When Pfizer CEO Ian Read first raised the idea of a big split 5 years ago, it was a major departure from the company’s decades-long, growth-by-megadeal strategy.
Analysts and investors salivated. Ever since, market-watchers have seen a Pfizer break-up as a question of when and how, rather than if.
But now, one top pharma analyst reads the tea leaves another way: Tim Anderson of Bernstein & Co. figures Pfizer is leaning against a split.
“We are increasingly of the view that management is NOT going to pursue a split up, at least at the current point in time,” Anderson wrote in a Monday note to investors.
Why? A recent conversation with Read, for one thing, in which the CEO hinted at a few financial drawbacks. Splitting up could disrupt cash flows and might weaken Pfizer’s balance sheet when compared with leaving the company whole, Read suggested back in June at the firm’s Strategic Decisions Conference.
Those split-up challenges probably explain why Pfizer was so intent on a tax-inversion deal, first with its epic failure to buy AstraZenec and move its domicile to the U.K., and then with its now-canceled $160 billion merger with Ireland-based Allergan, Anderson notes. With that merger kaput, Pfizer management “says that tax inversions are now effectively off the table,” he writes.
Two other number-crunching reasons: In summing up Pfizer’s two parts–innovative pharma and established products–Bernstein’s team comes up with about $36 per share. And that’s roughly in line with Pfizer’s current share price. And in analyzing Pfizer’s growth prospects now, compared with 5 years ago, the Big Pharma’s future looks brighter.
Back in 2011, with EPS growth projected at 2.6% through 2015, “dividing the company into a ‘good bank’ and ‘bad bank’ made sense,” Anderson says. Now that projected annual growth sits at an estimated 6.9%, not so much.
The analyst acknowledges that his views aren’t orthodox. “This is a new perspective for us, and it is also not consensus” among analysts, he says.
It also doesn’t fit with investor expectations, according to Bernstein’s recent survey. Among 109 respondents, slightly more than half (51%) believe Pfizer will go through with the split. One-third “were indifferent,” Anderson writes, and 16% expect the company to drop the idea.
So, what would Pfizer do if it chooses not to take the plunge? Deals, and probably big ones, if not an outsized megamerger. That’s what surveyed investors expect from Pfizer’s non-split future–an expectation that falls in line with Read’s comments at the Bernstein conference, “where he acknowledged that target companies of all sizes are theoretically on the table,” the note states.
Of course, Pfizer has already snapped up a couple of smaller companies since its big Allergan buy fell through, including its $4.5 billion buyout of Anacor. And it’s said to be in the hunt for Medivation, the maker of cancer-fighter Xtandi that’s attracted buyout interest from a host of Big Pharma and Big Biotech companies.
But the growth-by-M&A approach would be a Back to the Future sort of move–“simply an extension of the strategy the company pursued over the last 15-plus years,” as Anderson puts it. And that, of course, takes us around the board to Go, he says: “This is potentially troubling because it was this same strategy that caused Pfizer to consider splitting up in the first place.”
We’re likely to hear more from Read next week when Pfizer reports its second-quarter earnings; the potential split is always a hot topic on calls with analysts. And, in any case, the question will be answered by year’s end. That’s Read’s stated deadline for a split or no-split decision.
By Tracy Staton
Source: Fierce Pharma
Airnov provides critical healthcare industries with high-quality, controlled atmosphere packaging, to protect their products from moisture and oxygen. The business has manufacturing facilities in the USA, France, China and India and employs around 700 people.
Takeda of Japan has partnered with Hong Kong-based Hutchmed, gaining the commercial rights to colorectal cancer drug fruquintinib outside of China for $400 million up front, plus $730 million in potential milestone payments. Takeda also will help develop fruquintinib, which can be applied to subtypes of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, regardless of biomarker status, the companies said.
On April 3, Scangos, who’s been chief executive officer at Vir since the start of 2017, will hand over the reins to Marianne De Backer, Ph.D. De Backer comes over from Bayer, where she currently heads up pharmaceutical strategy, business development and licensing. Alongside her CEO appointment, De Backer is set to join Vir’s board of directors, the company said Wednesday.