To add something to Lilly and Novo positions: both are with risk or a straight nonsense. If one wants to have more manufacturing capacity on his own without CMO contracts, one buys an underutilized plant from one of other pharma giants. This was what Biomarin did buying a plant in Ireland from Pfizer for 1/5 (yes!) of what Pfizer spent to build it. This happened under the previous Biomarin CEO. Novo and Lilly try to outbid each other who spends more and looking greater.
Not much real happening. Most activities come from speculative investors spreading rumors and moving stock price.
The positive news are followed by negative and the cycle repeats. Inside the company the new management does not displace the old quickly enough. No reason for this since the production is stagnant and new products are not coming and the old management is of low value. New management gave up on company to be MA candidate since it is not possible at current finances. Management may engineer a next layoff to move MA ahead. Those with higher salaries and long history with company will be targeted. Question how many of old management will go? There are some candidates already on the list. Buckle up. Investors will be happy.
At JPM Conf. Biomarin presentation did not convince investors and stock has tanked.
Interesting that CEO brought his new set of upper management and only Brian from the old set.
This shows that old management is on its way out as someone indicated on this site. Would such replacement help the company? New management may not understand specifics of future portfolio. Or they are there to complete M&A deal.
Biomarin is suing Ascendis about CNP patent infringement. It is correct, Ascendis did it. The next steps will be to reduce ranks of upper management, since there is no need for them with reduced product development pipeline and anemic performance of gene therapy. They have been hired by the previous CEO and were drag on the company by being useless or harmful. At least 5 persons are on their way to go in the US and 2 or 3 in Ireland
CEO Alex H. has a problem. He was planted by Roche to help acquire cheaply BioMarin for its rare diseases and gene therapy business. Now Roche has lost interest in these parts of BioMarin portfolio. Meantime Alex hired senior team members to conduct the M&A process and prepared ground by streamlining the company thru layoffs. At the same time, the action was taken to lower the company stock price. Since Roche lost interest current interest should be opposite, eg. to increase the company value. This can be done by careful layoffs and pruning the incompetent and redundant or unnecessary management, for example, the Business Development VP, Chief Technology Officer VP, Technical Development VP, Or R&D Enzymes VP. Some cancelled future projects may be reconsidered in this new landscape. Question is whether Alex H is capable to bring back the company on the track considering his past experience at Genentech?
To the Post on Ultragenyx:
No surprise, Ultragenyx has Biomarin roots therefore the bad management practices. leadership it is not, but manipulators who hijacked upper positions taking care of their careers repeating the all worn meaningless phrases from the leadership training fads. Biomarin management misbehaved badly during layoffs enlisting the Irish office into chainsaw work on the US soil. Currently due to biopharma under layoffs stress, they think they are free to do anything!
Bad actors in management are still around. Those who sacrificed their team members during layoffs often telling that no none is on the list. Time for them to go.
Stock went down like a rock. Now the traders are pumping it up again. Company has been used like this for decades,: "Pump and dump" scheme. Now upswing means another contraction and layoff coming. Reorg by combining departments, for example preformulation and formulation, like some companies have done already. Same with analytical services.
Another layoff was announced. This time 225 people.
CEO keeps busy to make a company an appealing target for M&A. We should worry when a next layoff might occur.
Goal is selling a skeleton.
There is too much unnecessary and nonproductive weight. For example, such departments like Technical Development should go. There is a lack of understanding there what technical development is and what it should do, and the company current plans may have it as a burden, rather than an asset in any M&A process.
Recent layoff pushed many productive people out, but mediocre and connected are still with the company, for example, those doing standard low level analytical procedures that could easily be outsourced. Worse, some newcomers used the reorganization to dismantle organization structures and bring their own cronies in. Those newcomers could not match the quality of people who were pushed out 2 years ago, since they were failures in their earlier careers for years doing marginal work in well known biotechnology companies, such like Amgen or Merck. They would never hire people better than themselves. A downward spiral.
Layoff of 170
Make sure you understand the benefits offer. Unless you already have another better job.
Ask for a list of these 170. And who is processing the event. Do not get impressed by lowly HR supposedly helping you. They help the company to fool you.
These are general things on layoffs. Knowing more details could be helpful
Bayer shows the way:
https://www.biospace.com/article/bayer-eliminates-nearly-half-its-executive-positions-in-major-overhaul/
There are many vice-presidents and directors at Biomarin, who just go to the meetings and avoid real responsibilities. These should be pruned, not the lower level people who do the work. Check the next layoff list.
New CEO is working the stock price down. Good news will be coming after stock drops below 70. His ex-parent company could be interested in M&A step. Will be still much less to pay than at $100 per share. Good job, CEO. And there will be laypoffs for better bottom line. CEO got good experience in this at Genentech.
The stock dropped 4.27% today after the yesterday announcement of 170 person layoff. This demonstrates lack of investors confidence in the company management. The company must reshuffle the top management ranks to convince investors that positive changes are coming. Example can be recent cutting off several R&D projects - clearly telling investors that company was pursuing wrong goals. Who was responsible? Layoffs should proceed across the whole organization.
Today the company announced laying off 170 employees. This was predictable and earlier posts indicated such possibility. Beware, this is the first round. More would come. Possibly you were told that your team would not be affected and then you suddenly learned about being on the list. This is the dreadful management style here, keeping you in the dark and throwing under the bus.
Time that this should happen to such management as well. Let's consider proposing names in this forum of the worst managers who should be gone asap. Btw is brinda staying or going? Or g and g? or h? You know who.
