Pfizer Could Split Off 40% Of Company, Analyst Says

[Anonymous]

http://blogs.forbes.com/matthewherper/2011/03/14/pfizer-could-divest-40-of-company-analyst-says/

 

[Anonymous]

http://blogs.forbes.com/matthewherper/2011/03/14/pfizer-could-divest-40-of-company-analyst-says/

This is serious people. Ian Read is pleasing the investors with no regard for the salesforce, not good.

 

[Anonymous]

Did you read it? He'll keep the pharma and get rid of the generic business.

It's a smart move.

 

[Anonymous]

Did you read it? He'll keep the pharma and get rid of the generic business.

It's a smart move.

I didn't see the part where he'll keep pharma - it said he'll keep the innovative core.
Which means: see YA !!!!

 

[Anonymous]

and one of you out there think this is great news....really?

Bernstein Pharmaceuticals analyst Tim Anderson has a note out this morning suggesting that Pfizer could sell, spin off, or otherwise divest divisions accounting for $32 billion of its $67 billion in sales, reinventing itself as a pure pharmaceutical research firm like Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, or AstraZeneca.

“We recently met with Pfizer’s new CEO Ian Read, and had we not heard it firsthand, we might not have appreciated just how serious he is about potentially splitting up the company,” Anderson writes. He goes on to say that Pfizer may shrink its revenue base by 40%, leaving behind only what Read calls the “innovative core.”

According to Anderson, this could mean splitting out not only all of Pfizer’s non-pharma divisions, but also potentially its “Established Products” unit, which sells off-patent drugs and may generate $17 billion in 2012. He included detailed models on how he believes this could work.

Anderson says such moves, if implemented, would be “extremely bold” and well-received by investors. He emphasized that no firm commitments had been made. One drawback of the plan is that Pfizer has been worse than its peers at inventing new drugs, something that would have to change.

One puzzle, previously raised by Richard Evans, the health care analyst at policy-focused Sovereign & Sector, has been how Pfizer would continue to support its current size while decreasing research funding. Anderson, in his note, offers one suggestion: "perhaps Pfizer will just shrink".

Anderson advises investors to buy Pfizer shares based on the new drugs the company is developing, including a rheumatoid arthritis pill. He has a $23 price target on Pfizer shares.

 

[Anonymous]

Did you read it? He'll keep the pharma and get rid of the generic business.

It's a smart move.

Wrong douche bag....read it again, keeping the innovative core. Plus the generic biz has very few costs associated, no salespeople, cars, benefits and makes billions.

 

[Anonymous]

……Anderson sees the potential for Pfizer to spin off five of its nine distinct business units: animal health, consumer health, nutritionals, Capsugel, and established products.

The biggest unit would be Pfizer's established-products division, which includes generic drugs. Anderson said this unit generated sales of $10 billion for 2010, but probably would grow to $17 billion in coming years when Lipitor and other products lose patent protection.

Such deals would leave behind four pharmaceutical units: primary care, specialty care, oncology and emerging markets. Anderson believes this represents the "innovative core" that Read has cited, and would include top-selling products such as Enbrel and Prevnar.

Anderson believes the deals could emerge this year and next. He expects most of the asset divestitures to be in the form of spinoffs to Pfizer shareholders, though Capsugel may be sold outright.

Anderson lifted his price target on Pfizer shares to $23 from $21.

-By Peter Loftus, Dow Jones Newswires; +1-215-982-5581; peter.loftus@dowjones.com

Read the full article above, generics would spin off and the units above would stay. My opinion, eventually Pfizer will thin the sales force, hopefully those that hit reply all will be the first to go.

 

[Anonymous]

Wrong douche bag....read it again, keeping the innovative core. Plus the generic biz has very few costs associated, no salespeople, cars, benefits and makes billions.

ummm. The established products division has all of those things....good work though.

 

[Anonymous]

ummm. The established products division has all of those things....good work though.

It'll be good work for you when you're in the free cheese line

 

[Anonymous]

It'll be good work for you when you're in the free cheese line

Good comeback....maybe just go with "Sorry. I was wrong. I have no idea what I'm talking about"

 

[Anonymous]

Wrong douche bag....read it again, keeping the innovative core. Plus the generic biz has very few costs associated, no salespeople, cars, benefits and makes billions.

You can't get much clearer than this dipshit,

"...non-pharma divisions, but also potentially its “Established Products” unit, which sells off-patent drugs.."


They will be a mid size pharma company again. The reps stay.

 

[Anonymous]

Wrong douche bag....read it again, keeping the innovative core. Plus the generic biz has very few costs associated, no salespeople, cars, benefits and makes billions.

Wrong douchebag>>>>the generic biz does have sales reps, cars, and benefits. Don't even know what is going on in your own company. What a dipshit. Your exactly what is wrong with Pfizer. And another analyst said that divesting of the generics biz is risky, although the profit margins are relatively low, it is an established business, and the direction that other pharmas are taking---a safety net.

 

[Anonymous]

You can't get much clearer than this dipshit,

"...non-pharma divisions, but also potentially its “Established Products” unit, which sells off-patent drugs.."


They will be a mid size pharma company again. The reps stay.

Do you people ever learn how to read. The reps that sell Lipitor and Viagra won't stay, and you would have noticed that when you read that an analyst said Pfizer will be a much smaller version of its former self.

 

[Anonymous]

Do you people ever learn how to read. The reps that sell Lipitor and Viagra won't stay, and you would have noticed that when you read that an analyst said Pfizer will be a much smaller version of its former self.

Specialty and oncology will remain. Only a 140 oncology reps nationwide. It's high risk but doesn't take many people to sell drugs whether it's a 100 million dollar drug or a billion. Less is more.

 

[Anonymous]

Our bio division will remain. That's it.

 

[Anonymous]

innovative core? when was the last time there was a true "pfizer developed" product vs. one that was bought out from some other company in a takeover?

 

[Anonymous]

This should be helpful:

http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-busin...n-to-sell-40-of-itself-means-in-practice/7611

 

[Anonymous]

Pfizer invent something---that is a joke. Sell off generics? Why? as previous posters mentioned it is profitable.. yes a little lessbut still profitable, just like consumer healthcare before they sold that to J&J, who is making Billions off of old Pfizer namebrands.

So, the main question in today's highly regulated pharma industry, should Pfizer put all their eggs into R&D that has a poor track record, or broaden the base to ensure capital infusion?

Any financial planner woudl say it is very risky to put all of one's money into one single stock, versus to marginalize the potential for danger by diversifying.

Well,,let;s see what Ian does..he will either drive a nail into Pfizer's coffin or be heralded as a savior. In this economy I would diversify.

 

[Anonymous]

How about funneling some of the proceeds from selling the spin-offs and make a strategic acquisition or two of medical device companies in therapeutic areas where Pfizer already has a presence?

Devices do not have have a patent window and more roi than pharma on each dollar spent on R&D.

 

[Anonymous]

Pfizer invent something---that is a joke. Sell off generics? Why? as previous posters mentioned it is profitable.. yes a little lessbut still profitable, just like consumer healthcare before they sold that to J&J, who is making Billions off of old Pfizer namebrands.

So, the main question in today's highly regulated pharma industry, should Pfizer put all their eggs into R&D that has a poor track record, or broaden the base to ensure capital infusion?

Any financial planner woudl say it is very risky to put all of one's money into one single stock, versus to marginalize the potential for danger by diversifying.

Well,,let;s see what Ian does..he will either drive a nail into Pfizer's coffin or be heralded as a savior. In this economy I would diversify.

YOu have to stop thinking of this from how you'd do things, You don't know all the facts. Ian does. He sees the numbersfrom each division, he knows we loose 12b in sales by the end of 2012. He knows we lost about a billion with the loss of Aricept. Many of us think Viagra won it's patent dispute, it hasn't.

We borrowed billions to buy Wyeth, King, Phrmacia and all the smaller purchases. We have a huge salesforce, manufacturing expense. R&D expense, and legal defense fund. If we could spin off all the debt and liability leaving only the hugely profitable products behind we will.

It was a huge mistake taking on all this debt and now we need to get rid of it, and so we shall. Also, if we currently operate at a 19% blended profit margin with our current headcount. And we loose Aricept, Lipitor, and Viagra without cutting headcount, how do we maintain or grow p. magin? We do it by slashing people, slashing low margin products, manu. facilities, and current and future liabilities.

Don't be obtuse, this leadership team is bright and ruthless. We will change drastically.