Pfizer - zu Unrecht im Keller

In contrast, Celebrex garnered widespread support from the same panel earlier in the day. But the group also overwhelmingly urged the FDA to require categorical warnings on both painkillers. They suggested especially cautious language for Bextra, which could pose added risks to heart surgery patients. In addition, they recommended a ban on the direct-to-consumer advertising that helped make drugs like Celebrex and Bextra so popular.

In a stunning decision, the exprt panel narrowly recommended the reintroduction of Vioxx, voting 17 to 15 that the drug is safe for use in certain patients.

European regulators in February announced restrictions on arthritis drugs known as Cox-2 inhibitors, saying the whole class of drugs poses an increased risk of heart-related injury

The FDA action Thursday went beyonf COX-2 drugs. The agency is asking manufacturers of another class of pain killers, known as over-the-counter NSAIDs, which include older non-specific drugs such as ibuprofen and naproxen, to revise their labeling to include more information on the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks as well as a warning about potential skin reactions.

In premarket trading, Pfizer shares were trading at $25.41, down $1.45, or 5.4%.

Merck shares fell 39 cents, or 1.2%, to $32.50.

The FDA's request surprised many analysts. In February, an FDA panel recommended that Bextra stay on the market as long as it contained a "black box" warning of cardiovascular risks. On Thursday, the agency said it would require Pfizer to put such a warning on Celebrex's label. The FDA also said it will require various manufacturers of both prescription and over-the-counter painkillers known as non-steriodal anti-inflammatories to change their labels to discuss the potential for cardiovascular problems as well as adverse gastrointestinal events.

Experts had mixed views on whether Bextra's withdrawal would force Pfizer to pull Celebrex, too. Pfizer made a controversial decision to keep Celebrex on the market after Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx. Napodano said he thinks Pfizer will keep Celebrex on the market. But Kent Stephan, chief executive of Princeton Brand Econometrics, a marketing consulting firm that works with drug companies, said legal concerns of the company and physicians will increase pressure on Pfizer to withdraw Celebrex, particularly if more side effects are discovered. "You have doctors who are always going to be worried about lawsuits, which can to some extent trump medical judgment," Stephan said.

Some industry watchers have speculated that Merck might return Vioxx to the market on a limited basis. But such a move seemed unlikely on Thursday in light of Bextra's withdraw. "With today's action, the chances of returning Vioxx to the U.S. market are very low," said Le Anne Zhao, an analyst at Caris & Co. Zhao does not own shares of Pfizer or Merck, and Caris does not have an investment-banking relationship with either company.

-By Greg Groeller, Dow Jones Newswires

Analysts said that the initial 4 percent drop in the stock was driven mainly by investors concerned that the withdrawal of Bextra would open Pfizer to lawsuits from people who had taken the drug and suffered heart attacks or strokes. But the F.D.A. blamed the skin rash, not heart problems, for its decision to force Bextra off the market. So while the withdrawal did prompt new plaintiff suits yesterday, it probably will not weaken Pfizer's legal position, analysts said.

"Bextra's being pulled due to a side effect that is not common," said Tony Butler, an analyst at Lehman Brothers.

Mr. Butler noted that the F.D.A. also said yesterday that it would require many other painkillers to carry warnings similar to those on Celebrex. That could help Celebrex sales by diluting some of the stigma on the drug since last fall when it and the other so-called cox-2 inhibitors, Bextra and Vioxx, came under scrutiny for their cardiovascular risks.

Still, yesterday's announcement does little to improve Pfizer's credibility at a time when some investors want the company to be more forthcoming about its plan to cut $4 billion, or 12 percent, of its annual costs by 2008.

Pfizer said yesterday that it had learned only after a Tuesday investor meeting that the F.D.A. planned to force it to withdraw Bextra. Pfizer said it disagreed with the decision but would suspend sales pending further discussions with the agency.

Even before the F.D.A.'s action, though, many analysts had said that Pfizer's optimism about Bextra and Celebrex was misguided. Studies have linked both cox-2 drugs to serious heart problems, and neither medicine has ever been shown to be more effective than older and cheaper medicines at treating pain. Sales of both drugs this year had already plunged.

"They should have refrained from being bullish on the coxib drugs," said Jami Rubin, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, using industry shorthand for cox-2 inhibitors. "Maybe they should have waited to hold the meeting until they had a final decision from the F.D.A."

Besides its cox-2 issues, the company has other problems. Pfizer - which had $52.5 billion in sales and $16 billion in profits last year, before certain one-time charges - faces patent expirations that will cost it $14 billion in annual sales in the next three years. It loses American patent protection on Zoloft, an antidepressant that is its third-best seller, in 2006, and on Norvasc, a blood pressure medicine that is its second-biggest seller, in 2007.

At Tuesday's meeting, the company said that its profits would fall to $2 a share in 2005 from $2.13 in 2004, excluding certain one-time charges.

But Pfizer assured investors that earnings per share - again excluding certain charges - would grow by more than 10 percent in 2006 and 2007, and that Celebrex and Bextra would play a crucial part in that growth.

A spokesman for Pfizer said yesterday that the company was still reviewing how much Bextra's absence would hurt its profits. Before the withdrawal, analysts had predicted that Bextra would account for $200 million to $400 million in after-tax profits for Pfizer in 2005, or 3 to 5 cents a share.

Moody's Investors Service said yesterday afternoon that it had placed Pfizer's bonds under review for a possible ratings downgrade, citing the loss of Bextra, the likely reduction of Celebrex sales, the patent expirations and generally rough times for the drug industry. The bonds now carry a rating of Aaa, the highest possible.

A ratings downgrade would not seriously hurt Pfizer's business or its profits. The company is flush with cash. But a downgrade would be one more embarrassment for a company that not too long ago seemed unstoppable.

Entscheidender ist jedoch, dass die Börse nach wie vor den Idealfall unterstellt. Pfizer hat 2004 Dividenden von 5,1 Mrd. $ ausgeschüttet und eigene Aktien im Wert von 6,6 Mrd. $ gekauft, den Aktionären also insgesamt 11,7 Mrd. $ zukommen lassen. Das sind 78,5 Prozent des für 2005 erwarteten Pro-forma-Gewinns, 136 Prozent des US-GAAP-Gewinns und rund 23 Prozent des Umsatzes. Bezogen auf den aktuellen Kurs entspricht das trotzdem nur einer Dividendenrendite von knapp 2,6 Prozent, während der Aktienumlauf vom vierten Quartal 2003 aufs vierte Quartal 2004 um fast 2,1 Prozent sank. Addiert man beides zusammen, haben die Ausschüttungen insgesamt gerade mal eine Rendite von 4,6 Prozent gebracht.

Die Gesamtrendite einer Aktie ergibt sich aber aus der Ausschüttungsrendite zuzüglich des erwarteten Ausschüttungswachstums. Wer sich mit sieben Prozent zufrieden gibt, muss also ein Ausschüttungswachstum von 2,4 Prozent einkalkulieren. Das geben selbst die Finanzen von Pfizer nicht her.

ALCOA

Seit Jahren schätzen die Analysten bei Alcoa fürs nächste Geschäftsjahr anfänglich immer einen Gewinn von gut 2,5 $ je Aktie. Natürlich hat das der Realität noch nie standgehalten; 2000 hat die Firma tatsächlich immerhin mal 1,8 $ je Aktie verdient. Bisher sind die Schätzungen für 2005 auf gut 2 $ je Aktie gefallen. Aber das ist das höchste der Gefühle und ist ohnehin nur pro forma gerechnet drin. Und selbst wenn Alcoa das schaffen würde, handelte es sich höchstwahrscheinlich um einen zyklischen Spitzengewinn. Denn die Nachfrage nach Aluminium ist ja hoch mit der globalen Industrieproduktion korreliert, und deren Dynamik ist eindeutig auf dem absteigenden Ast.

Auch gibt es im Sektor keine großen Kapazitätsengpässe, während China längst Nettoexporteur von Rohaluminium ist. Natürlich sind die laufenden Kosteneinsparungen und das attraktive Aluminiumoxidgeschäft von Alcoa zu würdigen. Trotzdem: Bei einem 2005er Konsens-KGV von 15,4 und einer Dividendenrendite von 1,9 Prozent können sich weiter nur rosarot sehende Analysten für die zyklische Aktie begeistern.

WAL-MART

Die Anleger scheinen langsam zu schnuppern, dass die Bewertung von Wal-Mart schon lange nichts mehr mit der Wirklichkeit zu tun hat. 2004 hatte die Firma, die an der Börse 207 Mrd. $ kostet, Mittelüberschüsse nach Investitionen von gut 3 Mrd. $ erwirtschaftet, wobei die operativen Mittelzuflüsse im Vergleich zum Vorjahr sogar gefallen waren. Sicher, die Firma wächst ja. Nur ist das auf vergleichbarer Fläche, also in den bestehenden Geschäften, kaum mehr der Fall. Im ersten Fiskalquartal 2005 soll sich das flächenbereinigte US-Umsatzplus am unteren Ende der avisierten drei bis fünf Prozent bewegen. Das Wachstum über die Eröffnung neuer Filialen ist hingegen teuer.

Das Problem ist, dass sich der Wert einer Aktie aus den diskontierten künftigen Mittelüberschüssen ergibt. Und wer schon mal mit einem ein Diskontierungsmodell gerechnet hat, ahnt, welche exorbitanten Wachstumsraten Wal-Mart vorlegen müsste, um 207 Mrd. $ wert zu sein. Selbst wenn die Firma die Expansion drosselte und nunmehr 80 Prozent des Gewinns ausschüttete, ergäbe das gerade mal eine Rendite von knapp vier Prozent. Zum allem Überfluss schlägt ihr der Wind ja von allen Seiten ins Gesicht.

umfassend noch rechtzeitig auf potenziell lebensbedrohliche Nebenwirkungen
des Entzündungshemmers hingewiesen. Daraus könnten Patienten mit starken Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen, Schlaganfällen und schweren Hautreaktionen Schadensersatzansprüche ableiten.

Bextra gehört zur Medikamentenklasse der Coxibe oder Cox-II- Hemmer. Diese
waren 2004 weltweit in die Schlagzeilen geraten, nachdem Studien ein höheres
Risiko für Herz-Kreislauf-Probleme zeigten. Der US-Pharmariese Merck & Co
hatte vergangenes Jahr sein zu dieser Klasse gehörendes Arthritismittel Vioxx
vom Markt genommen. Eine Studie hatte ein erhöhtes Herzinfarkt- und Schlag-
anfall-Risiko bei Patienten nachgewiesen, die das Mittel mindestens 18 Monate
einnahmen. Witti sagte, er sei auch dabei, europäische Fälle zu einer Klage
von Nagel Rice & Mazie gegen Merck beizusteuern.