Comments on Larry Rothman's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/larry-rothman/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/144776-pharma-announces-80b-reduction-who-wins?source=feed#comment-559203 559203 Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:38:02 -0400 Tax payers lose, corrupt politicians win,
we need positive change for America, not more corrupt politicians. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-441318 441318 Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:02:32 -0400
As for JNJ's possible challenge of the merger, I agree that they may try. But a number of legal experts have already reviewed the situation and they disagree with your conclusion. While the motivation for the structure of the merger is transparent, the law will uphold the letter of the contract, not look to intent. JNJ inherited this agreement through an acquisition, so they don't have a lot to say about it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-435043 435043 Sun, 22 Mar 2009 08:54:31 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-434765 434765 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:26:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-434762 434762 The long term answer to Big Pharma's problems is copyright status > for all new chemical entity marketed drugs, or at least 10-15 years > of market exclusivity for these entities. Why should these companies > invest in R&D discovery if after a dozen years of development, > they only have 8 years of effective market life to recoup their $500M > development cost per molecule and generate a return to their shareholders? > And, in these days of litigation, the 8 years now often is less because > of generic companies' use of Paragraph IV challenges to patents. > No, these companies, which discover life-saving drugs, should have > the right to profits and a stream of royalities ad infinitum, similar > to copyright laws on songs, books, plays, etc. You would find under > this system more new drugs with lower initial cost since companies > would know that their discoveries would generate profits for many > years forward.]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:20:29 -0400
The problem isn't patent law per se; it's the interplay between patent law and the approval process. Patent law should be modified to accomodate Govt-caused delay. If the FDA delays your drug by asking for another 1 year study, you should get 1 extra year on your patent. If I invent a machine, like a Segway, I don't have to worry about going through a complex regulatory process to bring it to market. The industry is suffering from patent expiries right now, but that's only because the approval process seems to have trended towards really extraordinary caution. I strongly believe in safety, and caution, as long as it isn't taken to extremes.


On Mar 20 09:45 AM aeroone wrote:

> The long term answer to Big Pharma's problems is copyright status
> for all new chemical entity marketed drugs, or at least 10-15 years
> of market exclusivity for these entities. Why should these companies
> invest in R&D discovery if after a dozen years of development,
> they only have 8 years of effective market life to recoup their $500M
> development cost per molecule and generate a return to their shareholders?
> And, in these days of litigation, the 8 years now often is less because
> of generic companies' use of Paragraph IV challenges to patents.
> No, these companies, which discover life-saving drugs, should have
> the right to profits and a stream of royalities ad infinitum, similar
> to copyright laws on songs, books, plays, etc. You would find under
> this system more new drugs with lower initial cost since companies
> would know that their discoveries would generate profits for many
> years forward.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-434523 434523 "Roche is getting the most “bang for the buck”..." > > Why? Roche already owned 56% of Genentech. Normally, majority ownership > is not "meaningless" - far from it. Normally, the way to measure > the extra value added by buying out the extra 44% would involve serious > cost savings or synergies - but both companies, by most reports, > are well-run shops that didn't go into excessive bloat. So what's > the big advantage of merging operations and taking 100%?]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:23:47 -0400

On Mar 21 07:04 AM donzelion wrote:

> "Roche is getting the most “bang for the buck”..."
>
> Why? Roche already owned 56% of Genentech. Normally, majority ownership
> is not "meaningless" - far from it. Normally, the way to measure
> the extra value added by buying out the extra 44% would involve serious
> cost savings or synergies - but both companies, by most reports,
> are well-run shops that didn't go into excessive bloat. So what's
> the big advantage of merging operations and taking 100%?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-434441 434441 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:20:17 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-434404 434404 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:27:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-434327 434327 Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:04:10 -0400
Why? Roche already owned 56% of Genentech. Normally, majority ownership is not "meaningless" - far from it. Normally, the way to measure the extra value added by buying out the extra 44% would involve serious cost savings or synergies - but both companies, by most reports, are well-run shops that didn't go into excessive bloat. So what's the big advantage of merging operations and taking 100%?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-433775 433775 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:23:20 -0400 more organic lifestyle. The good days are over for "Big Pharma",
patients loosing their trust in medicine and their doctors. A funda-
mental change is coming as people becoming more educated
about health issues and becoming active participants in their own
health. INV.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-433437 433437 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:45:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127020-is-the-winner-pfizer-merck-or-roche?source=feed#comment-433390 433390 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:22:20 -0400
Under the current political environment, it will be interesting to see if the merger is allowed. Then, of course, there is the trend to socialized medicine and an Administration and Congress who will use their power to trample property rights, contractual rights and individual rights and favor government, not only regulations, but control.

Obviously, I, like most others should be, concerned about the future of the Free Enterprise System and democracy as we know it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126571-pharmaceutical-industry-merger-mania-consolidation-vs-diversification?source=feed#comment-433090 433090 Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:30:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-431877 431877 Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:17:55 -0400
www.bloomberg.com/apps...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126571-pharmaceutical-industry-merger-mania-consolidation-vs-diversification?source=feed#comment-430718 430718 Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:24:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-414193 414193 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:39:16 -0500 Informative reply. Great thing about "Seeling Alpha"; it throws a wide net and captures a broad range of views regarding it's subject matter. Knowledge is everything in the investment field.
My best to you and Daisy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-413548 413548 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:28:54 -0500
However, I have only my opinion. It pays to cast a wider circle than the Wall Street media machine for gathering well-informed views. Here are couple of relevant links from from the animal health media worth consideration which are probably not seen by the M&A wonks. There is also a link to the Anti-Trust Institution's communications to the US Attorney General on their take of the acquisition:

www.businessspectator....

news.vin.com/VINNews.a...

www.antitrustinstitute...

Re: the time stamp. Yup, I was just ready to head to the barn to milk Daisy. In reality, I am thankfully thousands of miles from Wall Street both physically and mentally. Take it from someone in the industry for the past 40 years...there is a lot here that Wall Street does not realize unless they have worked in this field previously and know the business rather more intimately. And, yes having a farming and ranching background is most instructive as we farmboys are the most familiar with b.s. and can spot it quicker than anyone! :-)
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-412262 412262 CHASAM: "It also makes the PFE/WYE combination the undisputed leader > in Animal Health"... > > Some pertinent remarks to consider: > > Well, yes, such an incongruous wad of PFE/WYE animal health business > would theoretically create the big kahuna of animal health companies > but the big elephant in this room is yet to be heard from yet...The > FTC and monopolies commissions in key animal health markets. > > The Pfizer and Wyeth animal health entities are far from complementary. > Indeed, if anyone is familiar with the animal health businesses of > these two companies, it is difficult to discover any positive synergies. > They are direct and major competitors across several product ranges > and in their global distribution networks. If there is doubt about > this, consider that US farmer and rancher groups are already gearing > up to fight the merger as anti-competitive. > > Anti-trust authorities around the world will not let Pfizer and Wyeth > have a "pass" on the combination of the Pfizer and Fort Dodge Animal > Health businesses. There are only two possibilities: 1) A significant > spin-off of very large chunks of the business (e.g. veterinary vaccines > where there is a considerable overlap) or 2) completely divesting > of Fort Dodge Animal health as a separate entity. > > Many animal health competitors are sitting in the wings like hungry > vultures to pick up the profitable pieces that could be spun off > from a potential deal. But Pfizer will certainly not be keen to set > up any new competitors with any of the juicy remnants. That remains > the crux of this deal. > > Let's not dream here. The animal health industry is in a long period > of consolidation with little innovation creating major organic growth > opportunities. There are few new blockbuster products on the horizon > for either Pfizer or Wyeth in the animal health business. > > This deal will only result in a serious decline in revenues caused > by an extensive reconciliation of competing product lines, major > layoffs, and the loss of expertise, research and manufacturing facilities > that carry GMP approvals for critical overseas product approvals. > > > Relative to size and strategic desire of the PFE/WYE human health > deal, the animal health business has limited added value. Given the > anti-trust hurdles ahead, it may be much more trouble than its worth. > Look for 1 + 1 equaling something substantially less than two.
> > In the meantime, take the cheer leading and hype of financial analysts > pushing this animal health deal with a grain of salt and a healthy > dose of skepticism. There is still a lot of water to flow under this > bridge yet. > > ]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:48:20 -0500 Hopefully, I am not dreaming, however it would appear that PFE has a more positive outlook on the Animal Health sector than you. I am treading lightly here as I noticed that your comment was published at 04:47 AM. You MUST be in the farm business.





On Mar 04 04:47 AM Blue Cod wrote:

> CHASAM: "It also makes the PFE/WYE combination the undisputed leader
> in Animal Health"...
>
> Some pertinent remarks to consider:
>
> Well, yes, such an incongruous wad of PFE/WYE animal health business
> would theoretically create the big kahuna of animal health companies
> but the big elephant in this room is yet to be heard from yet...The
> FTC and monopolies commissions in key animal health markets.
>
> The Pfizer and Wyeth animal health entities are far from complementary.
> Indeed, if anyone is familiar with the animal health businesses of
> these two companies, it is difficult to discover any positive synergies.
> They are direct and major competitors across several product ranges
> and in their global distribution networks. If there is doubt about
> this, consider that US farmer and rancher groups are already gearing
> up to fight the merger as anti-competitive.
>
> Anti-trust authorities around the world will not let Pfizer and Wyeth
> have a "pass" on the combination of the Pfizer and Fort Dodge Animal
> Health businesses. There are only two possibilities: 1) A significant
> spin-off of very large chunks of the business (e.g. veterinary vaccines
> where there is a considerable overlap) or 2) completely divesting
> of Fort Dodge Animal health as a separate entity.
>
> Many animal health competitors are sitting in the wings like hungry
> vultures to pick up the profitable pieces that could be spun off
> from a potential deal. But Pfizer will certainly not be keen to set
> up any new competitors with any of the juicy remnants. That remains
> the crux of this deal.
>
> Let's not dream here. The animal health industry is in a long period
> of consolidation with little innovation creating major organic growth
> opportunities. There are few new blockbuster products on the horizon
> for either Pfizer or Wyeth in the animal health business.
>
> This deal will only result in a serious decline in revenues caused
> by an extensive reconciliation of competing product lines, major
> layoffs, and the loss of expertise, research and manufacturing facilities
> that carry GMP approvals for critical overseas product approvals.
>
>
> Relative to size and strategic desire of the PFE/WYE human health
> deal, the animal health business has limited added value. Given the
> anti-trust hurdles ahead, it may be much more trouble than its worth.
> Look for 1 + 1 equaling something substantially less than two.

>
> In the meantime, take the cheer leading and hype of financial analysts
> pushing this animal health deal with a grain of salt and a healthy
> dose of skepticism. There is still a lot of water to flow under this
> bridge yet.
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-412213 412213 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:47:53 -0500
Some pertinent remarks to consider:

Well, yes, such an incongruous wad of PFE/WYE animal health business would theoretically create the big kahuna of animal health companies but the big elephant in this room is yet to be heard from yet...The FTC and monopolies commissions in key animal health markets.

The Pfizer and Wyeth animal health entities are far from complementary. Indeed, if anyone is familiar with the animal health businesses of these two companies, it is difficult to discover any positive synergies. They are direct and major competitors across several product ranges and in their global distribution networks. If there is doubt about this, consider that US farmer and rancher groups are already gearing up to fight the merger as anti-competitive.

Anti-trust authorities around the world will not let Pfizer and Wyeth have a "pass" on the combination of the Pfizer and Fort Dodge Animal Health businesses. There are only two possibilities: 1) A significant spin-off of very large chunks of the business (e.g. veterinary vaccines where there is a considerable overlap) or 2) completely divesting of Fort Dodge Animal health as a separate entity.

Many animal health competitors are sitting in the wings like hungry vultures to pick up the profitable pieces that could be spun off from a potential deal. But Pfizer will certainly not be keen to set up any new competitors with any of the juicy remnants. That remains the crux of this deal.

Let's not dream here. The animal health industry is in a long period of consolidation with little innovation creating major organic growth opportunities. There are few new blockbuster products on the horizon for either Pfizer or Wyeth in the animal health business.

This deal will only result in a serious decline in revenues caused by an extensive reconciliation of competing product lines, major layoffs, and the loss of expertise, research and manufacturing facilities that carry GMP approvals for critical overseas product approvals.

Relative to size and strategic desire of the PFE/WYE human health deal, the animal health business has limited added value. Given the anti-trust hurdles ahead, it may be much more trouble than its worth. Look for 1 + 1 equaling something substantially less than two.

In the meantime, take the cheer leading and hype of financial analysts pushing this animal health deal with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism. There is still a lot of water to flow under this bridge yet.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-412096 412096 Pfizer needs to get rid of Kindler and hire some management from > a company that sells generic products such as Coke or Pepsi. If you > are losing your proprietary products learn to sell the generics! > > > The negative reaction of the stock market to the Pfizer/Wyeth deal > is a clear signal that the proposed acquistion was BAD. Had a good > deal, from the Pfizer perspective been signed, the stock would have > gone up in price. > > Since Pfizer has to downsize, instead of stealing Pfizer shareholder > equity to buy Wyeth, why wasn't management buying Pfizer stock to > support the share price for the benefit of the Pfizer shareholders? > Also don't forget that every share bought would have meant less to > pay out in dividends.]]> Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:25:09 -0500

On Mar 03 09:57 PM Steve R. wrote:

> Pfizer needs to get rid of Kindler and hire some management from
> a company that sells generic products such as Coke or Pepsi. If you
> are losing your proprietary products learn to sell the generics!
>
>
> The negative reaction of the stock market to the Pfizer/Wyeth deal
> is a clear signal that the proposed acquistion was BAD. Had a good
> deal, from the Pfizer perspective been signed, the stock would have
> gone up in price.
>
> Since Pfizer has to downsize, instead of stealing Pfizer shareholder
> equity to buy Wyeth, why wasn't management buying Pfizer stock to
> support the share price for the benefit of the Pfizer shareholders?
> Also don't forget that every share bought would have meant less to
> pay out in dividends.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-412045 412045 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:57:09 -0500
The negative reaction of the stock market to the Pfizer/Wyeth deal is a clear signal that the proposed acquistion was BAD. Had a good deal, from the Pfizer perspective been signed, the stock would have gone up in price.

Since Pfizer has to downsize, instead of stealing Pfizer shareholder equity to buy Wyeth, why wasn't management buying Pfizer stock to support the share price for the benefit of the Pfizer shareholders? Also don't forget that every share bought would have meant less to pay out in dividends.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-411366 411366 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:49:42 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123772-the-obama-health-plan-s-impact-on-pfizer-final-nail-in-the-coffin-or-new-beginning?source=feed#comment-411358 411358 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:46:20 -0500 Despite the above mentioned challenges, the pharmaceutical industry will not cease to exist. When the dust settles, Pfizer will still be #1.
]]>