TEVA Stock Up Around 13% in a Month: Buy, Sell or Hold the Stock?
Teva's first-quarter results were mixed as it beat estimates for earnings but missed the same for sales. Teva slightly lowered the higher end of its sales guidance for 2025 while increasing the lower end of its EPS range. Teva said that its guidance was based on the tariffs already in place and does not reflect any impact from potential tariffs on pharmaceutical imports.
The company stated that it expects U.S. tariffs to have an 'immaterial impact' on its profits, which are already factored into its 2025 earnings outlook. Teva's chief financial officer, Eli Kalif, said that Teva has a substantial U.S. manufacturing footprint and a very limited exposure to China and India from a sourcing perspective. He also said that the company is well-positioned to navigate the potential impact of the U.S. tariffs.
On the Q1 conference call, Teva also reaffirmed its targets for 2027. Teva expects an adjusted operating margin of 30% by 2027 to be achieved by cost savings and the continued growth of its branded drugs. Along with the earnings release, Teva announced that it expects approximately $700 million of net cost savings (after reinvestment in business) by 2027.
Teva's positive comments about the tariff impact, the slightly increased earnings outlook for 2025, and the details on the planned cost savings seem to have impressed investors, despite the mixed first-quarter results and narrowed revenue outlook for the year.
The recent stock price increase has left investors wondering whether to buy, sell or hold the stock. Let's discuss the company's strengths and weaknesses in detail to understand how to play TEVA.
The company is seeing continued market share growth of its two newest branded drugs, Austedo and Ajovy. Though Teva is seeing slightly slower growth of Ajovy in the U.S. market, it expects sales to benefit from continued patient growth and launches in additional countries in Europe and international markets. Ajovy sales rose 18% in 2024 and 26% in the first quarter of 2025.
For Austedo, Teva expects to achieve annual revenues of more than $2.5 billion by 2027. The Austedo franchise got a boost from the launch of Austedo XR, a new once-daily formulation of Austedo. Teva expects to launch Austedo in European markets in 2026. Austedo sales rose 34% in the United States in 2024 and 39% in the first quarter of 2025.
Uzedy (risperidone) extended-release injectable suspension, a long-acting subcutaneous atypical antipsychotic injection for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults, was launched in May 2023 in the United States. In 2024, Teva recorded Uzedy sales of approximately $117 million, more than its target of approximately $100 million. In 2025, Uzedy sales are expected to be approximately $160 million.
Teva has also made decent progress with its branded pipeline, which includes olanzapine, a long-acting subcutaneous injectable (LAI) for treating schizophrenia and duvakitug, its anti-TL1A therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases ('IBD'), ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Teva has partnered with Sanofi SNY for duvakitug to maximize the value of the asset. Teva and Sanofi will equally share the development costs globally. In December, Teva and Sanofi's phase IIb study on duvakitug for treating UC and CD met its primary endpoints. Teva and Sanofi plan to begin a phase III program on duvakitug in the second half of 2025. Teva expects to file a new drug application to seek approval for olanzapine in the second half.
In the past few quarters, Teva achieved several successful launches of biosimilars and other high-value complex generics, including Novo Nordisk's Victoza, Roche's cancer drugs Rituxan (Truxima) and Herceptin (Herzuma), AbbVie's Humira (Simlandi), J&J's JNJ Stelara (Selarsdi), Novartis' Sandostatin LAR and AstraZeneca's Soliris (Epysqli)
Teva has a decent pipeline of biosimilars, with some being developed in partnership with Alvotech, including high-value complex generics like Simlandi and Selarsdi. These are the first two biosimilars to be launched in the United States under the Teva and Alvotech strategic partnership, which includes five biosimilars.
Teva expects to launch seven (including Simlandi and Selarsdi) biosimilars in the United States and four in Europe between 2025 and 2027. Biosimilar versions of Amgen's AMGN Prolia, Regeneron's Eylea and J&J's Simponi are under review in the United States, while those of Amgen's Xgeva, Simponi and Prolia are also under review in the EU. A biosimilar of Novartis' Xolair is in late-stage development.
Teva's U.S. generics/biosimilars business looks stable now, much more than it has been in years. Teva's U.S. generics/biosimilars business rose 15% in the United States in 2024, driven by new product launches. Teva expects continued growth in its U.S. generics business in 2025, driven by complex product launches like Victoza, Forteo and others, as well as upcoming launches of Symbicort, Saxenda and biosimilars Simlandi and Selarsdi.
Teva faces several lawsuits with cities, states and Native American tribes, which claim that it was one of the several companies whose opioid-based drugs were responsible for fueling the nationwide opioid epidemic.
In June 2023, Teva announced that it had fully resolved its nationwide settlement agreement related to opioid claims brought by all 50 U.S. states and more than 99% of the litigating subdivisions and special districts. As part of the settlement, Teva will pay up to $4.25 billion (including the already settled cases), spread over 13 years, including deliveries of up to $1.2 billion of its generic version of Narcan. In September 2024, Teva reached an agreement with the City of Baltimore to settle its opioid-related claims for a total of $80 million, thus settling with 100% of the litigating subdivisions and special districts. The settlement amount was, however, more than Teva's initial expectations to pay around $2.6 billion to settle the lawsuits.
Teva's stock has declined 23% so far this year compared with a decrease of 15.8% for the industry.
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research
TEVA's stock is trading at an attractive valuation relative to the industry. Going by the price/earnings ratio, the company shares currently trade at 6.51 on a forward 12-month basis, lower than 9.70 for the industry. However, the stock is trading above its 5-year mean of 4.10.
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research
The Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings has declined from $2.55 per share to $2.53 per share for 2025 but risen from $2.65 per share to $2.72 per share for 2026 over the past 30 days.
Image Source: Zacks Investment Research
Teva's revenues have suffered significantly since it lost exclusivity for key multiple sclerosis medicine, Copaxone, in 2015. Teva also faces competitive pressure for some of its key branded drugs. It also has a high debt load and faces some price-fixing charges. It will also face a potential revenue cliff for lenalidomide capsules (the generic version of Bristol-Myers' Revlimid) in 2026, as well as headwinds in 2027 related to IRA Medicare Part D negotiation for Austedo.
However, its newer drugs, Austedo, Uzedy and Ajovy, and stable generics business are reviving top-line growth.
With the nationwide settlement for the costly opioid litigations, new product launches, stability of the generics segment with contribution from biosimilars, and a robust biosimilar and branded pipeline, the path for Teva's long-term growth is becoming clearer. Teva is saving costs and improving margins through the optimization of operations for efficiency while also lowering the debt on its balance sheet.
Teva's improving branded and biosimilar pipeline and the prospect of growth in sales and profits are good enough reasons for those who own this Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) stock to stay invested. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here.
Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report
Sanofi (SNY) : Free Stock Analysis Report
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) : Free Stock Analysis Report
Amgen Inc. (AMGN) : Free Stock Analysis Report
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA) : Free Stock Analysis Report
This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research (zacks.com).
Zacks Investment Research
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
The future of the ‘special relationship' between the US and UK
Anyone who works in British foreign policy knows that we talk about 'the special relationship' with the U.S. infinitely more than Americans do. But there is a straightforward reason: it really matters to us. It is not just an emotional response, nor an attempt to cling to great-power status. Those are lazy and only partial explanations. The International Relations and Defence Committee in the House of Lords is currently conducting an inquiry into the U.K.'s future relationship with the U.S. In the evidence I submitted, I said very clearly that the U.S. is Britain's most important bilateral ally, in terms of trade, defense, intelligence, diplomacy and myriad cultural and historical connections. But that relationship is always evolving. What Socrates said about the unexamined life applies just as well to unexamined policy assumptions — and in international affairs particularly, nothing is unchanging. The Coalition for Global Prosperity is a nonpartisan group launched in 2018 by former Prime Minister David Cameron and ex-Defence Secretary Penny Mordaunt. It argues for three inseparable pillars in British foreign and security policy: an effective development budget, active diplomacy and a strong defense strategy. Last month, it published a report titled ' Transatlantic Ties: U.K.-U.S. Relations to 2045,' which examines the changing political landscape and proposing ways for the U.K. to strengthen and renew the alliance. (Full disclosure: I was recently appointed senior fellow for national security at the group, but I took the position after the report had been written and had no involvement in its content.) Donald Trump's return to the presidency has shifted U.K.-U.S. relations in ways that have sometimes been uncomfortable for Britain, and which have put new strain on the relationship between our two countries. The report acknowledges that Britain needs to increase its defense expenditure and footprint as part of a fairer burden-sharing. London also has to appreciate Washington's very different perspectives on matters like trade and tariffs, Ukraine and international aid. Disagreements will remain, but they can be managed, provided they are properly understood. Underpinning the report's recommendations is what Alexander Stubb, the president of Finland, recently described as a 'reverse-Kennedy' in the age of Trump. European nations should 'ask not what the Americans can do for you, ask what you can do for America.' This does not mean accepting any kind of military or diplomatic vassalage, but identifying areas of common interest where the U.K. can use its particular influence or capabilities for mutual benefit. The report recommends that, while the British government must meet the new NATO defense spending target, it should go further and show leadership, setting out a concrete plan for increasing expenditure on core defense commitments to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2030, well in advance of the agreed upon 2035. No one seriously doubts that the British armed forces need this kind of investment, but putting ourselves ahead of the curve would make a powerful statement of intent to partners and adversaries alike. America's focus on China as the principal threat to its interests over the coming decades is shaping policy across the board, shifting the strategic focus towards the Indo-Pacific. China presents itself as an alternative ally and patron for smaller nations — think of the Belt-and-Road Initiative and Chinese-sponsored maritime facilities in Cambodia, Peru and Sri Lanka. The report urges the U.K. to do much more to challenge this narrative, highlighting China's human rights abuses, repression and self-interest. The U.K. is well placed in this respect because of its membership in so many overlapping forums, including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Trade Organization and the Commonwealth. The other recommendations concern what are called 'minilateral' organizations, combinations of a small number of countries to achieve specific, limited objectives. There are several areas in which this approach offers real opportunities: Pillar Two of the tripartite AUKUS agreement, on research, development and production of new technologies; the Joint Expeditionary Force, the U.K.-led alliance of 10 European states that provides rapid response and expeditionary capability in the Baltic and the Arctic region; a proposal to develop a U.S.-U.K.-led minilateral group for 'a radical rethink about priorities and mechanisms of development.' There are two fundamental messages underpinning this. The transatlantic relationship has brought huge benefits to both countries. The U.K. cannot assume it will endure through the simple momentum of history, but it can work to strengthen and renew the relationship through specific, discrete projects that will yield tangible benefits for both countries. This would include an increase in defense spending; taking a harder public line on China; proving how AUKUS can deliver even more for its participants; and inviting U.S. observers to Joint Expeditionary Force summits, so they can see what Europe is doing independently to strengthen its security. Yes, Trump is transactional and wants to see how America gains from every situation. The U.K. has to be focused on issues where it can deliver. If that sounds less elevated and more businesslike than the Atlantic Charter or the emotional bond of the Reagan-Thatcher years, it is only a reflection of a new reality. Eliot Wilson is a freelance writer on politics and international affairs and the co-founder of Pivot Point Group. He was senior official in the U.K. House of Commons from 2005 to 2016, including serving as a clerk of the Defence Committee and secretary of the U.K. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Real Sociedad unwilling to budge on Takefusa Kubo price tag
Real Sociedad star Takefusa Kubo is due to take on a central role in their bid to return to European football this season, but the Japanese star is also on the agenda of several top clubs in Europe. The 24-year-old led the attack for Sergio Francisco's men in their La Liga debut on Saturday, scoring in their 1-1 draw with Valencia. Kubo was linked with an exit more heavily 18 months ago after strong form for La Real, with Liverpool and Saudi Arabia reportedly looking into his signing. Yet Kubo elected to remain focused in the face of that interest, and signed a new deal until 2029. Real Sociedad will demand €60m for Kubo According to Diario AS, Real Sociedad's main goal for the remainder of the transfer window. With four years remaining on his deal, they are in a position to demand the entirety of his €60m release clause, bearing in mind Real Madrid will receive half of any sell-on fee. They have no intentions to negotiate that figure. Image via Manuel Bruque / Agencia EFE Atletico Madrid, Tottenham and PSG linked with Japan star Atletico Madrid hold an interest in Kubo, but have no intention of getting near his price tag this summer. Meanwhile Premier League side Tottenham Hotspur, who look set to miss out on Savio of Manchester City, are also interested. Most recently, Paris Saint-Germain have been linked to Kubo in case Kang-In Lee departs. Spurs and PSG are more likely destinations in terms of their spending power, but both would have to convince Kubo to make the move. The former are not in European football currently, and there are no guarantees of his game time under Luis Enrique. After Kubo's public demand for signings was played down by manager Sergio Francisco, no doubt other clubs began paying closer attention to the Japan star.
Medscape
34 minutes ago
- Medscape
Do Women With Acute ACS Face Unnecessary Bleeding Risk?
A consensus statement from two European cardiology organizations contends antithrombotic treatment for myocardial infarction and angina overlooks sex differences that heighten bleeding risk in women. Compared with men, women treated for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are at a greater risk for in-hospital bleeding related to invasive cardiac procedures and more long-term outpatient bleeding events, according to the statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis. Antithrombotic therapies such as heparin and fondaparinux used in invasive ACS procedures typically have a similar efficacy in women and men, but women have a higher bleeding risk of these agents, said Davide Capodanno, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at the University of Catania, Catania, Italy, and co-author of the consensus statement. Some ways to reduce bleeding risk in women are to adjust antithrombotic dosing for body weight and kidney function, Capodanno told Medscape Medical News , and to opt for radial access over femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). 'Our paper shows that women still experience delays in diagnosis and treatment, receive excessive antithrombotic doses more often, and remain underrepresented in trials,' Capodanno said. 'All of this creates the need for clear, pragmatic, sex-informed recommendations.' Physiologic Differences Hormonal differences between men and women play an important role in bleeding risk. Estrogen promotes the production of prostacyclin, increases the availability of nitric oxide, and reduces platelet aggregation. These features might protect against the earlier onset of coronary artery disease, but fluctuations in hormonal status due to the menstrual cycle, use of oral contraceptives, menopause, and hormone replacement therapy can also influence thrombotic and bleeding risks. Sex differences in protease-activated receptor signaling pathways, smaller coronary artery sizes, and a cascade of other factors contribute to the greater risk for bleeding associated with ACS treatment (Figure). Although ACS typically affects postmenopausal women, the incidence is increasing in premenopausal women, whose bleeding risk is even more elevated because of lower platelet reactivity due to estrogen receptors on the platelet surface. Data from nearly 4000 women and 10,000 men undergoing PCI showed women younger than 50 years were four times more likely than men of the same age to experience major and minor bleeding events associated with stenting. Wanted: More Sex-Specific Data Women also often experience delays in the diagnosis of ACS and referral for invasive treatments, such as PCI, for their condition. Clinicians still lack strong evidence to help them address sex differences in clotting and response to anticoagulation, Capodanno suggested. Awareness is improving, but there's still work to be done. 'We simply don't have enough sex-powered data to guide all our decisions. Women remain underrepresented in clinical trials, which limits the strength of sex-specific evidence,' Capodanno said. 'We need to push for more equitable research by enrolling and retaining more women in clinical studies and ensuring that results are analyzed and published separately for men and women.' Sunil V. Rao, MD, lead author of the 2025 joint clinical practice guidelines on ACS from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association, agreed. 'There are very few clinical trials of bleeding reduction that have strong female representation,' said Rao, deputy director of the Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology and director of interventional cardiology at NYU Langone Heart in New York City. One such study, the SAFE-PCI for Women randomized trial Rao led, compared radial access and femoral access in women undergoing stenting. The research showed using radial instead of femoral access for the intervention reduces the risk for bleeding in women. 'We need more trials like this to help guide the clinical community on how to mitigate the risks of antithrombotic therapy in women,' Rao said. Take-Home: Male Isn't Norm How can individual clinicians adjust their practice? 'We recommend actively reducing bleeding risk — for example, using radial access whenever possible, using ultrasound guidance if femoral access is needed, and always avoiding overdosing by adjusting for weight and kidney function,' Capodanno said. Prompt treatment is key to avoid sex-related delays in starting antithrombotic medications. 'Also, be mindful of sex-specific presentations in ACS,' he added. Among these is myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary arteries, which includes spontaneous coronary artery dissection, responsible for 25%-35% of myocardial infarctions in women younger than 50 years. According to Rao, European guidelines are generally consistent with North American recommendations with respect to antithrombotic strategies for ACS. 'I don't think we can make strong recommendations to change practice just yet,' he said. 'The message really is to counsel patients, especially female patients, on the benefit-risk balance of antithrombotic therapy, to use evidence-based approaches to reduce bleeding risk — such as radial access — and to refer female patients for clinical trials when possible.' Capodanno reported payment for speaker fees and advisory board participation from Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Terumo. Rao reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
