Hey community,
I would like to build up a dividend portfolio with some growth and have made a plan.
I'm really looking forward to your feedback.
$VHYL (+0.05%) 35%
$MSFT (+0.8%) 10%
$V (+0.6%) 5%
$ULVR (-0.02%) 10%
$O (-0.44%) 5%
Posts
151Hey community,
I would like to build up a dividend portfolio with some growth and have made a plan.
I'm really looking forward to your feedback.
$VHYL (+0.05%) 35%
$MSFT (+0.8%) 10%
$V (+0.6%) 5%
$ULVR (-0.02%) 10%
$O (-0.44%) 5%
💡 Core Investment Thesis
Pfizer offers a deep-value proposition with a 6.5% dividend yield and a sector-low valuation, but faces significant headwinds: COVID-19 revenue normalisation, patent expiries, and U.S. drug pricing reforms. Strategic cost cuts and oncology pipeline bets could drive recovery.
📊 Financial Health & Performance
Key Metrics (2024–2025)
💷 Dividend Sustainability
🌍 Governmental & Policy Exposure
Catalysts
Threats
📈 Valuation & Projections
Pfier Metrics
Sector Averages
Growth Catalysts
⚠️ Key Risks
🎯 Investment Recommendation
Positioning Strategy
Bottom Line: Pfizer is a high-risk, high-yield contrarian play. Its distressed valuation prices in catastrophe, but successful pipeline execution could unlock substantial upside.
Is Pfizer’s 6.5% yield sustainable through patent cliffs?
How will the 2025 U.S. election impact pharma policy?
Can cost cuts offset $28bn patent losses by 2027?
Data as of 29 May 2025 | British English conventions applied
Disclaimer: Not financial advice. Conduct independent due diligence.
I've been adding more and more in Pfizer since I started, as my perspective was that the company had a correct future:
·Revenue was going to be stable over years,
·They have a nice pipeline to cover their patent cliff, with stable projected revenue
·Dividend was high (very high), due low valuation.
·They're focusing on cancer which is sadly a good market for the future.
I invest for the long therm and I thought that a company like $PFE (+0.44%) in a sector like pharma, could be a winner on the long run.
Well, I still would think all that if not for Tump's Administration. I'm starting to think it is going to be a dead investment (already down over 20% which is usually where I question my investments). Dividend won't be stable if sales go down, and if Tump's plans of lowering durg prices materialize, with RFK being famous for its antivaccine ideas , Pfizer will lose revenue (and probably every other pharma). The difference is that Pfizer was already not projected to grow on revenue before all that...
So, very nice for Americans, but bad for investors... should I kill it now and put my money somewhere else? (Have in mind that my porfolio is already heavy on tech and financials)
Rip pharmaceutical company
$PFE (+0.44%)
$JNJ (+0.04%)
$ABBV (+0.8%)
$ROG (-0.68%)
$NOVO B (-1.83%)
$LLY (+1.75%)
🧬 BICO
$BICO (+2.77%) has been on my watchlist since my early days on getquin.
In 2021, the company was on everyone's lips, celebrated as the company of the future in bioprinting.
But what followed was a classic hype cycle: the share price rose rapidly, was cheered by quite a few "finfluencers" and then plummeted just as sharply.
Many people got their fingers burnt back then. What remains is the image of an overvalued tech fantasy, fueled by empty promises and loud voices without substance.
And yet: The company has remained. So has the vision, and in recent months a lot seems to have changed structurally.
Today, more than 80 % below its all-time high, the question arises anew:
Is BICO simply an overrated stock market experiment...
... or is the current valuation realistic for the first time and BICO on the way to translating its technological substance into a genuine business model?
Over the past few weeks, I have been taking a closer look at the company's structure, history and current developments, including the latest figures [1] and the earnings call [2] from 29.04.25.
In this article, I share my collected insights, thoughts and assessments for those who also have the company on their watchlist.
As always:
No investment advice. I don't want to contribute to more burnt fingers, but to encourage reflection.
Have fun!
BICO Group AB (formerly CELLINK) is a Swedish life science company founded in 2016.
The original innovation: a biocompatible ink for 3D printing of living cells, a small revolution in research.
Today, BICO stands for a big goal: Bioconvergence.
This means merging biology, technology, software and automation to make research, diagnostics and drug development faster, cheaper and more efficient.
What is the vision and how does BICO make money?
The vision: The laboratory of the future. Automated, networked, efficient with AI, robotics and bioprinting.
This is how BICO earns money today:
Share of Sales 2024:
Excursus
Bioprinting:
BICO was with CELLINK was one of the first suppliers worldwide to offer bioprinters plus matching "bioinks" commercially.
The basic idea:
Bioink and what it is made of:
Bioink is a gel-like substance that is mixed with living cells. It contains, for example:
This matrix keeps the cells alive and makes it possible to print biologically active structures, e.g. tissue samples, tumor models or skin structures.
Is this already being done today or is it all future?
Yes, it is being done, but not clinically.
Bioprinting is currently being used, for example:
What is not yet possible:
Because...
🔮 Future potential: unrealistic or groundbreaking
If bioprinting really breaks through in medicine, we will be talking about one of the biggest breakthroughs of the 21st century:
RealisticFirst functional organs could be available in 10 -20 years clinically relevant, but first in small pilot studies or animal models.
Are there any research results or publications on this?
Yes, BICO (especially CELLINK) is a regular co-author or technology partner in publications.
Especially in areas such as:
Several universities and research institutions use the BIO X printers, including for example MIT and Harvard
Trusted partners:
Digression Conclusion
Bioprinting sounds like science fiction and yes, it is a long way from everyday transplantation. But in research and diagnostics it is real, applicable and in demand.
__________
History in brief From bioink to platform
New CEO since 2024: Maria Forss
Maria Forss brings decades of experience from leading life science companies:
At Vitrolife (2018 - 2023), she led global expansion and M&A projects, including the billion-euro deal with Igenomix. Prior to that (2014 - 2018), she was at Elekta (radiotherapy, oncology) where she was responsible for global marketing and product strategies.
She started her career at AstraZenecawhere she gained international experience in sales, regulatory affairs and market launch. There she learned what makes large pharmaceutical companies tick, particularly in terms of approval, market launch and regulatory navigation
She is an expert in:
The retirement of founder Gatenholm points to a clear change in strategy, away from visionary, growth-driven development and towards cost control, profitability and integration.
In the Earnings Call Q1 2025 Forss emphasizes several times:
"We have implemented a new operational structure, are harmonizing global functions and are focusing on efficiency and selected growth areas."
📊 Q1 2025 in figures and what's really behind it (Caution currency: Swedish krona, 1 SEK ~ 0.10 USD)
Supplement:
Q1 is seasonally weak as many customers (especially in research) do not make large investments at the beginning of the year. At the same time, Q4 was strong, which pulled sales forward.
Comparison of the three previous segments (Q1 2025)
With a view to organic growth:
👩🔬 Life Science Solutions:
🧬 Bioprinting:
🔬Lab Automation:
What do the individual divisions do?
👩🔬 Life Science Solutions:
This is where BICO develops laboratory technologies for diagnostics and cell research, such as devices for high-precision dosing of tiny quantities of liquids, consumables and special analysis platforms.
Examples:
Cancer diagnostics:
Allergy tests:
Genetic testing & DNA analysis:
Point-of-care diagnostics:
🧬 Bioprinting (see excursus above)
🔬 Lab automation
This is about the complete automation of laboratories, e.g. robots that create cell cultures, carry out analyses or coordinate samples. Everything is controlled centrally via the Green Button Go® software from Biosero.
💰 How profitable is BICO currently?
BICO is not yet profitable in the traditional sense, as EBIT (operating result) was clearly negative at SEK -290 million in 2024.
However, the operating cash flow a completely different picture: this was 2024 positive at SEK +259 million, as well as in Q1 2025 at +77 MSEK.
This means that BICO is now earning money in its core business, meaning that liquidity is flowing into the company.
The EBIT is still burdened by high depreciation and amortization on earlier acquisitions, research expenditure and, in some cases, one-off restructuring costs.
Conclusion
up to here:
BICO is not yet "through", but the path to operational profitability is recognizable. The company is heading in the right direction, now it depends on whether it can stabilize its operating base and continue to scale its high-margin business areas.
🤝 Business divisions & restructuring (from Q2 2025)
BICO previously operated in 3 segments:
New from Q2 2025:
Only two divisions, as Bioprinting will be integrated into "Life Science Solutions". Why?
Because CELLINK & Co. are now closely interlinked with diagnostics and consumables. The new setup is intended to increase efficiency, leverage synergies and simplify reporting.
📊 Classification of the figures and why Lab Automation is not growing, even though it is strategically so important
Bioprinting & Life Science Solutions show positive organic growth, while Lab Automationthe third-largest division, shrank massively (-58%).
Automation in particular is one of the main growth drivers in the bioconvergence strategy.
Explanation according to earnings call:
Q1 2024 (PY) was an upward outlier:
Fewer project starts and completions in Q1 2025:
Macro-related reluctance on the part of major customers (pharma):
According to CEO Maria Forss:
"The underlying demand for Lab Automation continues to be strong."
"Project cycles are longer - but demand from pharma remains intact."
Project business is naturally volatile:
BICO's strategic response
Standardization of project packages:
Strengthening project management:
Focus on pharmaceutical customers:
➡️ The decline in sales in Lab Automation looks dramatic, but is primarily due to timing and not a structural problem.
BICO is responding with strategic adjustments to its product portfolio and points to continued strong demand, only with longer lead times.
For investors, this means that the decline is unfavorable but explainable, not alarming
Further statements from the earnings call
CEO Maria Forss:
"Despite a decline in sales, Life Science Solutions and Bioprinting are showing positive development. Our strategy adjustment is taking effect."
Why is bioprinting booming right now?
Excursus in-vitro tissue models:
"In vitro" means: outside the living body, e.g. in a petri dish, on a chip or in a laboratory device.
Tissue models are replicated biological structures that resemble real human (or animal) tissue.
Example:
A skin tissue printed with cells that is used for cosmetic or drug tests, without animal testing.
What's the point?
In vitro tissue models are an ethically and scientifically attractive alternative to animal testing and BICO supplies the printing technology for this, among other things.
Is BICO a unique company in bioprinting?
No, but one of the pioneers with a broad portfolio.
There are competitors such as Allevi, Aspect Biosystems and Organovo, but BICO combines hardware, software and services under one roof - a strategic advantage.
Where does the market currently stand and what does the future look like?
Possible future scenarios
1 . BICO becomes a global playerBICO continues to grow, automates laboratories worldwide
2 . BICO becomes a takeover candidate: Groups such as Sartorius $SRT (-0.72%) , Danaher $DHR (+2.19%) or Thermo Fisher $TMO (+1.24%) could strike
3 . BICO remains niche leader: Focused on profitable segments with high innovation density
Risks & critical voices
The topic of the convertible bond has made me sit up and take notice again; here are some more deep dives:
What's the deal with BICO's convertible bonds until 2026?
Convertible bonds are a kind of hybrid between a bond and a share. They work like this:
At the end of the term (March 2026), investors receive either:
The whole thing is attractive for companies because they:
What this means in concrete terms:
Why is this an issue for investors
1 . Repayment or dilution:
If BICO cannot repay the amount, new shares must be issued, this is called dilution because your stake in the company decreases.
2 . Cash flow burden:
If BICO wants to repay the amount from its own resources, it needs a lot of liquidity, which can slow down other investments.
3 . Refinancing risk:
If the market is weak in 2025/26, refinancing could become expensive or not possible at all.
What is the current situation?
Positive:
Statement on financing / repayment
CFO Jacob Thornberg said:
"The closing of the divestment of MatTek and Visikol for USD 80 million is expected to take place during Q2 2025 [...]
The proceeds from the transaction will be used to resolve the outstanding convertible bond, which matures in March 2026."
Translated:
The entire proceeds from the sale of MatTek & Visikol to Sartorius (USD 80 million) are earmarked for the repayment of the convertible bond.
Management's assessment of the financial position:
"We expect to move into a net cash position during Q2 2025."
This means:
Assessment: How credible is this?
Positive:
-> Repayment can be financed if no new setback occurs
But:
➡️ Management is actively pursuing the plan to redeem the convertible bond in full before maturity in 2026 without dilution.
The sale of MatTek & Visikol has freed up concrete capital for this.
The direction is right, but BICO remains a risky stock with operational debt.
More on profitability:
In the Q1 2025 Earnings Call BICO's management did not give a specific date for break-even or profitability
... which is typical for growth companies with highly volatile project business.
What was said instead?
On profitability in Q1 itself:
EBITDA was negative (SEK -12m), but:
"Adjusted EBITDA was in line with Q1 2024 due to the positive development in Life Science Solutions and Bioprinting."
-> Improvement due to mix effects and operational measures
Long-term statements?
No specific annual figure or guidance on profitability. But:
"We have launched a new operating model [...] to achieve improved commercial as well as operational efficiencies."
"We will continue to optimize our cost base and drive efficiency through integration."
Interpretation:
The focus is on the short term:
Butunfortunately no clear words like: "We plan to be profitable in 2025 or 2026." 😬
Will BICO be the company that prints organs, or is it more likely to be taken over?
Technologically, BICO is very well positioned today when it comes to bioprinting infrastructure:
ButPrinting fully functional organs for clinical applications is a gigantic leap, not only technologically, but also in regulatory, medical and logistical terms. This is what is needed:
These are competencies that are more common in corporations like Johnson & Johnson $JJ, Medtronic $MDT (+3.2%) , GE Healthcare $GEHC (+2.1%)
, Siemens Healthineers $SHL (-0.05%) or Thermo Fisher $TMO not a smaller platform provider like BICO.
Which is more likely?
1 . BICO remains the "toolmaker" of the bioprinting world:
Just like ASML for semiconductors or Illumina for genomics, but without building drugs/organs itself.
2 . BICO will be taken over when the topic becomes clinically concrete:
For example, when the first major organ projects enter the clinical phase, it is likely that a giant will strike to secure access to the technology.
3 . BICO remains an enabler, but not the final provider of clinical bioprinted organs
When organs are actually printed, will BICO become the global market leader?
🏷️ Unlikely.
➡️ More realistic is that BICO becomes one of the key technology suppliers or is taken over by one of the big players beforehand.
This can still be highly attractive for investors. After all, whoever supplies technology will be needed, regardless of who ends up operating on the patient.
Should we now focus on BICO or rather on a large corporation with bioprinting potential? 🤔
1 . Buy BICO for speculative returns
Pros:
Contra:
2 . Alternatively: back a large corporation for more stability
Which big players have the potential to drive bioprinting forward (or take over BICO)?
Sartorius
-> Best-case candidate for takeover or joint venture
Thermo Fisher Scientific
-> Comes into play when bioprinting is more closely integrated into pharmaceutical production
Danaher
-> Could strike when the market matures, but rather late and strategically
3D Systems / Stratasys
-> Riskier than classic medtechs, but a direct bioprinting play
Personal classification: substance or science fiction on credit?
What makes more strategic sense? Which investment is "the right one"?
OR
Combination strategy:
I invest a small position in BICO as a "moonshot", combine this with a solid underlying position in Sartorius or Thermo Fisher and cover the technology and protect the capital if BICO fails.
The two underlying positions mentioned can of course also represent a global ETF.
My personal assessment of BICO currently fluctuates between cautious optimism and realistic doubt.
On the one hand, I see a clear technological lead and a strategy that, unlike a year or two ago, now appears more well thought-out and focused. Partnerships with established players such as Sartorius also give me the feeling that BICO is not operating alone in a vacuum.
On the other hand, the operational foundation is still shaky. Profitability has not been achieved and the issue of the 2026 convertible bond hangs over the company.
Without sufficient cash flow or fresh capital, the ambitious vision could stumble, and despite all the enthusiasm for bioprinting and automation, we should always be aware of this.
BICO is not a stock for quiet nights, but for visionaries with patience it may be a ticket to the future of medicine.
I am currently waiting for an entry opportunity with a good feeling. The goal could be a portfolio share of up to approx. 3-4%, which then remains in place and is reduced in the future through portfolio growth without selling.
Thanks for reading! 🤝
______________
Sources:
[1] https://storage.mfn.se/5a3030c0-d13b-4177-80d0-94da59c7302d/bico-q1-2025-eng.pdf
[2] https://bico.events.inderes.com/q1-report-2025/register
/ https://web.quartr.com/link/companies/4484/events/247443/transcript?targetTime=0.0
More:
https://www.sartorius.com/en/company/investor-relations
🔹 Revenue: $13.72B (Est. $14.01B) 🔴; -8% YoY
🔹 Adj EPS: $0.92; +12% YoY
🔹 Adj Net Income: $5.24B; +12% YoY
FY25 Guidance (Reaffirmed)
🔹 Revenue: $61.0B–$64.0B
🔹 Adj EPS: $2.80–$3.00
🔹 Adj SI&A Expenses: $13.3B–$14.3B
🔹 Adj R&D Expenses: $10.7B–$11.7B
🔹 Effective Tax Rate (Adj.): ~15%
🔸 Guidance excludes any impact from future tariffs
Segment Revenue
🔹 Global Biopharmaceuticals Business: $13.44B; DOWN -8% YoY
🔹 Pfizer CentreOne (PC1): $257M; Flat YoY
🔹 Pfizer Ignite: $17M; DOWN -3% YoY
Operational Revenue Highlights
🔹 Vyndaqel Family: UP +33% YoY
🔹 Comirnaty (COVID-19 Vaccine): UP +62% YoY
🔹 Padcev: UP +25% YoY
🔹 Nurtec ODT/Vydura: UP +40% YoY
🔹 Lorbrena: UP +39% YoY
🔹 Paxlovid: DOWN -75% YoY
🔹 Eliquis: DOWN -4% YoY
🔹 Xeljanz: DOWN -31% YoY
🔹 Ibrance: DOWN -6% YoY
Cost and Margin Highlights
🔹 Adjusted Cost of Sales: $2.59B; DOWN -15% YoY
🔹 Adjusted SI&A Expenses: $3.01B; DOWN -13% YoY
🔹 Adjusted R&D Expenses: $2.17B; DOWN -12% YoY
🔹 Adjusted Other (Income)/Deductions: $246M; DOWN -17% YoY
🔹 Effective Tax Rate (Adjusted): 7.8% (vs. 16.6% last year)
CEO Albert Bourla’s Commentary:
"We continued to execute with focus and discipline against our strategic priorities, including strengthening our R&D organization and driving improved productivity. With the underlying strength of our business, we believe we can be agile in navigating an uncertain and volatile external environment."
CFO David Denton's Commentary:
“Our overall solid Q1 performance demonstrates our continued focus on commercial execution amid U.S. Medicare Part D headwinds. We are currently trending towards the upper end of our 2025 Adjusted EPS guidance.”
Strategic & Operational Highlights
🔸 On track to exceed $4.5B net cost savings by end of 2025
🔸 Announced additional $1.2B productivity savings by end of 2027
🔸 $1.5B expected in savings from manufacturing optimization by 2027
🔸 Expanded R&D restructuring to save ~$500M by end of 2026
🔸 No share buybacks in Q1 2025; $2.4B returned via dividends
🔸 Fully exited Haleon stake with ~$6.3B in total proceeds YTD
🔸 R&D leadership strengthened with multiple senior hires
Product/Clinical Pipeline Developments
🔸 Abrysvo: EC expanded approval for RSV in adults 18–59; CDC ACIP recommended use in adults 50–59 at risk
🔸 Adcetris: FDA approved expanded combo use for relapsed/refractory LBCL
🔸 Padcev: Phase 3 results show sustained survival benefit in mUC
🔸 Talzenna + Xtandi: Positive OS benefit in mCRPC Phase 3
🔸 Sasanlimab: Phase 3 showed 32% event risk reduction in NMIBC
🔸 Vepdegestrant: Met PFS endpoint in ESR1m breast cancer subgroup in Phase 3
🔸 Danuglipron: Development discontinued for weight loss treatment
Pfizer $PFE (+0.44%) has discontinued the development of its oral weight loss pill Danuglipron. The reason: patients in clinical trials suffered from side effects such as nausea and vomiting. Although the drug was originally seen as a potential competitor to Wegovy and Ozempic, Pfizer no longer sees any commercial potential due to its poor tolerability. Instead, the company intends to concentrate on other active ingredients for weight reduction, such as GLP-1-based therapies. The decision marks a setback in Pfizer's strategy to gain a stronger foothold in the booming market for obesity drugs.
The news is based on what I personally consider to be reputable sources. No investment advice. Follow me for more updates!
In this article, I would like to give my personal assessment and opinion of some established pharmaceutical companies.
As a naive and uninformed person, I always believed that the pharmaceutical sector would play a major role in the future.
Now I have taken a closer look at the companies on the basis of fundamental key figures and have come to a very sobering conclusion.
However, I only evaluate the past and draw conclusions for the future from the past. I cannot evaluate and assess something like a pipeline because I lack the understanding and specialist knowledge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked at the following companies:
Bayer $BAYN (-0.32%)
Eli Lilly $LLY (+1.75%)
Johnson & Johnson $JNJ (+0.04%)
Novo Nordisk $NOVO B (-1.83%)
Roche $ROG (-0.68%)
Pfizer $PFE (+0.44%)
Merck $MRK (+1.8%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's start with the most popular title:
Novo Nordisk has the best fundamentals of all the stocks we looked at. The growth is right, the margins have been consistently above 30% since 2013 (unique selling point) and the return on equity is very high.
However, there has been disproportionately strong sales growth in the last 3 years. Probably due to GLP-1?
The question here is whether this growth can be maintained and whether sales can remain at this level? These uncertainties, as well as the regularization of GLP-1, could partly explain the fall in the share price in recent months. The valuation ratios are still quite sporty, but could this be justified in view of growth and margins? The quarterly figures will be very interesting.
I will start a savings plan and continue to monitor the shares.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer AG has lost over 60% of its share price since the beginning of 2023. In my naivety, I thought that the share was now attractively valued. In fact, it has a price/sales ratio of just 0.47% and yet I would not invest.
If you look at the balance sheets of the last 10 years and further back, growth and profitability, you can see that the share has always been fundamentally weak. At best, it may be interesting for a trade, but I would not invest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly is basically a good company with solid figures. However, there have been one or two ups and downs over the years and balance sheets. If the company had invested in 2017 despite the poor figures at the time, it would be up several hundred percent today.
2024 was a record year for Eli Lilly with a 32 % increase in sales to around USD 45 billion. The main reason for this growth was the strong sales figures for diabetes drugs and weight loss injections.
In my opinion, the share is heavily overvalued despite its qualities and lags behind Novo Nordisk in many respects (fundamentally). I expect a significant correction here. This may not occur until 2026 or 27, but a price/earnings ratio of over 70 is in no way justified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Johnson & Johnson is a conglomerate, as it also sells consumer goods. It has little to no growth, quite good profitability and a dividend of over 3%🤑.
I guess you don't necessarily have to own this share, as it doesn't stand out from the others in any way (but it does, it beats Bayer, for example, across the board) but it could possibly be a defensive stock for stability, if you value that sort of thing, and the dividend could also be a decisive factor if you buy it at the right time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer is clearly a corona profiteer that achieved record sales in 2021 and 22. After Corona, the awakening and a share price drop of over 50 %.
From 2010-2020, sales even declined and margins ranged from 12% to over 40%. I suspect that the turn around to the pre-corona level could succeed, so my price target is $29-44.
Here, too, I do not see a quality company, not a must-have and at best a trade or the dividend, which is currently over 6%, could also be interesting here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought only gold and chocolate came from Switzerland. That's not the case, because there is also Roche, not Ferrero Rocher but the pharmaceutical company. You would have to read up on this and find out more, because there seem to have been serious capital measures since 2022, which make the fundamental data look very negative.
So it looks (if the data from my data provider is correct) that Roche has not been profitable since 22. Operating profit in 2024 has fallen to a level similar to the lows of 2015 and 17. Cash flow and return on capital are negative and there has actually been no sales growth since 2019.
If you look at the company from 2011-2021, they were actually quite solidly positioned.
I don't want to make a clear judgment on Roche because I don't think I have enough information to be able to correctly interpret these figures for the last three years, because what looks like a pile of 💩 (chocolate) could also be an opportunity. But I don't know.
Incidentally, it looks very similar at Novartis $NOVN (-0.25%) looks very similar and so I am encouraged that there may be a political geographic background that needs to be identified in order to value these stocks correctly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merck shares are in the midfield. From 2010-2018, the figures even declined. Continuous growth has been observed since 2018, with record sales in the last 3 years in particular.
The share appears to be relatively cheaply valued with a P/E ratio of less than 14.
For me, the question remains whether this profitability is sustainable and whether a strong year will not be followed by another weak one. Personally, the risk/return ratio for Merck would be too low for me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My conclusion:
I will keep my distance from the pharmaceutical sector, as I am not in a position to assess a pipeline and there could always be medical breakthroughs that I am unable to predict.
On the other hand, expected successes can also fail to materialize or lead to failures and economic losses due to official regulations.
In addition, research is very time and capital intensive and there is no guarantee of success.
I will be satisfied with the share of the pharmaceutical sector in my broadly diversified ETF and, contrary to the above conclusion, start a savings plan on Novo Nordisk 🤓
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for reading and I welcome additions, corrections and opinions, but please don't be so hard on me. 😇
$SAN (+0.93%)
$NOVO B (-1.83%)
$PFE (+0.44%)
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Sanofi's hemophilia therapy on Friday. This paves the way for a treatment method for patients with rare blood clotting disorders. The therapy, which is marketed under the name Qfitlia, is new to the spectrum. However, Novo Nordsik and Pfizer are also active in this market.
Qfitlia is a therapy that is administered under the skin. It is intended to help prevent bleeding and reduce antithrombin levels. Qfitlia is approved for haemophilia patients aged 12 and over. According to estimates by the National Hemophilia Foundation, there are 30,000 to 33,000 haemophilia patients in the USA and around one million people worldwide are affected by the disease.
According to Reuters, the newly approved therapy is the first in its class to lower antithrombin levels and is suitable for people with haemophilia A or B with or without inhibitors.
Compared to the already approved therapies from Novo Nordisk and Pfizer, the Sanofi therapy has to be administered much less frequently, which makes treatment easier. Specifically, Qfitlia will only need to be administered every two months, while treatments with Pfizer's Hympavzi injection need to be administered weekly and Novo Nordisk's Alhemo even daily.
"Today's approval of Qfitlia is a significant step forward for hemophilia patients, as the therapy needs to be administered less frequently than other existing options," said FDA member Tanya Wroblewski as part of the approval decision.
Top creators this week