Monday, March 29, 2010

There's No Doubt "New" Merck Still Faces A Patent Cliff


And this UK report proves it -- right out of an MSD senior executive's mouth. Thanks go to Ed Silverman, at Pharmalot.com, for the heads' up:

. . . .Speaking at the BioFinance and BioInnovate Europe meeting in London at the end of last week, Margaret Beer, head of licensing and external research in Europe for Merck Sharp & Dohme, noted that the newly-expanded company, fresh from its acquistion of Schering-Plough, is still very much in the market for other partnerships. She said the merger means that “Merck is now a bigger beast to feed”. . . .

As for technologies, they do not have to be new, she said, they just need to be “faster, better and cheaper than what we already have”. Dr Beer concluded by noting that “we rarely come across an opportunity that’s unique” but partnerships are vital; last year 63% of Merck’s 2009 sales were attributable to alliance products and patents. . . .

So, read this as sheer size is not always an advantage -- especially when Wall Street expects a high, and steady rate of percentage growth -- on an already gargantuan base of revenue and EPS. And that steady growth is increasingly hard to come by, when one's pipeline is slowly, but surely, drying up.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"on an already gargantuan base of revenue and EPS. And that steady growth is increasingly hard to come by, when one's pipeline is slowly, but surely, drying up."

I've been saying this for years, and it's not just Merck.

I've been using Pfizer as an example for years as evem years ago sales were somewhat above %50 B and I'm pretty naive in terms of financials.

$50 Billion / yr in sales.

10% loss / year to generics. ($5B)

10% growth / yr growth needed for Wall St. ($5 B).

So Pfizer needs at least $10 B in new sales annually.

Assuming a blockbuster is $0.75 - 1Billion /yr in sales.

That's 10 - 13 new blockbusters a year just for Pfizer.

The entire industry on average only gets ~24 new entities approved per year and most are not blockbusters. (Even $300 = 400 M / yr is a good drug).

In my mind the industry peaked a long time ago and has no where to go but down. That's why you see so many shenanigans going on.

The companies I like in terms of growth are those with 1 - 2 good sellers and some good compounds in the pipeline.

Salmon