JPMorgan says Lilly data ‘highly favorable' for Structure Therapeutics
JPMorgan analyst Hardik Parikh says Eli Lilly's (LLY) Phase 3 data for orforglipron in type 2 diabetes suggest a 'highly competitive profile' for the drug. The firm views the data as its base case scenario, whereby Structure Therapeutics (GPCR) shares could be up double-digit percent in this scenario on a 'highly favorable read-through' and Viking Therapeutics (VKTX) could move mid-single-digit in either direction. JPMorgan's focus was primarily on orfoglipron's tolerability profile with the extended titration, and here the data is highlighted by an 8% discontinuation rate on the highest dose versus low-teens expectations, the analyst tells investors in a research note. The firm sees the data as 'helping derisk the category,' giving more confidence that Structure can also bring tolerability of aleniglipron to reasonable levels. For Viking, the read-through is not as direct, and today's data 'clearly helps derisk a strong' first in class oral competitor from Lilly, which could limit the potential of late entrant injectable assets, says JPMorgan. However, the firm believes the data 'still leaves a clear role' for Viking's 'highly tolerable' oral VK-2735.
Discover outperforming stocks and invest smarter with Top Smart Score Stocks.
Filter, analyze, and streamline your search for investment opportunities using Tipranks' Stock Screener.
Published first on TheFly – the ultimate source for real-time, market-moving breaking financial news. Try Now>>
See Insiders' Hot Stocks on TipRanks >>
Read More on GPCR:
Disclaimer & DisclosureReport an Issue
Smaller obesity drugmakers jump after Pfizer scraps weight-loss pill
JPMorgan says Pfizer news 'mostly a positive' for Structure, Viking
Viking, Structure rally after Pfizer halts obesity drug development
Pfizer Stock (PFE) Dips after Weight-Loss Pill Halted Over Liver Injury
Structure Therapeutics, Inc.: Strong Pipeline and Financial Stability Underpin Buy Rating Despite Price Target Reduction
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) Crashed On Friday
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Lululemon Athletica Inc. (NASDAQ:LULU) stands against other Friday's worst-performing stocks. Lululemon fell by 19.8 percent on Friday to finish at $265.27 apiece following a disappointing earnings performance and outlook guidance for the rest of the year. In its financial statement, Lululemon Athletica Inc. (NASDAQ:LULU) said net income in the first quarter of the year dipped by 2 percent to $314 million from $321 million in the same period last year. Net revenues, on the other hand, grew by 7 percent to $2.37 billion from $2.2 billion year-on-year. A store employee in an athletic apparel store restocking merchandise. For the second quarter of the year, Lululemon Athletica Inc. (NASDAQ:LULU) expects net revenue to be in the range of $2.535 billion to $2.56 billion, representing growth of 7 percent to 8 percent. For the full-year period, it said targets net revenue to be in the range of $11.15 billion to $11.3 billion, representing growth of 5 to 7 percent. Following the guidance, JPMorgan and UBS both reduced their price targets for the company to $303 and $290, respectively, from $389 and $330 previously. Overall, LULU ranks 1st on our list of Friday's worst-performing stocks. While we acknowledge the potential of LULU as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Should You Buy Pfizer Stock Right Now?
Pfizer's dividend yield is around 7.3%, which is super generous. The company has many irons in the fire via drugs in development. It's facing some challenges now, but it's also sporting a low valuation. 10 stocks we like better than Pfizer › If you have an opening in your portfolio for a great stock with solid growth potential and perhaps even a respectable dividend yield, you would do well to give Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) some serious consideration. As with any stock, there are very good reasons to consider buying into Pfizer and also some reasons to take a more cautious stance. Here's a look at some reasons why you might buy -- or not buy -- shares of Pfizer. With a recent market value near $133 billion, Pfizer is a pharmaceutical powerhouse -- tracing its roots way back to 1849 -- before the Civil War! Like many big drug companies, it not only has multiple treatments on the market for various health conditions and diseases, but it also has a big pipeline of products in development. At the time of this writing, Pfizer had 108 candidates in its pipeline. Forty-seven were in the early phase 1 stage, 28 in phase 2, and 30 in late-stage development, phase 3. Among the phase 3 candidates, more than half were focused on oncology, addressing various kinds of cancers, such as breast, multiple myeloma, prostate, bladder, lung, and colon, among others. Several were for vaccines: Lyme disease, Clostridioides difficile ("C. Diff"), and COVID-19. Pfizer's current major medications include its COVID-19 vaccine, its COVID-19 treatment Paxlovid, its Prevnar pneumococcal vaccine, its Ibrance breast cancer therapy, and its Xtandi treatment for advanced prostate cancer. Here are some pluses for Pfizer: Its dividend: The stock recently yielded a whopping 7.3%. That's hard to beat and will generate around $730 for every $10,000 you have invested in Pfizer. CFO David Denton called the company's commitment to its dividend "steadfast." As he has said in the past, Pfizer intends to maintain and grow the dividend over time. Its growth prospects, particularly in oncology: As many big pharma companies do, Pfizer bought a smaller drug developer in 2023, Seagen (costing it $43 billion), acquiring its various drugs in development. Its low valuation: The stock's recent forward-looking price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 8, for example, is well below the five-year average of 10. Its price-to-sales ratio, meanwhile, was recently 2.1, lower than its five-year average of 3.1. Of course, Pfizer isn't 100% promising. It's paying out most -- or more than all -- of its earnings in dividends. Its payout ratio -- the portion of earnings it's paying out in dividends -- was recently 122%. That can be OK for a while, but it's not very sustainable. Of course, even if Pfizer slashes its payout in half, a 3.65% dividend yield will still be way above the S&P 500's recent yield of 1.3%. The stock has been struggling, with average annual losses of 18.6% over the past three years. Revenue soared from $41.9 billion in 2020 to $81.3 billion in 2021 once its COVID-19 vaccine was available -- and to $100.3 billion in 2022. Today, COVID-19 is less top-of-mind and less in the news, and Pfizer's revenue fell to $63.6 billion in 2024. (This is why all those treatments in the pipeline are so important. New blockbusters are always needed.) That's a big drop in revenue from 2022 to 2024, but remember that it's also a big increase, too, from 2020 levels to 2024 levels. Several of Pfizer's big sellers are losing their patent protections. These include the cancer drug Inlyta, the autoimmune disease drug Xeljanz, and the blood thinner Eliquis. Amid all the excitement over weight-loss drugs in recent years, Pfizer had its own candidate for weight loss, but it raised concerns about possible liver damage, so it's gone. The ongoing tariff wars could hurt business for Pfizer, as it would ideally want to be able to make and sell drugs in many different countries. It may end up penalized for its tax-saving strategies. The current administration in Washington appears to be generating headwinds, aiming to lower drug costs and also taking away much support for vaccines. Given all that, it's reasonable to be at least a bit confused. Should you jump in? Should you hold off? If you already own shares of Pfizer, should you sell or hold? Different investors will have different opinions, and much depends on your investing goals, risk tolerance, and time horizon. But here's what I think. Pfizer appears to be a very promising stock to buy if you're looking for income. That 7.3% dividend yield is terrific, and even if it gets slashed, it will likely still be substantial. Also, healthy and growing dividend-paying stocks tend to increase their payouts over time, so a 7.3% yield you buy today could turn into an effective 10% or 15% yield in 10 years or so. With Pfizer's valuation so low, there's a big margin of safety built into this stock. It's not like many growth stocks that have been bid up so high that any setback could send them plunging. I actually own some shares of Pfizer, and I'm planning to hang on, in large part for the dividend income, which may well be augmented by growth from the company's new drugs as they roll out. Before you buy stock in Pfizer, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Pfizer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Selena Maranjian has positions in Pfizer. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Pfizer. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Buy Pfizer Stock Right Now? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio
