Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 383

Amid vaccine hope and skepticism, testing is key

with Nicholas A. Demko and Matthew Scholder

 

Editor's note: This article was written shortly before US pharmaceutical company Pfizer announced its vaccine is “more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants”. Such an excellent result means that for every 100 people who catch COVID-19, only 10 will remain ill.

Morningstar analysts, Damien Conover, wrote this on 10 November 2020:

"With the vaccine’s efficacy over 90% and no major safety issues observed, we believe the regulatory agencies are likely to authorise it for emergency use in late 2020, followed by full approval in 2021 pending supportive final data. The US Food and Drug Administration has said it would need at least 50% efficacy to approve a covid-19 vaccine, and BNT162b2 clearly passes this threshold. Further, the lack of major safety issues should reassure regulators and the general public. With manufacturing ramping up, the firms expect to produce up to 1.3 billion doses in 2021."

However, Pfizer made the announcement in a media release based on a study lasting a few months and the results are not peer reviewed independently. While such progress is a great sign, the following article remains relevant.   

 

Financial markets are betting big that one or more successful coronavirus vaccines will help society return to normal but with vaccines come multiple challenges, not least of which is people’s willingness to be vaccinated.

In our view, mass testing is needed until vaccines and therapeutics are widely available and accepted. As a result, companies in the life sciences supply chain may offer sustainable investment opportunities.

Multiple entries, hopefully multiple winners

Most vaccine markets are monopolies or duopolies, but in the case of COVID-19, the World Health Organization reports that there are 42 vaccines in clinical evaluation and over 149 in preclinical development. This is a multi-horse race, hopefully with multiple winners. It goes without saying that we hope this becomes an overcrowded market with immense competition and success for all involved.

But let’s look at this through an investment lens.

The entire global vaccine market generates approximately $30 billion annually. As optimism over the creation of successful coronavirus vaccines has grown, investors have priced a lot of it into biopharma stocks, adding nearly $100 billion to their market capitalizations. If asset prices are a reflection of future cash flow probabilities, the market has discounted optimistic outcomes such as successful drug discovery, price durability and recurring revenue.

However, following regulatory approvals, vaccine makers face mass production and distribution challenges. For example, China and India manufacture the bulk of the world’s vaccines, presenting the potential for bottlenecks. As well, limitations in airfreight capacity or the need for temperature-controlled delivery may slow distribution, particularly in warm-weather regions such as Africa, Asia and Central America.

Effectiveness of vaccines

Manufacturing and distribution issues aside, there is a meaningful likelihood that efficacy rates will not bring herd immunity at any time soon. Exhibit 1 below is a 10-year look-back at the effectiveness of flu vaccines in the United States. Efficacy is low and has been falling for the past several years.

Additionally, under normal circumstances, a portion of society is typically skeptical of new vaccines. And given the politicisation of this disease, the percent of the population unwilling to be inoculated may be larger than normal. Hypothetically, a COVID-19 vaccine with 50% efficacy (applying a simply average from the chart above) consumed by 50% of the population would immunize only 25% of the population. While this is a simple assumption, it is material, as a 25% immunization rate would be well short of the 70% to 90% minimums often cited by epidemiologists as necessary to achieving herd immunity.

This is why society needs more COVID-19 testing. While these significant challenges — from drug discovery, to manufacturing and distribution, to garnering societal trust — are addressed, identifying those infected and isolating them early can prevent or limit contagion. Although therapeutics will accelerate recovery times and reduce hospitalizations, society will still need a step-function jump in testing.

Testing capacity has grown a lot, as shown in the Exhibit 2. According to The COVID Tracking Project, the US saw exponential growth in testing during the spring and early summer. While the rate of growth has decelerated recently, the recent seven-day moving average is just under one million tests a day. That still isn’t enough.

According to a report by Duke University and The Rockefeller Foundation, asymptomatic people transmit approximately 30% to 60% of cases. The report concludes that given current infection rates, the US needs around 200 million tests a month compared with the current trend of about 25 million. Given a reasonable possibility that we will be experiencing meaningful community spread of the virus for some time to come, the best approach to resuming “normal” life would be mass testing.

With focus on vaccines, test manufacturers underappreciated

We think investors may be underappreciating the opportunity for COVID- 19 test manufacturers and services companies.

To be transparent, we have been overweight higher-quality life science instrumentation, medical device and related service companies for many years in several equity strategies. In general, we think these companies offer attractive long-term investment attributes such as:

  • a 'razor/razor blade' recurring revenue model in which, following the sale of instrumentation, comes a high-margin, predictable revenue stream from consumables and reagents
  • a scientific customer base that values quality, features and accuracy over cost and that encourages innovation and can command a premium price
  • diverse and niche end-markets that enable only a handful of innovative companies to dominate market share in their product categories

We believe these three characteristics create sustainable, long-term economic moats that manifest themselves through a relatively strong return history and lower earnings volatility.

A handful of the largest life science companies not only develops, manufactures and distributes the global supply of COVID-19 testing supplies but also develops, manufactures and quality-checks vaccines and therapeutics. We don’t think it’s a coincidence that the current management of the virus through testing and the future management of the virus through vaccination are enabled by the same kinds of highly innovative companies that support modern scientific advancement.

Simply put, we believe companies in the global life sciences supply chain will create more sustainable profits than those in the highly-competitive vaccine market. While much of the current testing-related sales will be one-time in nature as society manages through the pandemic toward mass vaccination and natural immunity, the investments, innovation and future growth fueled by short-term virus-related revenues will potentially enable these companies to build on their long histories of investing in innovative, sustainable and high-returning endeavors.

 

Robert M. Almeida is a Portfolio Manager and Global Investment Strategist, and Nicholas A. Demko and Matthew Scholder are Equity Research Analysts at MFS Investment Management. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are subject to change at any time. These views are for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a recommendation to purchase any security or as a solicitation or investment advice from the Advisor. No forecasts can be guaranteed. This article is issued in Australia by MFS International Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 68 607 579 537, AFSL 485343), a sponsor of Firstlinks.

For more articles and papers from MFS, please click here.

Unless otherwise indicated, logos and product and service names are trademarks of MFS® and its affiliates and may be registered in certain countries.

 

3 Comments
Max
November 14, 2020

Is not the elephant in the room the salient impotency of COVID 19?
With the preface that I certainly don't think that people should be reckless with measures that spread the disease, the data out now presents a disease far less deadly than seasonal flu.

The relative impotence may be, or may not, further confirmed after the northern hemisphere winter. However, the southern hemisphere winter just passed was really not worthy of the fear and authoritarian response especially in the context of the far more significant second order impacts such as delayed treatment of cancers, heart attacks, mental illness and unemployment which has it's own well observed mortality.

If you want to use a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It seems the same for vaccines (i'm not anti-vax) promoting a vaccine space race, the products of which, will be white elephants unless the next winter turns out to be much worse (so far projections have done nothing but disappoint) as the attention on a such an impotent disease shifts to something else, as it quickly does after bushfires, floods etc.

Tony Reardon
November 12, 2020

It is perhaps worth unpacking the Pfizer announcement in a little more detail other than the “90% effective” that gets all the headlines.
First the broad facts: there were 43,538 people in the trial and these were split 50/50 into those who had the vaccine and a control group who did not (apparently this group received a meningococcal vaccination). The vaccine requires two doses and all but about 4,000 (total from both groups) received the second dose. Seven days later 94 people had symptoms and tested positive. Nobody died and nobody appears to have any adverse reaction to the vaccination.
From this, given the stated 90% effectiveness, we can conclude that about 8 people in the vaccinated group got the disease whereas 86 in the placebo group got it. We can thus conclude that injecting about 20,000 people stopped about 78 cases.
We don't know whether this has stopped people catching the disease or from just exhibiting symptoms as the testing was apparently only carried out on those with symptoms and thus what affect this might have on spreading the disease. We do not have data on age groups/sex/co-morbidity, etc.
This is not to say that this vaccine is not good news and welcome but it is easy to believe that thousands of people were saved from the disease by this trial proving beyond all doubt it is worthwhile and that is not the case so far.

Rob
November 15, 2020

Given the global Covid 19 fatigue, after enduring 10 months of massive personal and business disruption, any vaccine positive news is unreservedly ( and understandably) welcomed and mirrored by stock markets and the announcing company share price. Company Executives with stock options ( some issued only weeks before the announcement), have surprise, surprise !! been cashing in as fast as they can after making the vaccine positive announcements, under "legalised" 105-b1 plans lodged with the Securities and Exchange Commission. CEOs cashed out shares on the same day as announcements trumpeting the excellent vaccine test results as " a great day for Science and Humanity". Lets all hope that becomes reality soon, but sceptically the release should have added " And also a Great Day for Senior Insider Executives who are selling their stock TODAY". CEOs previously authorise the 105-b1 Plans, so stock sales by Executive insiders are technically within the SEC rules. Interesting that the SEC allows this conduct without specifying that the media release must also state what the next steps and risks are for the vaccine to be FDA approved. There have been several examples in the US after announcements where Executives and Chief Medical Officer sell all their stock for last profits post announcement.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Why ESG assessment must now consider active ownership

Your adverse Covid effects and post-pandemic consequences

The role of financial markets when earnings are falling

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Latest Updates

Retirement

Stop treating the family home as a retirement sacred cow

The way home ownership relates to retirement income is rated a 'D', as in Distortion, Decumulation and Denial. For many, their home is their largest asset but it's least likely to be used for retirement income.

Property

Hey boomer, first home buyers and all the fuss

What is APRA worried about? Most mortgagees can easily absorb increases in interest rates without posing a systemic threat to the banking system. Housing lending is a relatively risk-free activity for banks.

Property

Residential Property Survey Q3 2021

Housing market sentiment has eased from record highs and confidence has ticked down as house price rises slow. Construction costs overtook lack of development sites as the biggest impediment for new housing.

Investment strategies

Personal finance is 80% personal and 20% finance

Understanding your own biases and behaviours is even more important than learning about markets. Overcome four major cognitive biases that may be sabotaging your investing and recognise them in others.

Where do stockmarket returns come from over time?

Cash flow statements differ from income statements and balance sheets, and every company must balance payments to investors versus investing into the business. Cash flows drive the value of the business.

Fixed interest

How to invest in the ‘reopening of Australia’ in bonds

As Sydney and Melbourne emerge from lockdown, there are some reopening trades in the Australian credit market which 'sophisticated' investors should consider as part of their fixed income portfolios.

Shares

10 trends reshaping the future of emerging markets

Demand for air travel, China’s growing middle-class population, Brazil’s digital payments take-up, Indian IPOs, and increased urbanisation are just some of the trends being seen in emerging economies.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.