Die Argumente im gestern erschienenen Forbes-Artikel (unten) sind größtenteils falsch und irreführend [siehe meine Kommentare in eckigen Klammer]. Nichtsdestotrotz drücken solche Artikel auf die Pfizer-Aktie. Pfizer wird darin als veraltetes Schlachtschiff dargestellt, das Produkte, die als Wirkstoffklasse teils schon 40 Jahre auf dem Markt sind, mittels einer gigantischen Marketing-Maschine unter's Volk bringt und weit mehr für Marketing als für die Forschung aufwändet. Als positives Gegenbeispiel wird Genentech (DNA) mit moderner Forschung in monoklonalen Antikörpern genannt.
Die Argumente sind schon deshalb nicht stichhaltig, weil sie rückwärts gerichtet sind: Pfizer wird im ersten Halbjahr 2006 eine ganze Reihe "moderner" Medikamente auf den Markt bringen: u. a. Sutent, Exubera, Champix (Varenicline), die Blockbuster-Statur erlangen können und den Produkten von Genentech nicht nachstehen.
Zweitens entpuppen sich die von Leeb betonten Vorzüge von Genentech gegenüber Pfizer als purer Unsinn: Leeb schreibt, Genentech würde - "im scharfen Gegensatz zu Pfizer" - mehr für Forschung als für Werbung ausgeben (siehe unten, fett).
Tatsache jedoch ist, dass Pfizer - in absoluten Zahlen - pro Jahr mehr in die Forschung investiert als Genentech an Umsatz hat! Hinzu kommt, dass Genentech ein KGV von 86 hat, Pfizer hingegen nur eins von 11.
Leeb ist als Pusher von Highflyern bekannt. So empfahl er 1997 die Gold-Aktie Newmont Mining (NEM) bei 50 USD, im Jahr 2001 fiel sie auf 13. Erst jetzt ist sie wieder annähernd auf damaligen Stand. Heute empfiehlt Leeb die heißgelaufenen Energie-Aktien.
Bezeichnenderweise hatte Leeb Genentech NICHT auf der Rechnung, als die Aktie - vor zwei Jahren - bei 18 Dollar stand. Erst jetzt - beim Kurs von 92 Dollar - hat er sie "entdeckt". Ob man mit solchen verspäteten Einsichten und Offenbarungen wirklich etwas anfangen kann?
---------------------
FORBES
Health Care Heroes And Has-Beens
Stephen Leeb, 12.29.05, 6:00 AM ET
What has been the fastest-growing major sector of the economy? Health care, easily: Health care expenditures have been rising relentlessly for more than a generation, and demand for health care will continue to accelerate for at least two generations longer. A big underlying cause for the health care boom has been the aging of the U.S. along with other developed countries and China. Demographics is among the most immutable of trends, and it tells us that the elderly, who account for a disproportionate part of spending on health care, will be making up a growing part of our population. So should health care stocks be a major investment theme, on a par with energy, Chindia and inflation? Yes and no.
While health care providers are being propelled forward by powerful demographic tailwinds, they’re also running into some equally strong headwinds, namely eventual limits to our ability to keep spending more. Health care spending already accounts for more than 15% of gross domestic product, up from 10% in 1985 and 13% in 2000. The U.S. is rapidly approaching the point where growth in health care spending will wreak fiscal havoc. Thus, while demand will be rising, the growth in spending will inevitably start to slow. For investors, a key conclusion is that the health care sector will be rife both with big winners and big disappointments.
Pfizer, still the world’s largest drug company, has crashed and burned. Understanding the reasons behind this dramatic divergence offers important object lessons for the future. Pfizer’s income statement provides a clue to its woes: The company spends roughly twice as much on marketing as on research. The result has been a drugmaker that turns out relatively few new drugs. Instead, it spends billions promoting older drugs that compete with more effective and/or less costly alternatives. This strategy worked in the days when there was a ton of money sloshing around to buy whatever drug was considered top of the line. But in today’s world, unless a drug is clearly better, cost considerations will prevail.
Take Lipitor, for example, Pfizer’s top seller. It traces its legacy back to the introduction of statins some 30 years ago. Today, there are statins that are cheaper than Lipitor but that produce better results.
[nicht korrekt, in Vergleichsstudien senkt Lipitor die Cholesterinwerte immer noch stärker als alle Konkurrenzprodukte - AL]
Thus, even though statins are considered superb medications for high cholesterol and are dramatically underprescribed, Lipitor’s growth has slowed sharply.
[Lipitor hat wenig zusätzliches Wachstum, läuft aber seitwärts auf hohem Niveau - AL]
A similar dynamic applies to Pfizer’s depression drug Zoloft, which is nearly identical to drugs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors) introduced more than 40 years ago. And it competes with a nearly identical drug, Prozac, now available in a much less expensive generic version.
Further, the research dollars that Pfizer and other large pharmaceuticals do spend are geared toward producing a fast buck. Combinatorial chemistry has become the name of the game, the generally random rearranging of molecules in existing medicines in the hope of generating something slightly better that the marketing department can run with. Such a “new” drug often has a somewhat different, but not necessarily superior, profile to existing choices. Zoloft is a prime example.
No wonder growth in many former blockbusters is slowing. In some cases, alternatives can be found on drugstore shelves. The vitamin niacin, for instance, works better than Lipitor in treating some forms of cholesterol problems. Lithium, a type of salt, is more effective than any branded medicines in treating some psychiatric disorders. And with no new blockbusters on the horizon--the inevitable outcome of limited and poorly allocated research--big pharma’s future is hardly bright.
Not surprisingly, the major drug companies, which in the late 1990s were valued at twice the S&P 500’s multiple, today trade at a discount. The market has gone from visions of dazzling growth to expectations of below-average growth. We think the market’s judgment is correct. Thus we’d shun the pharma heroes of yesteryear --not just Pfizer but also Bristol-Myers Squibb (nyse: BMY), Eli Lilly (nyse: LLY), Merck (nyse: MRK), Wyeth (nyse: WYE), Schering Plough (nyse: SGP), and even Johnson & Johnson (nyse: JNJ).Unless they dramatically mend their ways, focusing much more on genuine research and less on marketing, they won’t regain their status as growth stocks. At best their relatively high dividends might give them a place in income portfolios. But if, as is possible, earnings growth for some turns negative, even their dividends may not be safe, or at best may stagnate.
[AB HIER kommen die vermeintlichen Gewinner, Biotech-Firmen mit astronomischen KGVs und oft ohne umsatzträchtige Produkte - AL]
That’s the recipe for failure in the health care world. What about the flip side? Potential winners fall into two groups. First are companies that can develop true blockbuster medications, unique drugs with a demonstrable effect in curing disease or improving health. Second are products and services designed to cut health care costs.
Growth Portfolio holding Genentech (DNA) , one of the most successful health care stocks of recent years, exemplifies the first category. In sharp contrast to Pfizer, Genentech spends more on research than on marketing. This heavy emphasis on research is essential because of the costs of developing and growing monoclonal antibodies, extremely specialized organisms that can catalyze highly complex chemical reactions in the body. For example, the company’s leading drug Avastin targets the blood supply of cancerous tumors. Its other major products also are monoclonal antibodies that work via exquisitely accurate targeting. They include Herceptin, a leading therapy for breast cancer, and Rituxan, for non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Products in development range from Anti-NGF, a monoclonal antibody with the potential to relieve acute and chronic pain by blocking nerve growth, to a drug designed to treat diabetic food ulcers.
Biologics such as the above are much more difficult to copy than are chemically engineered drugs. That’s because they require highly precise conditions in order to grow. The upshot: They are far less likely to face competition from generic versions.
Genentech proves there always will be a place for unique drugs that dramatically extend or improve life. Over the next five years, earnings growth should approach 35% a year, more than justifying the high price-to-earnings ratio, and if its extremely impressive pipeline bears fruit, growth could remain at a comparable level even beyond 2010. While any high-multiple stock is risky, in Genentech’s case the risks are worth taking, and we continue to recommend aggressive accumulation.
Growing life forms is one path to success. Another is synthesizing naturally occurring compounds. Natural compounds are far more complex than those that result from combinatorial chemistry and work better as medicines. Why? In a recent issue of Science magazine, chemistry professors Ian Peterson and Edward Anderson explain: “The answer lies in evolutionary selection--nature’s own high-throughput screening process for the optimization of biologically active compounds.” The problem with natural compounds is that they are very difficult and costly to synthesize. Byetta from Amylin (nasdaq: AMLN) (fast track), arguably the best medicine for diabetes 2 and perhaps for metabolic syndrome, took more than 20 years to develop.
Major pharmaceutical companies haven’t been willing to invest that kind of time and money. Sometimes they settle for investing in the smaller companies that do make such a commitment. Eli Lilly has a 50% stake in Byetta and will profit if the drug lives up to its potential, but Amylin will profit far more. Amylin, while risky, remains a favorite long-term speculation.
Dr. Steven Leeb is editor of The Complete Investor.
Text zur Anzeige gekürzt. Gesamten Beitrag anzeigen »
Zurück
