The stock price

Quote
anonymous said:
CFO today brought down all vaccine stocks with his comments at the JP Morgan conference. Also mentioned 2x PFE weight loss drug is twice a day. He didn’t say anything positive or uplifting about the product. Needs to guard his words better. I wouldn’t be surprised if the insiders already know PFE BID and side effects will prevent it from competing with Lilly and Novo. I guess we will have some additional information during Q3 earnings call at the end of October. Someone seems to know something that is driving the price down. PFE is way more than a vaccine company so the question is, what’s been leaked to the street? He also talked about across the board cost reductions if new products don’t meet expectations.
Click to expand...

I missed the conference. If we miss Covid or other new product targets, Did the CFO talk about the magic plan that will yield results in 6 to 18 months?
 






CFO was fairly transparent unlike many of the current and previous senior senior leaders at PFE. Very difficult to predict the market demand for vac and pax. Expect 24% vac rate this year. Partial problem is governments still have large inventories that is preventing a lot of new orders. Interviewer asked about high spend rate right now. Acknowledged high spend rate but also said it’s more expensive to launch new products so spend should be higher right now. If products are not meeting expectations in 2024 we have a plan ready to reduce expenses across the entire organization. Pretty straightforward in his comments.
 






anonymous said:
CFO was fairly transparent unlike many of the current and previous senior senior leaders at PFE. Very difficult to predict the market demand for vac and pax. Expect 24% vac rate this year. Partial problem is governments still have large inventories that is preventing a lot of new orders. Interviewer asked about high spend rate right now. Acknowledged high spend rate but also said it’s more expensive to launch new products so spend should be higher right now. If products are not meeting expectations in 2024 we have a plan ready to reduce expenses across the entire organization. Pretty straightforward in his comments.
Click to expand...

This is a great summary, thank you.
There is a lot to unpack in the statements from this CFO.
  • 24% uptake is critically low for a recommended vaccine. We have to look at ourselves to understand how we lost the hearts and minds of so many people.
  • I’m not buying the large inventory bit. I thought we had a new vaccine better matched to the current circulating variant.
  • Launching new products in pharma has always been expensive. Is this somehow news to PFE or to the CFO?
  • Putting a target out 3 to 15 months for achieving revenues or making cuts is a large buy time window.
I’m just a sales dummy but I can only imagine the head scratching on Wall Street as they try to figure out what we’re doing
 






All good points especially the inventory countries are trying to burn through. That would have been a great follow-up question. Hopefully our product launches are able to cover the LOE gap. He said several times they try to be conservative on the peak sales for each planned launch. This said, they predicted over $2 billion in annual Eucrisa sales. Not sure how one can be that far off. I don’t think we’ve done $2 billion since launch. I think Paxlovid sales will be very strong in Q3 and Q4. A lot of offices comment on the use right now. It is exciting to be launching products at the very least.
 






anonymous said:
All good points especially the inventory countries are trying to burn through. That would have been a great follow-up question. Hopefully our product launches are able to cover the LOE gap. He said several times they try to be conservative on the peak sales for each planned launch. This said, they predicted over $2 billion in annual Eucrisa sales. Not sure how one can be that far off. I don’t think we’ve done $2 billion since launch. I think Paxlovid sales will be very strong in Q3 and Q4. A lot of offices comment on the use right now. It is exciting to be launching products at the very least.
Click to expand...

LOE "Cliff" is too much to overcome (hence the Bold Moves initiative). Most of the largest revenue producers for the company have come via co-promote (specifically the Covid products). If you ever get the chance to ask "someone in the know" about how they forecast a new products projected revenue...make sure you are sitting down when they answer the question...you will definitely have a Holy Shizit moment. Definitely exciting to be launching new products.
 






The Covid products have become the both industry’s shortest life cycle and highest boom / bust in history. Billions sold that we didn’t have in plan and then created an unexpected additional LOE-like cliff when the sales melted away. Unfortunately, leadership spent the boom time hobnobbing with politicians, media and ghost writers rather than minding the store to capitalize on the new found riches.

as for forecasting new products, we have professional forecasters, marketers, management science and statistical analysis experts that come up with a launch trend forecast. The senior leaders discount all of that expertise and assign their own set of numbers to show they “think bigger” or are “more bold”. We start behind the eight ball of arrogance
 






anonymous said:
The Covid products have become the both industry’s shortest life cycle and highest boom / bust in history. Billions sold that we didn’t have in plan and then created an unexpected additional LOE-like cliff when the sales melted away. Unfortunately, leadership spent the boom time hobnobbing with politicians, media and ghost writers rather than minding the store to capitalize on the new found riches.

as for forecasting new products, we have professional forecasters, marketers, management science and statistical analysis experts that come up with a launch trend forecast. The senior leaders discount all of that expertise and assign their own set of numbers to show they “think bigger” or are “more bold”. We start behind the eight ball of arrogance
Click to expand...

First half is stupid- we spent tens of billions on new acquisitions.

Second half is painfully accurate. Our forecast says we can do $100 mil in year 1? "Ok so I'm going to put you down for $250 mil"
 






anonymous said:
First half is stupid- we spent tens of billions on new acquisitions.

Second half is painfully accurate. Our forecast says we can do $100 mil in year 1? "Ok so I'm going to put you down for $250 mil"
Click to expand...

Stupid? That’s harsh. Check the thread title and tell me what that tens of billions spent on acquisitions has actually done for Pfizer.
The responsibility of the company is value growth to shareholders, not providing products to sell. The poor stock performance since the pandemic bump reflects the lack of enthusiasm for the acquisitions, some of which have not closed.
 






Unfortunately the street has a good memory. Prior to the pandemic PFE leadership spun off the generics business to be more of a pure biopharma company. In doing so they committed to high single digit growth through 26-27. Well, spend $80 billion on current and future products and still tell the analysts you are looking at 6-8 percent growth now through 2030. It’s scary to think where the price would be without the cash windfall. Whoever made the decision to partner with BioNTech and resurrect our antivirals we had sitting in a lab is the real hero here but AB, true to form, took all the credit. And yes, most, if not all analysts, seem to think PFE grossly overpaid for Seagen.
 






anonymous said:
Unfortunately the street has a good memory. Prior to the pandemic PFE leadership spun off the generics business to be more of a pure biopharma company. In doing so they committed to high single digit growth through 26-27. Well, spend $80 billion on current and future products and still tell the analysts you are looking at 6-8 percent growth now through 2030. It’s scary to think where the price would be without the cash windfall. Whoever made the decision to partner with BioNTech and resurrect our antivirals we had sitting in a lab is the real hero here but AB, true to form, took all the credit. And yes, most, if not all analysts, seem to think PFE grossly overpaid for Seagen.
Click to expand...
absolutely, Merck passed on Seagen acquisition for much less money
 




































anonymous said:
Pfizer should buy Cormedix
Click to expand...
Our R&D has been remarkably unproductive for a very long time relative to the amount of money spent. We have a lot of products coming out but many have been acquired and many may not ever recoup the R&D investment. It’s difficult to bring new products to market but Pfizer seems to really struggle. The news yesterday on Paxlovid certainly isn’t going to help any. Buying another company will not help. Need to somehow fix the decades long inefficiencies of the R&D program.
 






anonymous said:
Our R&D has been remarkably unproductive for a very long time relative to the amount of money spent. We have a lot of products coming out but many have been acquired and many may not ever recoup the R&D investment. It’s difficult to bring new products to market but Pfizer seems to really struggle. The news yesterday on Paxlovid certainly isn’t going to help any. Buying another company will not help. Need to somehow fix the decades long inefficiencies of the R&D program.
Click to expand...

Pfizer first needs to figure out what areas to focus R&D on. What do we want to be known as? A vaccine company? Rare disease? CV? Oncology? You can’t be all things to all people, so do what our peer companies have done: focus on certain areas where you have a legacy and expertise, and where you can expect to impact human health and investors in a positive way, then align R&D accordingly. This hodge podge of marketed drugs and constant acquisitions of what you hope will be the next big thing isn’t working.
 












anonymous said:
Pfizer first needs to figure out what areas to focus R&D on. What do we want to be known as? A vaccine company? Rare disease? CV? Oncology? You can’t be all things to all people, so do what our peer companies have done: focus on certain areas where you have a legacy and expertise, and where you can expect to impact human health and investors in a positive way, then align R&D accordingly. This hodge podge of marketed drugs and constant acquisitions of what you hope will be the next big thing isn’t working.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you one thing for sure. If we are hoping to be known as a Rare disease company, they ought to take a good hard look at leadership in the division.
 






anonymous said:
I'll tell you one thing for sure. If we are hoping to be known as a Rare disease company, they ought to take a good hard look at leadership in the division.
Click to expand...

I don’t know rare disease but I have a view in other specialty divisions. All examples of Pfizer idiocy and arrogance.
Hire people with relevant disease state, product or market expertise. Discount most of what they say. Replace them with Pfizer primary care leaders until they fail or get promoted or both. Then rinse and repeat

The big institutional investors try to make sense out of our behaviors and can’t. They put $$ elsewhere
 






Top Bottom
Back
Quote