GSK rebuffs Pfizer takeover bid

Discussion in 'GlaxoSmithKline' started by anonymous, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:37 AM.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Reported today in the Financial Times is that prior to Pfizer making a bid for a takeover of Allergan they made an attempt at GSK but were turned away. So PfizerKline almost happened. Now the pressure is to impress with the pipeline at R&D day today.
     

  2. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    They obviously would have offered a substantial equity premium. The BOD better be very confident management can deliver or they are not acting in the best interest of shareholders. If I were a large institutional shareholder I would be demanding an immediate response as to why they didn't first sit down to discuss a potential deal structure.
     
  3. anonymous

    anonymous Guest


    The reason it was rebuffed was self preservation. If Pfizer took us offer Whitty and everyone on the Board would have been out of a job. Well paid to leave but out of a job. As a stock holder can't wait to hear why.
     
  4. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Like I have said, Pfizer does not want us.
     
  5. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Too bad about Pfizer....we could finally get rid of
    the a-hole government relations guy in AZ.
     
  6. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    What is the opinion of folks regarding the R&D presentation today? GSK stock went down following the presentation. It will be interesting to see what Tim Anderson thinks. I also want Phil Hampton to explain why Pfizer was rebuffed.
     
  7. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Here's your answer hot off the wire from Reuters:

    Chief Executive Andrew Witty said around 80 percent of the medicines and vaccines presented had novel mechanisms of action that could make them first-in-class.

    "I am very confident of our ability to deliver very substantial new product sales growth momentum over the next five, 10 and 15 years," Witty said, adding GSK could file 20 more products between 2020 and 2025.

    Bernstein analyst Tim Anderson said the heavy focus on earlier-stage assets meant there was a high chance many products would fail.

    Investor confidence in GSK's R&D has been shaken by some high-profile drug failures at a time when many rivals have been thriving, adding to pressure on Witty to revive GSK's fortunes.

    He declined to comment on a report that Pfizer had approached GSK before entering merger talks with Allergan .
     
  8. anonymous

    anonymous Guest


    Apparently, "culture" and "cash" were key issues... as reported in the FiercePharma summary of the FT story:

    "GSK leaders and investors also thought the company's culture wouldn't mesh well with Pfizer's. And they weren't interested in a deal heavy on shares and light on cash, which Pfizer would need to satisfy U.S. requirements for a tax inversion, the sources said."
     
  9. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Culture? Not sure why this really matters all that much with the Pfizer tradition of acquire and cut. Either way, perhaps GSK could learn a bit from a culture with a better track record of performance, execution, and delivery. It's not exactly like the current culture and business model is firing on all cylinders. This dismissal of even preliminary discussion does not seem very visionary. It also appears the market would agree.
     
  10. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    it is, whatitis !
     
  11. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Wow, you must have thought about that response for hours. So glad you post on this site. I'm learning so much from your clever retorts!
     
  12. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Cultures wild have clashed worse than the Glaxo SkB merger. Pfizer is a marketing machine. In vaccines, they are all over Trumenva ads, and will beat Bexsero. A 3-dose will outsell a 2-dose series. Merck has done it with rota vaccines, and Sanofi has beaten a prefilled syringe product with one that has to be reconstituted and took years to be approved by the FDA. GSK vaccines loses in almost every market share battle.
     
  13. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I don't get it, isn't vaccines led by the Moroccan superstar? How could we be losing to these other companies?
     
  14. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    I am not u can say Pfizer is the definition of delivery. They have had 5 years of declining sales and profits, they switch strategy - looking to spin off into two groups (innovative and established products) but now those plans suddenly go away, they are looking to save a few billion in tax payments (nothing to do with drug development and hardly patriotic). They also cocked up their replacement for Lipitor, with the lead molecule dying a few years ago and nothing to replace their cash cow. At least GSK had multiple products out before Advair gets hit by generics - seems genius by comparison.
    Pfizer are the desperate ones, Allergan has all the cards. Pfizer cannot be rebuffed for the THIRD time and need to tax savings to try and balance the books. Their R&D productivity is no better than GSK's and worse if you look at files. GSK is saying another 20 over 5 years, not far off the 6 they did in 2013/2014. There were some experimental drugs shown but also quite a few Phase 3 in 2016 products as well as some of those Oncology products would be filed within 5 years (which GSK did with BRaf and MEK).

    Just because Pfizer wanted to take over GSK doesn`t mean GSK has to play ball.
     
  15. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Two things - first Moncef was much less impressive an Vallance today. Second Moncef is only on the R&D side, not marketing so lets be fair to him.

    I did laugh when it came up that Moncef is Chairmen of Vaccines, so he did take a backwards step when he moved on from Pharma R&D chairman. Because it was originally sold as him being in charge of all R&D (Pharma, Vaccines and Consumer) with Vallance looking after just Pharm. But now it seems they are equals (except that Pharma R&D is much bigger than Vaccine R&D).

    If you want a laugh look for Moncef's wedding pictures (second marriage) to a younger person in Stiefel. I wonder how she got promoted!
     
  16. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Just because Pfizer say jump doesn`t mean the answer should be "how high". Pfizer have no attachment to anything as shown by them looking at GSK, getting rebuffed (the fallout in the UK would have been massive) and then within a week or two the then declare their love for Allergan.
    Pfizer screwed themselves in the UK by getting rid of Sandwich which was a productive R&D site. They are only interested in financial jiggery-pokery - a bit like Valeant.
     
  17. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    Interesting that GSK has other than Advair no generic downside for 10 years. I think management have a couple of years to prove that the Novartis deal (which is only 6 months old) will work and that the assets shown today are progressing well. By 2017 there will be much more certainty for those molecules said to file in 2020. Also some data on key Phase 3 starts in 2016 should be available by then too.

    Q3 was interesting in that new products more than offset all the Adavir loss, will be interesting to see if this continues through 2016.
     
  18. anonymous

    anonymous Guest

    And the GSK cheerleader said this was never even possible....
     
  19. anonymous

    anonymous Guest


    It wasn't possible. Have you read the details. Pfizer would have had to use mostly shares to do the deal. There is no way that a deal like that would be feasible. Holders of GSK stock would want a large percentage in cash.