categories of users because of this technology. Here’s where I feel that since these buyers will be either the government or medical insurance providers that this will work against the drug companies. As I’ve blogged before many times, the drug companies can’t squeeze their suppliers and employees for cost reductions without the same ultimately happening to them. What goes around comes around.
The final two points discuss the antitrust implications of vertical and horizontal consolidations. These points are indications of an industry going through shake-out and consolidation. There’s no rocket science here. Go back to the nineteenth century when the first trusts were being established in the railroad and oil industries to see some of the first examples.
These points are interesting and I’m not the report’s authors thought about it the way that I am. But, I feel my points are valid. Please check the report out for yourself and let me know your thoughts.
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
Another point that I’m realizing is that some of these warning signs have been around for awhile. Maybe not with billboards and newspaper advertisements but the signs are there if you look closely enough. (Larry does say that I have too much time on my hands.)
For example, while researching, a fancy way of saying surfing the Net, I came across a report on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) website (http://www.ftc.gov/reports/pharmaceutical/drugexsum.shtm ) entitled The Pharmaceutical Industry: A Discussion of Competitive and AntitrustIssues in an Environment of Change. The report is dated June 25, 2007 and is meant to address possible antitrust practices but I believe is a clue to how Big Pharma’s practices will work against it in the long term. Also, note that this is over two years before healthcare reform legislation was passed and even before most people even thought that Barack Obama had a chance of becoming President of the United States.
The report notes four changes in the pharmaceutical industry and discusses them from an antitrust perspective. I don’t wish to blog about that but what these changes mean to an industry that’s going through a period of elimination and consolidation.
First, the report notes that information technology is becoming a driver of competitive advantage for drug companies. My take is that early innovators who can make the big investments here will pull ahead of their competitors.
Second, the authors make the point that pharmaceutical companies could then segment their pricing strategies to different categories of users because of this technology. Here’s where I feel that since these buyers will be either the government or medical insurance providers that this will work against the drug companies. As I’ve blogged before many times, the drug companies can’t squeeze their suppliers and employees for cost reductions without the same ultimately happening to them. What goes around comes around.
The final two points discuss the antitrust implications of vertical and horizontal consolidations. These points are indications of an industry going through shake-out and consolidation. There’s no rocket science here. Go back to the nineteenth century when the first trusts were being established in the railroad and oil industries to see some of the first examples.
These points are interesting and I’m not the report’s authors thought about it the way that I am. But, I feel my points are valid. Please check the report out for yourself and let me know your thoughts.
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, July 31, 2010
Big Pharma – When Will the Music Stop?
My recent blog series on Barron’s article on Big Pharma (The article is available online only for subscribers, a short preview is available at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970203296004575320891909686872.html .) got me thinking about what’s going on with Big Pharma. Looking at the company level gives one picture, the day to day struggles of individual companies. Sometimes looking at that level misses the bigger picture.
Stepping back from the company, we arrive at a level where the seismic forces at play with Big Pharma can be observed. Geologists are fond of saying that North America and Europe are slowly moving towards each other again. And, if we all live long enough, say a couple of hundred million years give or take, then we can see it. (Larry won’t be able to get all those frequent flyer miles anymore.) Fortunately, or unfortunately if you’re either Big Pharma management or its shareholders, we’re not going to have wait nearly as long to see the end results in the pharmaceutical industry.
Whatever comes out of this process on the other end will be very different from what came in at the beginning. I’m predicting the end of Big Pharma. Yep, you heard it here first folks. Big Pharma is going away. No, pharmaceutical companies will still be around. But, the corporate behemoths that strode the Earth invoking hope and fear among all who laid eyes on them will be gone like the Olympic gods of yesterday.
I have two observations about this.
First, many are still in denial about what’s going on. Like Andrew Bary in his Barron’s article, they’re not seeing the big picture. Moody’s recent downgrading of its earnings expectations to negative for Eli Lilly (http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/moodys-cuts-outlook-eli-lilly-negative/2010-05-24 ) recognizes the current problem but still misses the future ones. The myth of long term earnings improvements is based on the myth of the future drug pipeline. It never ends! Whatever happened to provocative business journalism and rigorous financial analysis?
Next, what replaces Big Pharma? I still believe that fragmentation and geographic dispersal will result from the changes that are underway. There is historical precedent for this. Remember IBM and DEC? Once upon a time they dominated the computer industry. In fact for one brief, shining moment, IBM had it all. Then the personal computer and local area networks came along and, poof, the magic was gone. Not only that, but many of the personal computer players came and went even more quickly. And, now? Now, Lenovo sits in China with the remnants of IBM’s personal computer division. All that in about a generation.
Take a look at a blog (http://stocks.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2010/playing-big-pharma-with-cros-crl-prxl-ppdi-mrk-kndl-cvd-iclr0706.aspx ) about contract research organizations (CRO’s) that I’ve come across recently and you may see some of the same trends unfolding with pharmaceuticals.
So, how long do you think it will be before some of those big, corporate campuses owned by Big Pharma in New Jersey are going to be subdivided and leased out to the start-ups of their now unemployed corporate occupants?
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
Stepping back from the company, we arrive at a level where the seismic forces at play with Big Pharma can be observed. Geologists are fond of saying that North America and Europe are slowly moving towards each other again. And, if we all live long enough, say a couple of hundred million years give or take, then we can see it. (Larry won’t be able to get all those frequent flyer miles anymore.) Fortunately, or unfortunately if you’re either Big Pharma management or its shareholders, we’re not going to have wait nearly as long to see the end results in the pharmaceutical industry.
Whatever comes out of this process on the other end will be very different from what came in at the beginning. I’m predicting the end of Big Pharma. Yep, you heard it here first folks. Big Pharma is going away. No, pharmaceutical companies will still be around. But, the corporate behemoths that strode the Earth invoking hope and fear among all who laid eyes on them will be gone like the Olympic gods of yesterday.
I have two observations about this.
First, many are still in denial about what’s going on. Like Andrew Bary in his Barron’s article, they’re not seeing the big picture. Moody’s recent downgrading of its earnings expectations to negative for Eli Lilly (http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/moodys-cuts-outlook-eli-lilly-negative/2010-05-24 ) recognizes the current problem but still misses the future ones. The myth of long term earnings improvements is based on the myth of the future drug pipeline. It never ends! Whatever happened to provocative business journalism and rigorous financial analysis?
Next, what replaces Big Pharma? I still believe that fragmentation and geographic dispersal will result from the changes that are underway. There is historical precedent for this. Remember IBM and DEC? Once upon a time they dominated the computer industry. In fact for one brief, shining moment, IBM had it all. Then the personal computer and local area networks came along and, poof, the magic was gone. Not only that, but many of the personal computer players came and went even more quickly. And, now? Now, Lenovo sits in China with the remnants of IBM’s personal computer division. All that in about a generation.
Take a look at a blog (http://stocks.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2010/playing-big-pharma-with-cros-crl-prxl-ppdi-mrk-kndl-cvd-iclr0706.aspx ) about contract research organizations (CRO’s) that I’ve come across recently and you may see some of the same trends unfolding with pharmaceuticals.
So, how long do you think it will be before some of those big, corporate campuses owned by Big Pharma in New Jersey are going to be subdivided and leased out to the start-ups of their now unemployed corporate occupants?
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, July 24, 2010
Big Pharma – Corruption? Say It Ain’t So
To prepare for these blogs, I do research. That’s a fancy way of saying that I sit in front of my laptop and do a lot of Google searches (my preferred engine of choice). And, I’m noticing a few things lately.
First, there’s not a lot of good news out there for Big Pharma. OK, sure there’s a lot of marketing hype and spin meistering going on but not any really positive trends. Talk about biotechnology and its promise but not much on delivering on those promises.
Second, the usual bad news stories, patent expiration, generic competition, cost models out of whack, diminishing pipelines, and I’m sure I missed a few are still there. These stories go back for years, the beginning of the decade in some cases with more coming every year.
So imagine my chagrin when I came across a recent article from Natural News written by David Gutierrez posted on Kevin Trudeau’s website (http://www.ktradionetwork.com/health/who-issues-warning-about-big-pharma-corruption/ ) discussing the release of a fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) discussing corruption and unethical practices in the pharmaceutical industry. These guys just can’t catch a break.
We seem to be moving from a period of public perception of an industry under siege to one that’s preying on the public. I suspect that except for BP’s current contribution to the public image of multinational corporations, Big Pharma might be getting more heat than they have been lately.
Now, let’s get back to that WHO report. WHO Fact Sheet No. 335 was first released back in December 2009. The actual report can be viewed at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs335/en/index.html . The authors looked at what they call the medicines chain which included all steps in the development, marketing, and consumption of drugs and they claim that there is corruption in every step of the chain. In fact, they’ve included a pretty nifty chart (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/images/medicines_20091209.gif ) diagramming each of those steps and the corresponding types of corruption that occur. (Rest assured, there will be future blogs about what’s going on here.)
The fact sheet states that all countries regardless of their developed status have issues. Developed countries are estimated to lose $23 billion US annually to dishonest healthcare practices. Certain practices would seem to lend themselves to certain countries and companies. I’ll hazard a guess and say that research and development and clinical trial fraud are probably more likely in the developed countries where much of this work occurs than with the less developed ones. Likewise, counterfeit drugs are a bigger for less developed countries lacking the necessary infrastructure to examine the drugs. And, I’m sure there are examples which contradict both scenarios.
In closing, I’m getting the sense that Big Pharma’s troubles are far from over and if anything they’re entering a new stage which may presage new ones coming soon.
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
First, there’s not a lot of good news out there for Big Pharma. OK, sure there’s a lot of marketing hype and spin meistering going on but not any really positive trends. Talk about biotechnology and its promise but not much on delivering on those promises.
Second, the usual bad news stories, patent expiration, generic competition, cost models out of whack, diminishing pipelines, and I’m sure I missed a few are still there. These stories go back for years, the beginning of the decade in some cases with more coming every year.
So imagine my chagrin when I came across a recent article from Natural News written by David Gutierrez posted on Kevin Trudeau’s website (http://www.ktradionetwork.com/health/who-issues-warning-about-big-pharma-corruption/ ) discussing the release of a fact sheet from the World Health Organization (WHO) discussing corruption and unethical practices in the pharmaceutical industry. These guys just can’t catch a break.
We seem to be moving from a period of public perception of an industry under siege to one that’s preying on the public. I suspect that except for BP’s current contribution to the public image of multinational corporations, Big Pharma might be getting more heat than they have been lately.
Now, let’s get back to that WHO report. WHO Fact Sheet No. 335 was first released back in December 2009. The actual report can be viewed at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs335/en/index.html . The authors looked at what they call the medicines chain which included all steps in the development, marketing, and consumption of drugs and they claim that there is corruption in every step of the chain. In fact, they’ve included a pretty nifty chart (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/images/medicines_20091209.gif ) diagramming each of those steps and the corresponding types of corruption that occur. (Rest assured, there will be future blogs about what’s going on here.)
The fact sheet states that all countries regardless of their developed status have issues. Developed countries are estimated to lose $23 billion US annually to dishonest healthcare practices. Certain practices would seem to lend themselves to certain countries and companies. I’ll hazard a guess and say that research and development and clinical trial fraud are probably more likely in the developed countries where much of this work occurs than with the less developed ones. Likewise, counterfeit drugs are a bigger for less developed countries lacking the necessary infrastructure to examine the drugs. And, I’m sure there are examples which contradict both scenarios.
In closing, I’m getting the sense that Big Pharma’s troubles are far from over and if anything they’re entering a new stage which may presage new ones coming soon.
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, July 19, 2010
A Shot Across the Bow III
This week, I’ll be finishing my commentary on Andrew Bary’s recent cover story in Barron’s (The article is available online only for subscribers, a short preview is available at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970203296004575320891909686872.html .) about the future prospects for drug stocks.
I started this series of blogs because after reading the article for the first time I was astonished at the lack of analysis of what simply appeared to be regurgitations of pharmaceuticals’ public relations flacks. The other interesting aspect of the article is the long term view that I takes. When the dates that Andrew is writing about finally come around no one’s going to remember either this article or him. I wish I could get writing gigs like that.
Last time I left off just as Andrew was about to tackle Roche. He quotes unnamed “bulls” as saying that this company has the best potential of the nine companies he’s writing about. He assumes the stock could rise 30% simply from earnings growth in the next several years. OK, why? Or, better yet, given all that we know that is out there working against this industry why should we expect earnings to simply “increase”? Especially since maybe $1 billion in annual revenues could be at risk if the FDA reconsiders its previous approval of the breast cancer drug Avastin. Check out the Bloomberg Businessweek article for more details (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-16/roche-avastin-trials-not-as-good-as-early-tests.html ).
Next up, Andrew tackles GlaxoSmithKline. This one is going to be easy. (You can tell that I’m enjoying this can’t you?) Now, Andrew couldn’t have known that the Avandia story (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20010767-10391704.html ) would have broken so soon after he wrote his article. In fairness, his comments about the drug are probably his most insightful in the entire article. But, once again, he misses the obvious to follow lemming-like the unnamed bulls that he appears to be so enamored with. What gives here?
Andrew reviews three more companies in his article, Lilly, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Astra-Zeneca. I won’t prolong the torture by going through these one by one. But, the same themes are there. A long term look at 2015, the current dividends are good, or yeah, there’re problems but there’s always tomorrow. (I’m expecting Annie to get some credits here.) Can this guy really believe all this?
I think Barron’s and Andrew really missed an opportunity here. I’m also disappointed with Barron’s, they typically run tougher pieces that challenge the conventional thinking.
It’s not like this hasn’t happened before in the U.S. economy. The auto and banking industries are good current examples. The personal computer industry is a slightly older example and the mainframe computer industry in the Sixties is another good example. How many of you out there remember Snow White and the Seven Dwarves? (Larry will tell you, I’m a serious student of history.)
One more thing, I’ll take a look back on this article in 2015 and see just well Andrew called this one.
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
I started this series of blogs because after reading the article for the first time I was astonished at the lack of analysis of what simply appeared to be regurgitations of pharmaceuticals’ public relations flacks. The other interesting aspect of the article is the long term view that I takes. When the dates that Andrew is writing about finally come around no one’s going to remember either this article or him. I wish I could get writing gigs like that.
Last time I left off just as Andrew was about to tackle Roche. He quotes unnamed “bulls” as saying that this company has the best potential of the nine companies he’s writing about. He assumes the stock could rise 30% simply from earnings growth in the next several years. OK, why? Or, better yet, given all that we know that is out there working against this industry why should we expect earnings to simply “increase”? Especially since maybe $1 billion in annual revenues could be at risk if the FDA reconsiders its previous approval of the breast cancer drug Avastin. Check out the Bloomberg Businessweek article for more details (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-16/roche-avastin-trials-not-as-good-as-early-tests.html ).
Next up, Andrew tackles GlaxoSmithKline. This one is going to be easy. (You can tell that I’m enjoying this can’t you?) Now, Andrew couldn’t have known that the Avandia story (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20010767-10391704.html ) would have broken so soon after he wrote his article. In fairness, his comments about the drug are probably his most insightful in the entire article. But, once again, he misses the obvious to follow lemming-like the unnamed bulls that he appears to be so enamored with. What gives here?
Andrew reviews three more companies in his article, Lilly, Bristol Meyers Squibb, and Astra-Zeneca. I won’t prolong the torture by going through these one by one. But, the same themes are there. A long term look at 2015, the current dividends are good, or yeah, there’re problems but there’s always tomorrow. (I’m expecting Annie to get some credits here.) Can this guy really believe all this?
I think Barron’s and Andrew really missed an opportunity here. I’m also disappointed with Barron’s, they typically run tougher pieces that challenge the conventional thinking.
It’s not like this hasn’t happened before in the U.S. economy. The auto and banking industries are good current examples. The personal computer industry is a slightly older example and the mainframe computer industry in the Sixties is another good example. How many of you out there remember Snow White and the Seven Dwarves? (Larry will tell you, I’m a serious student of history.)
One more thing, I’ll take a look back on this article in 2015 and see just well Andrew called this one.
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, July 17, 2010
A Shot Across the Bow II
This week, I’ll be continuing my commentary on Andrew Bary’s recent cover story in Barron’s (The article is available online only for subscribers, a short preview is available at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970203296004575320891909686872.html .) about the future prospects for drug stocks.
I have taken a somewhat contrarian position to Andrew’s. Here are the rest of my comments.
Andrew chides the bears’ position about drug stocks and then proceeds to review a number of pure drug play stocks. Along the way he nods toward the bulls by telling them to take Warren Buffet’s (whom I think is living on his reputation for a while now, be careful of financial advisors who raffle off lunch with themselves for charity). But, honestly, every racetrack in the country has touts giving the same advice on how to play the ponies.
Andrew’s comments about Merck don’t really provide any insight on why there should be hope for a change anytime soon there. He talks of “promising” drugs acquired in the Schering-Plough acquisition and Merck’s “historically…productive labs”. Again, no new insights. Every stock prospectus ever issued (at least since the SEC’s been around) says that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. So, why should any of this make Merck a better investment. Then there’s the projection of a potential stock price in the mid-40’s from today’s 36 per share “if the pipeline pans out”. That’s a nice, safe, long term projection that is so far out that it should be perfectly safe to make. Also, it doesn’t do too much for an investor today.
Next up, my man Andrew tackles Sanofi. He gets it right about this being “underappreciated” but it’s where he goes from there that I disagree with. His faith in their drug pipeline seems to be based primarily on the CEO’s blandishments. Again, Andrew gets it right about the immediate challenges that this company faces but looking past 2013, he thinks things could be wonderful. Why? Because of their “vaccines and insulin products”. What type of margins will these products have? They sound like the type of products that national healthcare programs would pay for. The same programs that are playing hardball on pricing. I don’t know where Andrew plans on being a few years from now, but, I’ll wager it won’t be at Barron’s.
Pfizer and Novartis are the next drug stocks reviewed by Bary. He’s not as optimistic about the former, reality has to set in sometime, and with the latter, he gives a rosy forecast for 2015.
I’ll have more to blog about this article in my next blog. I find it rather disappointing that a major publication like Barron’s can expend as much printer’s ink as they did for this article and it doesn’t really add anything new to the debate.
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
I have taken a somewhat contrarian position to Andrew’s. Here are the rest of my comments.
Andrew chides the bears’ position about drug stocks and then proceeds to review a number of pure drug play stocks. Along the way he nods toward the bulls by telling them to take Warren Buffet’s (whom I think is living on his reputation for a while now, be careful of financial advisors who raffle off lunch with themselves for charity). But, honestly, every racetrack in the country has touts giving the same advice on how to play the ponies.
Andrew’s comments about Merck don’t really provide any insight on why there should be hope for a change anytime soon there. He talks of “promising” drugs acquired in the Schering-Plough acquisition and Merck’s “historically…productive labs”. Again, no new insights. Every stock prospectus ever issued (at least since the SEC’s been around) says that past performance is no guarantee of future performance. So, why should any of this make Merck a better investment. Then there’s the projection of a potential stock price in the mid-40’s from today’s 36 per share “if the pipeline pans out”. That’s a nice, safe, long term projection that is so far out that it should be perfectly safe to make. Also, it doesn’t do too much for an investor today.
Next up, my man Andrew tackles Sanofi. He gets it right about this being “underappreciated” but it’s where he goes from there that I disagree with. His faith in their drug pipeline seems to be based primarily on the CEO’s blandishments. Again, Andrew gets it right about the immediate challenges that this company faces but looking past 2013, he thinks things could be wonderful. Why? Because of their “vaccines and insulin products”. What type of margins will these products have? They sound like the type of products that national healthcare programs would pay for. The same programs that are playing hardball on pricing. I don’t know where Andrew plans on being a few years from now, but, I’ll wager it won’t be at Barron’s.
Pfizer and Novartis are the next drug stocks reviewed by Bary. He’s not as optimistic about the former, reality has to set in sometime, and with the latter, he gives a rosy forecast for 2015.
I’ll have more to blog about this article in my next blog. I find it rather disappointing that a major publication like Barron’s can expend as much printer’s ink as they did for this article and it doesn’t really add anything new to the debate.
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, July 5, 2010
A Shot Across the Bow
I don’t often get worked up over other writers’ work but a recent cover story by Andrew Bary in Barron’s about the rosy prospects for drug stocks set me off. (The article is available online only for subscribers, a short preview is available at http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052970203296004575320891909686872.html . By the way, a subscription to Barron’s online edition is a very cost effective, environmentally friendly thing to do. Both Larry and I subscribe.) Here’s what got me going.
Andrew’s premise is that far from being dead, Big Pharma is on the cusp of a resurgence that could see some stocks rise by 30%. OK, now, those of you who have been faithfully following this blog know that I think anything but that about Big Pharma. The article was to me nothing more than a compilation of Big Pharma press releases. Sorry Andrew.
Let me explain why I feel this way. And, in fairness to Andrew, I’m not disputing his facts, I just see things differently, very differently.
First up, Andrew writes of the shift to vaccines and biologics. No argument there but will the profit margins be there? Also, given where healthcare reform is headed in this country and the budget shortfalls for many governments around the world (e.g., Greece, Ireland) how much money can actually be made here? Then there’s competition. What will happen when all the major pharmaceutical companies pile on? Profit margins will only get thinner. Biologics sound expensive and with their apparent manufacturing complexity can manufacturers really handle this and still make a profit?
Next, the writer quoting an analyst implies that drug stocks may be at their lows. I’ll admit that contrarianism would make the case that a buying opportunity may exist here but I don’t believe so. Contrarianism can’t trump fundamentals. (There’s a PhD dissertation in here somewhere.) And, the fundamentals aren’t good here.
Then, the dividend argument is played. (The older I get the more I can’t believe how these old bones keep getting gnawed.) Yes, dividend payouts are high for some of these companies. The argument is given that cash flows are strong. Yes, they are today but what about tomorrow when they dry up and cash balances are drawn down. Unless of course, some bright spark decides to borrow to continue paying those dividends. Shareholders of General Electric, and General Motors once used to look forward fondly to those quarterly dividend checks which don’t come anymore or are far smaller than they once were.
I’m not finished here. I’ll be back in the next several blogs to continue to dissect this article because I feel it needs to be put into perspective.
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
Andrew’s premise is that far from being dead, Big Pharma is on the cusp of a resurgence that could see some stocks rise by 30%. OK, now, those of you who have been faithfully following this blog know that I think anything but that about Big Pharma. The article was to me nothing more than a compilation of Big Pharma press releases. Sorry Andrew.
Let me explain why I feel this way. And, in fairness to Andrew, I’m not disputing his facts, I just see things differently, very differently.
First up, Andrew writes of the shift to vaccines and biologics. No argument there but will the profit margins be there? Also, given where healthcare reform is headed in this country and the budget shortfalls for many governments around the world (e.g., Greece, Ireland) how much money can actually be made here? Then there’s competition. What will happen when all the major pharmaceutical companies pile on? Profit margins will only get thinner. Biologics sound expensive and with their apparent manufacturing complexity can manufacturers really handle this and still make a profit?
Next, the writer quoting an analyst implies that drug stocks may be at their lows. I’ll admit that contrarianism would make the case that a buying opportunity may exist here but I don’t believe so. Contrarianism can’t trump fundamentals. (There’s a PhD dissertation in here somewhere.) And, the fundamentals aren’t good here.
Then, the dividend argument is played. (The older I get the more I can’t believe how these old bones keep getting gnawed.) Yes, dividend payouts are high for some of these companies. The argument is given that cash flows are strong. Yes, they are today but what about tomorrow when they dry up and cash balances are drawn down. Unless of course, some bright spark decides to borrow to continue paying those dividends. Shareholders of General Electric, and General Motors once used to look forward fondly to those quarterly dividend checks which don’t come anymore or are far smaller than they once were.
I’m not finished here. I’ll be back in the next several blogs to continue to dissect this article because I feel it needs to be put into perspective.
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, June 26, 2010
A Cautionary Tale
I’m going to run off the reservation a little today. (OK, maybe more than a little, but, I think the point is important.) The media has been full of stories for most of this year about several, large corporations (e.g., Toyota, BP, Massey) that have gotten themselves into a lot of trouble. (Check out Matt Krantz’s USA Today June 4, 2010 article, http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/2010-06-04-disasterstocks04_ST_N.htm .) Now, you’re probably wondering why I’m blogging about these companies and what’s the relationship with Big Pharma?
The connection is cost cutting. Relentless cost cutting to the exclusion of all else. I’m not implying that these companies are alone in this. The mantra of cost cutting to enhance shareholder value has been around for at least a generation. It sounds seductively simple, unnecessary costs should be eliminated. The good costs are those that enhance productivity and everyone goes home happy. Right?
Here’s where I’ve always had a problem with this rather simplistic view of things. What’s a good cost? The financial analysts and media tend to look at earnings per share (EPS) and year over year profits. The fact that routine maintenance costs, expert staff, and training costs for the remaining employees have been reduced, if not outright eliminated, seems to be glossed over. And, let’s not forget about research and development expenditures which might go a long way to explaining the drying up of the product pipelines at drug companies lately.
Corporations have been becoming increasingly complex for a long time. Managing complexity as many of our readers know from firsthand experience is no simple matter. So, how can a simple measure like how much less have we spent than last year be used while the business is not exactly simplifying?
Product recalls may prove to be leading indicators in the long run of underlying problems. Of course, that assumes the products are being recalled in the first place. Take a look over at the FDA’s website for drug recalls (http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/default.htm ) and ask yourself how can these things happen to companies like Pfizer?
Where I’m going with all this is what should we expect to see with Big Pharma and their smaller brethren? I’ve blogged before about how large life sciences companies are collections of products and services that are almost impossible for one executive to manage.
The argument of synergy is often trotted out, but, I have yet to see a consistent track record for that one. In fact, I can’t even think of a good stand alone example of one. (I invite the readership to post with any that they may be aware of.)
In closing, I believe that we are seeing the start of a new trend for business and especially in the life sciences sector and that is, large, complex businesses struggling to understand what expenditures are necessary and which aren’t. Since figuring this one out is tough, I expect that we’re going to see declining profits for some time.
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
The connection is cost cutting. Relentless cost cutting to the exclusion of all else. I’m not implying that these companies are alone in this. The mantra of cost cutting to enhance shareholder value has been around for at least a generation. It sounds seductively simple, unnecessary costs should be eliminated. The good costs are those that enhance productivity and everyone goes home happy. Right?
Here’s where I’ve always had a problem with this rather simplistic view of things. What’s a good cost? The financial analysts and media tend to look at earnings per share (EPS) and year over year profits. The fact that routine maintenance costs, expert staff, and training costs for the remaining employees have been reduced, if not outright eliminated, seems to be glossed over. And, let’s not forget about research and development expenditures which might go a long way to explaining the drying up of the product pipelines at drug companies lately.
Corporations have been becoming increasingly complex for a long time. Managing complexity as many of our readers know from firsthand experience is no simple matter. So, how can a simple measure like how much less have we spent than last year be used while the business is not exactly simplifying?
Product recalls may prove to be leading indicators in the long run of underlying problems. Of course, that assumes the products are being recalled in the first place. Take a look over at the FDA’s website for drug recalls (http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/default.htm ) and ask yourself how can these things happen to companies like Pfizer?
Where I’m going with all this is what should we expect to see with Big Pharma and their smaller brethren? I’ve blogged before about how large life sciences companies are collections of products and services that are almost impossible for one executive to manage.
The argument of synergy is often trotted out, but, I have yet to see a consistent track record for that one. In fact, I can’t even think of a good stand alone example of one. (I invite the readership to post with any that they may be aware of.)
In closing, I believe that we are seeing the start of a new trend for business and especially in the life sciences sector and that is, large, complex businesses struggling to understand what expenditures are necessary and which aren’t. Since figuring this one out is tough, I expect that we’re going to see declining profits for some time.
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, May 31, 2010
Big Pharma – Back to the Future
One of my favorite quotations has always been from George Santayana, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” You may ask why am I suddenly so philosophical?
Well, while preparing to write this blog (yes, contrary to popular belief, I do research for my blogs, it’s not all just flow of consciousness) I googled “pharmaceutical companies issues” and received back the usual gazillion replies.
As I started to go through the list one by one from the top (I really hope that my readers, assuming I have any, appreciate what I do for them) I noticed two things.
First, we’re not alone. The topics that we’ve been blogging about for several years now, declining profits, stagnating product pipelines, and an industry in crisis are being written about by many people. And they’re writing a lot.
Next, and this surprised me, people have been writing about this for a long time. I mean years.
Larry and I have been talking about these issues for a while now. But, it was only about when we started this blog that our thinking began to coalesce around these issues. But, there were people out there before us. Long before us.
One writer in particular, Bianca Piachaud, wrote a particularly good article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1634_280/ai_85370544/?tag=content;col1 ) all the way back in March 2002 for Contemporary Review on the issues facing the pharmaceutical industry which is still relevant today. Think about that. That’s over eight years ago!
Dr. Piachaud made one particularly prescient observation that the past eight years has borne out. She noted that the unsustainability (I may have made up a word here) of pharmaceutical profits because of increasing competition from generics, government policies, and the increasing costs of finding new drugs. There is even a reference to the cost cutting programs being put into place (and which may have gotten some pharmaceutical companies into recent trouble) to try to fend off the inevitable.
I also found in this article, the first rational explanation of why the product pipelines are stagnating. Dr. Piachaud highlights the increasing diminishing returns from research as technology with its costs becomes a larger part of the work undertaken. She also notes the contributions of administrative inefficiencies and increasing bureaucracy (think of Sarbanes-Oxley and healthcare compliance costs) in lowering profits.
The unsettling aspect of Dr. Piachuad’s article is that there doesn’t appear to be any good news soon for the pharmaceutical industry. We may be moving through the middle game preparing for the end game.
Dr. Piachuad has a doctorate from the Aberdeen Business School, the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. She is also has written Outsourcing of R&D in the Pharmaceutical Industry published by Macmillan (http://us.macmillan.com/author/biancapiachaud ).
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
Well, while preparing to write this blog (yes, contrary to popular belief, I do research for my blogs, it’s not all just flow of consciousness) I googled “pharmaceutical companies issues” and received back the usual gazillion replies.
As I started to go through the list one by one from the top (I really hope that my readers, assuming I have any, appreciate what I do for them) I noticed two things.
First, we’re not alone. The topics that we’ve been blogging about for several years now, declining profits, stagnating product pipelines, and an industry in crisis are being written about by many people. And they’re writing a lot.
Next, and this surprised me, people have been writing about this for a long time. I mean years.
Larry and I have been talking about these issues for a while now. But, it was only about when we started this blog that our thinking began to coalesce around these issues. But, there were people out there before us. Long before us.
One writer in particular, Bianca Piachaud, wrote a particularly good article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2242/is_1634_280/ai_85370544/?tag=content;col1 ) all the way back in March 2002 for Contemporary Review on the issues facing the pharmaceutical industry which is still relevant today. Think about that. That’s over eight years ago!
Dr. Piachaud made one particularly prescient observation that the past eight years has borne out. She noted that the unsustainability (I may have made up a word here) of pharmaceutical profits because of increasing competition from generics, government policies, and the increasing costs of finding new drugs. There is even a reference to the cost cutting programs being put into place (and which may have gotten some pharmaceutical companies into recent trouble) to try to fend off the inevitable.
I also found in this article, the first rational explanation of why the product pipelines are stagnating. Dr. Piachaud highlights the increasing diminishing returns from research as technology with its costs becomes a larger part of the work undertaken. She also notes the contributions of administrative inefficiencies and increasing bureaucracy (think of Sarbanes-Oxley and healthcare compliance costs) in lowering profits.
The unsettling aspect of Dr. Piachuad’s article is that there doesn’t appear to be any good news soon for the pharmaceutical industry. We may be moving through the middle game preparing for the end game.
Dr. Piachuad has a doctorate from the Aberdeen Business School, the Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen. She is also has written Outsourcing of R&D in the Pharmaceutical Industry published by Macmillan (http://us.macmillan.com/author/biancapiachaud ).
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, May 8, 2010
Pharmaceuticals – Under Siege?
Lately, I’ve been blogging about the general malaise that life sciences, and in particular, Big Pharma, are finding themselves in. Last week, I even compared poor Mike Huckman to a canary in a mine. (Apologies there, it seemed like a good idea at the time.)
The recent full court press by the Federal government against Goldman Sachs, first a civil suit, then a criminal investigation, got me wondering what the Beltway Gang was up to with their another one of their favorite bête noirs, Big Pharma. Seems that the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has decided to breathe new life into its Office of Criminal Investigations. A recent article by Alicia Mundy in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099942109582112.html ) outlines the FDA’s plans to re-energize itself and the focus of its prosecutions.
Are we seeing yet more evidence of an industry under siege? There’s definitely a more activist administration in Washington, D.C. these days. And Big Pharma has all the characteristics of a great target. Unpopular with the public, aging business model in need of an overhaul, and recipients of large amounts of public largess (i.e., Medicare). Makes me think of the financial services industry. I wonder if we’re going to see Big Pharma’s chairpersons appearing before Congress en masse anytime soon?
But, maybe we won’t see everyone trooping down to the Capitol anytime soon. Here’s why. First, Congress is enjoying themselves too much with the financial services industry. (Big Pharma should consider themselves fortunate in not having a poster child for egregious behavior like Bernie Madoff.) Next, Big Pharma hasn’t provided a lightning rod for public outrage yet. Sure, they’ve had the occasional Vioxx but they haven’t tried to melt down the economy or anything comparable yet.
In ancient China, there was a form of execution cum torture known as the death by a thousand cuts. I won’t go into the details (there are other blogs for that) but you get the idea. This is what Big Pharma is experiencing now. Every day seems to bring another cut/issue. Nothing big by itself but cumulatively they have an effect. Resources are drawn away from things like research and development. Innovation is throttled because of a risk adverse culture developing. Management attention is distracted from running the day to day business let alone forward looking strategic planning.
Once upon a time, Big Pharma was one of the glamour industries. Overtime, they became one of the last men standing. Now, Big Pharma is on the cusp of being another also ran. Globalization and commoditization are bringing down another industry.
I’ll continue to pursue this line for awhile. Unfortunately, I don’t see any significant changes anytime soon.
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
The recent full court press by the Federal government against Goldman Sachs, first a civil suit, then a criminal investigation, got me wondering what the Beltway Gang was up to with their another one of their favorite bête noirs, Big Pharma. Seems that the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) has decided to breathe new life into its Office of Criminal Investigations. A recent article by Alicia Mundy in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099942109582112.html ) outlines the FDA’s plans to re-energize itself and the focus of its prosecutions.
Are we seeing yet more evidence of an industry under siege? There’s definitely a more activist administration in Washington, D.C. these days. And Big Pharma has all the characteristics of a great target. Unpopular with the public, aging business model in need of an overhaul, and recipients of large amounts of public largess (i.e., Medicare). Makes me think of the financial services industry. I wonder if we’re going to see Big Pharma’s chairpersons appearing before Congress en masse anytime soon?
But, maybe we won’t see everyone trooping down to the Capitol anytime soon. Here’s why. First, Congress is enjoying themselves too much with the financial services industry. (Big Pharma should consider themselves fortunate in not having a poster child for egregious behavior like Bernie Madoff.) Next, Big Pharma hasn’t provided a lightning rod for public outrage yet. Sure, they’ve had the occasional Vioxx but they haven’t tried to melt down the economy or anything comparable yet.
In ancient China, there was a form of execution cum torture known as the death by a thousand cuts. I won’t go into the details (there are other blogs for that) but you get the idea. This is what Big Pharma is experiencing now. Every day seems to bring another cut/issue. Nothing big by itself but cumulatively they have an effect. Resources are drawn away from things like research and development. Innovation is throttled because of a risk adverse culture developing. Management attention is distracted from running the day to day business let alone forward looking strategic planning.
Once upon a time, Big Pharma was one of the glamour industries. Overtime, they became one of the last men standing. Now, Big Pharma is on the cusp of being another also ran. Globalization and commoditization are bringing down another industry.
I’ll continue to pursue this line for awhile. Unfortunately, I don’t see any significant changes anytime soon.
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, April 26, 2010
Good By Mike! (Canary in the Mine?)
I learned this week that Mike Huckman of CNBC and Pharma’s Market (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837675 ) is leaving for a PR firm. His last day is May 7th. I’ve always enjoyed reading his blog which set a very high standard and was always topical. Unfortunately, since his blog is part of a corporate website, we probably won’t see his past blogs much longer. I encourage readers to check out his blog before it disappears. Mike, good luck and thank you for all your past journalistic contributions!
OK, now, what’s on with my aside about Mike being a canary in the mine? In the old days, really old, like before black and white television without remotes, coal miners would take canaries with them into the mines to give early warning about the buildup of dangerous gases. Canary falls over dead, miners skedaddle, you get the idea.
Don’t worry. I’m not suggesting that anything that drastic is going to happen to Mike. But, what I am suggesting is that when a journalist of his caliber who has been covering the pharmaceuticals industry for the last several years for a major media outlet to go into another line of work, you have to ask yourself what’s going on.
Lately, I’ve been blogging about the lack of momentum and direction in Big Pharma. Mike’s departure seems to me to be yet another sign of an industry in trouble. (No, I’m not talking about the media industry. I don’t cover that. For more on that industry, check out Julia Boorstin’s Media Money blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15892686 ) on CNBC.) Mike covered an important industry for a major news network. Now, he’s going off to join the corporate rat race. (Yes, I know that CNBC has its own corporate rat race but you get the idea.) There may be a replacement but somehow I suspect that it’ll be a young wannabe on a part time basis.
Less newsprint, no new products, declining revenues and profits, and no drama don’t make for a good situation for Big Pharma. The auto industry is in a lot of trouble but everyone wants to know what will happen next at General Motors. Will the Chinese, or won’t they, buy Hummer? Will Toyota survive? Soap operas are made of this stuff. Ratings will thrive. Phil LeBeau (Behind the Wheel (http://www.cnbc.com/id/16008341 ) at CNBC) won’t be leaving anytime soon. Big Pharma lacks that kind of plotline.
I’m starting to feel a little lonely out here. To say nothing of trying to divine where this industry is going. But, I enjoy this and Big Pharma is certainly a challenging assignment. Good luck to Mike and everyone else out there covering life sciences!
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
OK, now, what’s on with my aside about Mike being a canary in the mine? In the old days, really old, like before black and white television without remotes, coal miners would take canaries with them into the mines to give early warning about the buildup of dangerous gases. Canary falls over dead, miners skedaddle, you get the idea.
Don’t worry. I’m not suggesting that anything that drastic is going to happen to Mike. But, what I am suggesting is that when a journalist of his caliber who has been covering the pharmaceuticals industry for the last several years for a major media outlet to go into another line of work, you have to ask yourself what’s going on.
Lately, I’ve been blogging about the lack of momentum and direction in Big Pharma. Mike’s departure seems to me to be yet another sign of an industry in trouble. (No, I’m not talking about the media industry. I don’t cover that. For more on that industry, check out Julia Boorstin’s Media Money blog (http://www.cnbc.com/id/15892686 ) on CNBC.) Mike covered an important industry for a major news network. Now, he’s going off to join the corporate rat race. (Yes, I know that CNBC has its own corporate rat race but you get the idea.) There may be a replacement but somehow I suspect that it’ll be a young wannabe on a part time basis.
Less newsprint, no new products, declining revenues and profits, and no drama don’t make for a good situation for Big Pharma. The auto industry is in a lot of trouble but everyone wants to know what will happen next at General Motors. Will the Chinese, or won’t they, buy Hummer? Will Toyota survive? Soap operas are made of this stuff. Ratings will thrive. Phil LeBeau (Behind the Wheel (http://www.cnbc.com/id/16008341 ) at CNBC) won’t be leaving anytime soon. Big Pharma lacks that kind of plotline.
I’m starting to feel a little lonely out here. To say nothing of trying to divine where this industry is going. But, I enjoy this and Big Pharma is certainly a challenging assignment. Good luck to Mike and everyone else out there covering life sciences!
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, 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
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Healthcare Reform: Watching Paint Dry
I’m fascinated by the healthcare reform debate that’s currently underway in the U.S. both inside the Houses of Congress and without. Last week, everyone in the country became experts in the arcana of the Senate’s reconciliation rules. This week, we’re all becoming familiar with President Obama’s travel schedule. Oh, and, let’s not forget the furies that have been unleashed at the health insurance providers. (I loved that move on the part of the President. A friend of mine who is a rabid opponent of healthcare reform rallied to that one. As he said, “Who doesn’t hate the health insurance companies?”)
The absence of Big Pharma from this debate is obvious. As I blogged last week, they appear to be in the President’s camp but their silence is deafening. Given all that’s at stake here I find that response, or, more accurately, lack of one, puzzling.
Maybe, just maybe, healthcare reform is not all that it’s knocked up to be for Big Pharma. The argument advanced by some (see Janet Adamy’s and Greg Hitt’s article in the Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125590875879693189.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us ) that the drug companies will profit from all the sales to customers who couldn’t afford their wares reg Hitt, previously. That assumes Big Pharma has something to sell. This blog has noted previously the struggling new product pipelines at many drug companies. Now, the generic manufacturers may have something to crow about but I doubt their more upscale brethren will.
OK, you don’t buy the drying up pipeline argument. You say that new product development is not a straight line always headed up. You believe that research and development is a fitful, creative process with long dry spells frequently the result. I buy that. There is historical precedent. Now, let’s stop and think who’s going to be footing the bill for all this. The Federal government and the insurance companies. Am I the only one who thinks that these august institutions won’t figure out a way to squeeze volume purchase discounts from the drug companies? The drug companies are doing it to their own suppliers and even their own employees. Or, the Federal government could fall back on their old standard – price controls.
Here’s where I’m going with this. I don’t believe that healthcare reform will be beneficial to Big Pharma and other life sciences companies. Yes, more products may be sold to more people but at lower prices. Doctors will probably be second guessed over treatments. Stories have been around for years of nurses paid by health insurers second guessing physicians over treatments and medications. These practices will only continue and grow in all likelihood.
I’ve stuck my neck out now and given my position. There may be a vote on healthcare reform in the next week. If it passes, and the jury’s still out on this one, then I think we’ll see an interesting time for Big Pharma in the next several months.
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
The absence of Big Pharma from this debate is obvious. As I blogged last week, they appear to be in the President’s camp but their silence is deafening. Given all that’s at stake here I find that response, or, more accurately, lack of one, puzzling.
Maybe, just maybe, healthcare reform is not all that it’s knocked up to be for Big Pharma. The argument advanced by some (see Janet Adamy’s and Greg Hitt’s article in the Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125590875879693189.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us ) that the drug companies will profit from all the sales to customers who couldn’t afford their wares reg Hitt, previously. That assumes Big Pharma has something to sell. This blog has noted previously the struggling new product pipelines at many drug companies. Now, the generic manufacturers may have something to crow about but I doubt their more upscale brethren will.
OK, you don’t buy the drying up pipeline argument. You say that new product development is not a straight line always headed up. You believe that research and development is a fitful, creative process with long dry spells frequently the result. I buy that. There is historical precedent. Now, let’s stop and think who’s going to be footing the bill for all this. The Federal government and the insurance companies. Am I the only one who thinks that these august institutions won’t figure out a way to squeeze volume purchase discounts from the drug companies? The drug companies are doing it to their own suppliers and even their own employees. Or, the Federal government could fall back on their old standard – price controls.
Here’s where I’m going with this. I don’t believe that healthcare reform will be beneficial to Big Pharma and other life sciences companies. Yes, more products may be sold to more people but at lower prices. Doctors will probably be second guessed over treatments. Stories have been around for years of nurses paid by health insurers second guessing physicians over treatments and medications. These practices will only continue and grow in all likelihood.
I’ve stuck my neck out now and given my position. There may be a vote on healthcare reform in the next week. If it passes, and the jury’s still out on this one, then I think we’ll see an interesting time for Big Pharma in the next several months.
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 21, 2010
Healthcare Reform: What’s Next?
I’m finding the current spate of political infighting over U.S. healthcare reform to be probably the most fascinating that I’ve ever seen. What’s more, I think that we could see fundamental changes in this country unlike any before in our history. Here’s way.
First, healthcare costs are spiraling out of control. I’m not sure why. I know that my primary care physician knows that he’s not profiting. A very competent professional in his early fifties, he claims to be making only 60% of what he expected to when he graduated from medical school. He blames rapacious health insurers. Recent health insurance increases (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-care-shocker-policy-premium-goes-up-69-2010-02-19?reflink=MW_news_stmp ) by some providers were justified because of healthcare costs, such as excessive testing by physicians, were rising. Some providers said that the loss of premium paying customers because of tough economic times caused them to raise the rates of their remaining ones. That kind of beggar thy neighbor (or, customers in this case) never works long term. Interestingly, on last evening’s news, one provider told a correspondent that they were running at a loss and angry about being lumped by a critical President Obama in with firms earning record profits and still increasing rates. My ignorance in this matter doesn’t bother me, I’m obviously in good company. What does bother me is the complete lack of any understanding by anyone as to what the root cause of the problem is. The resources that are consumed here won’t be available to reinvest in the economy.
Next, the growing U.S. national debt is going to limit the government’s options in addressing the problem. Check out the U.S. Debt Clock (http://www.usdebtclock.org/ ) to see some really scary numbers. A Federal government unable to afford any sort of healthcare reform, even smaller, affordable, initiatives may find itself thrown back on policy reforms only, or, even marginalized. Worse case, the U.S. standard of living could begin an irreversible decline for the first time in history.
Finally, the coming conflict between free enterprise and the public welfare as represented by a national healthcare policy. With limited resource available, the public will begin to resent for profit organizations (i.e., businesses) taking away monies which could have been used to provide healthcare services. Big Pharma will eventually have to explain why when they use volume purchasing to drive down suppliers’ profits, it’s capitalism, but, when the government tries to do it with prescription medicines it’s socialism.
So, there’s a lot going on here. Unfortunately, no silver bullet exists for this situation. I don’t believe that this is just a simple government funding debate going on here like we’re seen before. We may be seeing some fundamental changes to the American way of life coming out of this. And, the healthcare industry is going to have to figure out how to deal with this.
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
First, healthcare costs are spiraling out of control. I’m not sure why. I know that my primary care physician knows that he’s not profiting. A very competent professional in his early fifties, he claims to be making only 60% of what he expected to when he graduated from medical school. He blames rapacious health insurers. Recent health insurance increases (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-care-shocker-policy-premium-goes-up-69-2010-02-19?reflink=MW_news_stmp ) by some providers were justified because of healthcare costs, such as excessive testing by physicians, were rising. Some providers said that the loss of premium paying customers because of tough economic times caused them to raise the rates of their remaining ones. That kind of beggar thy neighbor (or, customers in this case) never works long term. Interestingly, on last evening’s news, one provider told a correspondent that they were running at a loss and angry about being lumped by a critical President Obama in with firms earning record profits and still increasing rates. My ignorance in this matter doesn’t bother me, I’m obviously in good company. What does bother me is the complete lack of any understanding by anyone as to what the root cause of the problem is. The resources that are consumed here won’t be available to reinvest in the economy.
Next, the growing U.S. national debt is going to limit the government’s options in addressing the problem. Check out the U.S. Debt Clock (http://www.usdebtclock.org/ ) to see some really scary numbers. A Federal government unable to afford any sort of healthcare reform, even smaller, affordable, initiatives may find itself thrown back on policy reforms only, or, even marginalized. Worse case, the U.S. standard of living could begin an irreversible decline for the first time in history.
Finally, the coming conflict between free enterprise and the public welfare as represented by a national healthcare policy. With limited resource available, the public will begin to resent for profit organizations (i.e., businesses) taking away monies which could have been used to provide healthcare services. Big Pharma will eventually have to explain why when they use volume purchasing to drive down suppliers’ profits, it’s capitalism, but, when the government tries to do it with prescription medicines it’s socialism.
So, there’s a lot going on here. Unfortunately, no silver bullet exists for this situation. I don’t believe that this is just a simple government funding debate going on here like we’re seen before. We may be seeing some fundamental changes to the American way of life coming out of this. And, the healthcare industry is going to have to figure out how to deal with this.
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)