Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 109

Investing in biotech and pharma

Biotechnology and pharmaceuticals are probably the most seductive and exciting sectors of the market to invest in. Not only can investors have the warm and fuzzy feeling that they are helping humanity (an emotion not readily generated by buying shares in Westpac or BHP), but when drugs or devices are developed and successfully adopted, it can be very profitable. Furthermore healthcare as a sector exhibits little correlation with Chinese growth, the health of the domestic economy or US interest rates and has some powerful demographic tailwinds.

It can be volatile, too. Recently, for example, Sirtex (STX) announced that trials of its eagerly awaited SIRFLOX liver cancer treatment had failed to show a statistically significant increase in survival in patients with liver cancer, though the company noted that liver cancer ultimately has a 90% level of morbidity. The announcement of this news wiped $1 billion off Sirtex’s market cap as the stock fell 55%.

For reference the difference between biotech and pharmaceutical companies is that biotechs like CSL use microorganisms or biologicals to perform a process, whereas pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer employ a chemical-based synthetic process to develop small-molecule drugs.

Fat profit margins

Most large corporations require substantial and continuing capital investments to maintain the quality of their assets. The major banks are required not only to set aside capital to back their lending, but have consistent expenditure on information technology (IT); for example the Commonwealth Bank spends over $1.2 billion per year on IT services. As the other banks match this expenditure, it does not result in any improvement in profit margins. Similarly, manufacturing companies such as Bluescope produce cardboard boxes and steel from capital equipment that can readily be bought by their competitors. This results in minimal barriers to entry beyond a company’s cost of capital and thus gives low single digit profit margins and growth in line with GDP.

Conversely biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies can enjoy both high growth and high profit margins when a treatment they own and develop is successful and is adopted. For example in 2009 when Sirtex gained traction with their targeted liver cancer treatment SIR-Spheres, the company saw an annual revenue increase of 72% and profits increase from $1.2 million to $18.2 million. Demand for new and potentially life-saving treatments is relatively price inelastic. Furthermore patents and the time and effort required to obtain regulatory approvals for new drugs provide strong barriers to entry for other companies looking to produce competing products.

At the larger end of town in 2014 Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and CSL all generated profit margins in excess of 20%. Conversely global car makers delivered a profit margin of only 3% and steelmakers -4%. For many drugs, the marginal costs of producing these drugs is small. The best selling drug of all-time is Pfizer’s cholesterol drug Lipitor that generated US$123 billion in sales from 1998 until its patent expired in 2011.

Pitfalls

As the Sirtex announcement showed, the sector can be a challenging place for retail and professional investors alike. Aside from determining whether a company’s drugs will be successful, investors also require that the product be adopted by physicians and often that it be included on a government’s list of approved and subsidised treatments such as Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). In 2014, Australian taxpayers spent $9.1 billion on the PBS and listing every medicine on the PBS would quickly make the scheme unsustainable. For example, there is a good chance that an expensive new drug might not be listed on the PBS if it is deemed to only provide a marginal benefit over existing alternatives. Governments globally are looking to curtail healthcare spending that has been consistently growing at a multiple of tax revenue growth.

What to look for before investing

  1. 1. Security of patents. What is the life of the new and existing patents? After Lipitor’s cholesterol patent rolled off, the cost of the treatment dropped from US$500 per month to US$50. The impact of this was an 81% reduction in sales in the US for Pfizer. Investors should be aware whether competitors have similar treatments undergoing approval or if another entity is disputing a company’s patents.
  2. Approval status. Where is a company’s treatments in being registered for clinical use with the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration)? FDA approval is a requirement for sale in the most profitable healthcare market in the world. Companies with at least one product in end-stage trials are safer investments than those just beginning the investigative phases of development. I have seen many companies issue exciting prospectuses and raise capital based on the results of their treatment on mice, with minimal further developments many years later. On average it takes 12 years and over US$350 million to get a new drug from the laboratory onto the pharmacy shelf, with a 3% success rate for drugs to move from pre-clinical trials to full approval.
  3. Financial strength and cash reserves. Whilst this point is germane to investing in all companies, the length and cost of the approval process for a drug is greater and more uncertain than for a new gold miner or retailer. If the company is required to make multiple dilutionary share issues just to keep in the game, its attractiveness as a potential investment declines.
  4. Diversity of the company’s pipeline. The number of investors that have made huge gains in one tiny biotech are dramatically outweighed by those that have seen share prices crater after a company’s only drug failed to win FDA approval. CSL shrugged off the failure of a competitor’s parallel trial of a plasma-derived product used to treat Alzheimer’s, as it had a range of other treatments both in the market and in clinical trials.
  5. Size of the addressable market. Whilst investing in companies treating niche ailments can be profitable, the addressable market is far greater in areas such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, neurological disorders and immunological diseases. Furthermore companies operating in these areas are more likely to attract a takeover bid from the big pharma companies looking to restock their pipelines.

Complex sector

Looking across the biotech and pharma sectors in the table below, there are 70 companies listed on the ASX, but only six pay a dividend and out of the 70 only 14 are profitable! Furthermore the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology sector encompasses a wide range of companies specialising in very niche areas. Even where an investor possesses a strong understanding of a particular area of medicine such as liver cancer, this knowledge may be of little use in evaluating CSL’s blood plasma treatments. Conversely when investors are analysing the prospects for Boral, insight can be gained from examining competitor CSR’s building products division and speaking with their management team.

HD Table1 150515

HD Table1 150515

Source: IRESS

 

Hugh Dive is a Senior Fund Manager for Aurora Funds Management Limited. This article is general information and does not address the personal needs of any individual.

3 Comments
Warren
May 15, 2015

Hugh Dive's article was very interesting and informative. One element that I think is extremely important for the financial success of biotech companies or medical tech companies as well is that in my opinion they MUST have a US market strategy because if not they will swim in the puddles but never in the ocean (where the big profits reside).

Jerome Lander
May 15, 2015

As a medical doctor by training and a former pharmaceutical analyst, I note that the medical and biotech space is a terrific area to invest, both long and short, precisely because it lends itself to those with investing and medical expertise. It scares investment analysts without the industry background, who understandably struggle to comprehend the detail, due in no small way to a lack of technical backgrounds and expertise. The space is poorly covered in Australia and the most inefficient opportunity set in the Australian equity market. It lends itself exceptionally well to good active management.

For example, far from being unattractive as Hugh suggests, niche ailments served by orphan drugs are in fact an incredibly attractive space to invest in right now because of numerous reasons. These include the fact that the FDA is providing favourable regulatory conditions, including quicker time to market and less expensive drug development. Takeovers may in fact be more likely here, not less.

Hugh
May 15, 2015

Great points Jerome, I don't deny that the biotech space is an attractive place to invest but that it can be challenging segment of the market for the average investor and indeed most institutional investors that don't possess your medical training.

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

How are vaccines actually produced in bulk?

10 investment themes for the next 10 years

A hard dose reality check on vaccines

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

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.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

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.