LoginSignup
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf
@topicswithhead
2Mo·

Biontech Q3 2024 $BNTX (-1,42 %)

attachment




Financial performance:

  • Revenue: BioNTech's revenue for Q3 2024 amounted to € 1,244.8 million, an increase compared to € 895.3 million in Q3 2023. In the first nine months of 2024, revenue totaled € 1,561.1 million, a decrease compared to € 2,340.0 million in the same period of 2023.
  • Net profit: In the third quarter of 2024, the company recorded a net profit of € 198.1 million, an increase compared to € 160.6 million in the previous year. For the first nine months, however, BioNTech recorded a net loss of € 924.8 million, compared to a net profit of € 472.4 million in the previous year.
  • Operating result: Operating profit fell to € 10.5 million in the third quarter of 2024 compared to € 73.1 million in the third quarter of 2023.
  • Liquidity: Cash, short-term securities and deposits amounted to € 17.8 billion as at September 30, 2024, indicating a strong liquidity position.


Balance sheet analysis:

  • Assets and liabilities: Total assets amounted to € 22,401.2 million in September 2024, a slight decrease compared to € 23,006.3 million at the end of 2023. Total liabilities amounted to € 3,286.7 million, of which € 2,522.5 million were current liabilities.
  • Equity: Equity totaled € 19,114.5 million and reflects a solid financial structure with low debt due to high equity reserves.


Findings from the income statement:

  • Revenue sources: Revenue is predominantly generated from the sale of COVID-19 vaccines, which has increased further due to the approval of vaccine variants.
  • Costs and margins: The cost of goods sold increased to € 178.9 million in the third quarter of 2024 (compared to € 161.8 million in the third quarter of 2023). Operating margins were impacted by high R&D expenditure and operating losses.


Cash flow analysis:

  • Operating activities: Operating cash flow is positive and supported by strong sales.
  • Investment activities: High expenditure due to investments in financial assets and acquisitions.
  • Financing activities: Minimal activity, with focus on building liquidity.


Key figures and profitability:

  • ROE and ROIC: Net loss over the nine months indicates negative returns, even if not explicitly calculated.
  • Debt and interest coverage ratio: Due to high equity reserves and low borrowing costs, there is a low gearing ratio and solid interest coverage.


Segment analysis:

  • COVID-19 vaccines: The main source of sales, supported by the introduction of adapted vaccine variants.
  • Oncology pipeline: Intensive R&D investments are flowing into ongoing studies and pipeline developments in oncology.


Competitive positioning:

  • Market position: BioNTech holds a strong position in the COVID-19 vaccine market and is actively expanding in oncology.
  • Industry trends: Demand for COVID-19 vaccines remains strong, accompanied by a growing focus on advances in mRNA technology.


Forecasts and management comments:

  • Sales forecast: Annual sales in 2024 are expected to be at the lower end of the forecast range of € 2.5-3.1 bn.
  • Strategic goals: The company is focused on expanding its oncology pipeline and consolidating its leading role in mRNA technology.


Risks and opportunities:

  • Risks: Heavy dependence on COVID-19 vaccine sales, regulatory challenges and high R&D costs.
  • Opportunities: Expansion in the oncology segment and development of new vaccines.


Summary and strategic implications:

  • Financial stability: BioNTech demonstrates high financial stability with robust cash reserves and a leading position in the COVID-19 vaccine market.
  • Challenges and growth potential: Despite the net loss and high R&D spending, the strategic focus on oncology and mRNA technology shows significant growth potential. However, in order to maintain its competitiveness in a dynamic environment, the company must keep operational risks under control and continue to promote innovation.


In summary, BioNTech shows a solid basis for growth through its mRNA expertise and pipeline in oncology. However, the company needs to overcome its dependence on COVID-19 sales and ensure operational profitability to maintain financial stability and investor confidence in the long term.


Five positive aspects of BioNTech's current performance:

Revenue growth in Q3 2024: BioNTech reported significant revenue growth in Q3 2024, reaching €1,244.8 million, compared to €895.3 million in Q3 2023. This increase was primarily due to the successful launch of COVID-19 variant-adapted vaccines.

Strong liquidity position: At the end of Q3 2024, BioNTech had a solid liquidity base of EUR 17.8 billion in the form of cash and investments in securities. This reserve provides financial security to support ongoing research and development and future strategic initiatives.

Progress in oncology pipeline: BioNTech reported significant progress in its oncology pipeline, including the initiation of Phase 2 trials for BNT327/PM8002 in small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer. These developments demonstrate the company's ambition to diversify beyond COVID-19 vaccines.

Positive clinical data for mRNA cancer vaccine: BioNTech announced positive Phase 2 results for its mRNA cancer vaccine candidate BNT111 in cutaneous melanoma, highlighting the potential of its mRNA technology in oncology as well.

Strategic partnerships: BioNTech continues to expand its strategic partnerships with companies such as Pfizer, Genentech and Biotheus. These collaborations strengthen its research capabilities and expand its market presence.

Five negative aspects of BioNTech's current performance:

Net loss for the first nine months: Despite a profitable Q3, BioNTech reported a net loss of €924.8 million for the first nine months, compared to a net profit of €472.4 million last year. This indicates financial challenges.

High R&D costs: Research and development expenses increased significantly to €1,642.4 million for the first nine months of 2024, compared to €1,205.3 million for the same period in 2023. This is weighing on the company's profitability.

Decline in turnover in the first nine months: Sales for the first nine months of 2024 amounted to EUR 1,561.1 million, compared to EUR 2,340.0 million in the previous year, reflecting a decline in overall sales performance.

Negative operating results: Operating profit in Q3 2024 amounted to only EUR 10.5 million, a significant decrease compared to EUR 73.1 million in Q3 2023, highlighting operational inefficiencies.

Dependence on COVID-19 vaccine sales: BioNTech's financial performance is highly dependent on COVID-19 vaccine sales, which poses a risk if demand fluctuates or new competitors enter the market.

4
23 Commentaires
image de profil
MrMister@MrMister
2Mo
Thank you for your detailed analysis.
BioNTech is not worth an investment for me. Neither in the short term nor in the long term. There are too many unanswered questions.

Free float of max. 24%. And the repayment of the state investment has not yet been made. They do have cash, but Sahin and Strüngmanns can pull it out very quickly. How is BioNTech's share value supposed to rise?

Product portfolio:
What products does the company have?
Research into mRnA cancer and oncology therapies since 2008, with moderate success to date and no approved drug brought out. Only research stages which, from today's perspective, would not receive approval at all, similar to the Corona-Mrna active ingredient.
Also that the Mrna invention is not even from BioNTech and they only have a right of use.
The loss of patent protection for the mRna active ingredient during the corona period is a risk I'll leave out.

Personally, an investment would be too risky for me.
•
4
•
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead
2Mo
@MrMister may be too delicate for you, but somehow I also have the feeling that you haven't looked at it objectively. The mrna technology was only supposed to have breakthroughs 5 to 6 years later and then came the stroke of luck with Corona. This means that with a 2025 filing, Biontech is still perfectly on track. Free float of shares with 20 to 30 % is not abnormal, especially if it is still very founders driven. They didn't go public because they wanted to, but because they needed capital; if they'd had a drug ready immediately, they certainly wouldn't have gone public at that point. The patent dispute is definitely a problem, but in the end it will only be a matter of money.
•
1
•
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead
2Mo
@topicswithhead I mean biotech always has failure risks, but I don't know of any biotech company that is as well positioned as Biontech. Maybe Viking and Vertex, but Biontech could be the first company in Germany to break the 50 billion barrier in a long time if only 3 drugs make it to blockbuster status. That is a very conservative calculation. After that you could say Biontech has the best risk to reward ratio in the biotech industry
•
1
•
image de profil
MrMister@MrMister
2Mo
@topicswithhead ok, I come from a product development background and worked in a startup myself. The same thing happened with BioNTech. Founded in 2008, went public in Oct 2019, shortly before corona hit. Initial investment by the state already planned in July 2019. At that time, 150 million euros, which then scaled up to 400 million euros, just for 60 employees and a company that had neither patents nor products on the market. Scaling like this only happens on an exit strategy or on a meme basis to scale private cash flow. Anyone familiar with Mrna knows that Mrna-based vaccines are bullshit. It's different with cancer or toxins. But research has not yet reached that stage and the risk of autoimmune deficiency in cancer patients has not yet been investigated in detail. I think the benefits of Mrna are very good, but it will be years before the first Mrna substance against cancer comes out. The first drugs against cancer without chemotherapy will be released as early as 2025, but not by BioNTech. Amgen is a candidate.
And don't forget, every producer will then be allowed to bring out this mrna substance against cancer because the patent for mrna has been revoked.
••
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead
2Mo
@MrMister The market wouldn't pay so much for mRNA companies if it was bullshit and I don't think mRNA is bullshit either, although I only have a rough understanding of the technology and am not a pharmacist or doctor. I only know it from immunology and cancer courses.
As far as I know, the autoimmune problem has not been specifically confirmed and the patents are only tiny. In the case of corona, patents were allowed by passé and core mRNA technology has partial exemptions or expires, but this hardly affects the company's own IP and especially not the drugs that are then patented again.
•
1
•
image de profil
MrMister@MrMister
2Mo
@topicswithhead You're right that the market wouldn't pay as much if it was bullshit, see lithium, IT in the 2000s, real estate in the mid-2000s, etc. It's an idea and I personally think it's a very good one. But the scaling only fits if the cancer diagnoses increase. However, I don't see that as a problem.

The patent for the mrna cancer "vaccine" has been around for a long time. Mrna is the carrier (supplier) and the mrna-based medicine is the drug. Both already exist. The only thing left to do is to test how high the dose is for the respective crab species, which is then done in field studies with test subjects.
If you know how Mrna works, you also know that Mnra can cause autoimmune deficiency very quickly. You don't have to be an immunologist to be able to read and understand. I am not an immunologist either, but I am curious. I think you are the same.
••
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead
2Mo
I studied immunology and I am already aware of how mRNA vaccines work. mRNA is basically just a blueprint that is then injected into the body, read by the ribosomes and the counterpart is produced. But the first example is also very far-fetched, the stock market likes to overpay and also has black swarn events, but usually only the price comes down and rarely these are then complete failures (Wirecard, Telekom bubble). Autoimmune can be a problem with mrna, but as I said, this cannot simply be applied to every drug. I am aware that it will be higher than with vector vaccinations, but mRNA also has other advantages. I understand what you're getting at and Biontech is just a bet, but that's the case with every biotech company as long as it doesn't have a drug and, above all, works on a newer technology. Crisper is also very old and very little has come out of it, but it's still incredibly interesting.
•
1
•
image de profil
MrMister@MrMister
2Mo
@topicswithhead We'll see where it goes in the end. I think cancer research is very important, but I also see a big risk of yield similar to the Covid-19 vaccine.
••
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead
2Mo
@MrMister I don't disagree with you. I also believe that COVID-19 was a huge mistake, even apart from the vaccines. You still have to look at it apart from the technology. The atom is not evil, but nuclear bombs are
•
1
•
image de profil
MrMister@MrMister
2Mo
@topicswithhead I still wonder why it's called nuclear power or the atomic bomb. After all, they are nuclides or atomic nuclei. The whole atom is not split :)
••
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead
2Mo
@MrMister I am at a loss here
••
Voir toutes les 6 autres réponses
image de profil
Thommy98@Thommy98
2Mo
There seems to be a lot of ignorance in the comments section: 1. what payments should Biotech owe the state? Source? As far as I know, there are none apart from the taxes the company pays 2. there are already several MRNA drugs e.g. RSV vaccination Moderna 3. there is no MRNA or cancer patent for the one cancer drug (that's not possible either, I couldn't patent gravity back then either) There are many individual patents for lipids etc. attached is an article for those interested. Here, too, Biotech has a lot of intellectual property https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-00912-9 4)MRNA and the claim that it is associated with immune deficiencies :D So normal MRNA clearly yes, because outside the cell it poses a danger to the body - packaged in lipids clearly no. That's why there were even Nobel prizes for these lipid packages which enable entry into the cell. 5) And you really can't say that MRNA is a hype given the current evaluations @MrMister
••
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead
2Mo
@Thommy98 yes, I also believe that he had a problem with the COVID procedures and therefore has mistrust. mRNA has an increased probability of rejection (compared to vectors) and the autoimmune diseases are tested individually. I haven't read anywhere about the payments, at least that you still have to pay them back. I've already mentioned the rest.
•
1
•
image de profil
Thommy98@Thommy98
2Mo
@topicswithhead https://youtu.be/h64uIXhBmfc?si=t1V9Ff24jiGRYVgl&t=3377 here the CureVac founder explains the topic quite well. normal Mona is actually even more active but is recognized as a danger outside the cell. Hence the lipid coating. But increased autoimmune reactions are nonsense
••
image de profil
ThemenmitKopf@topicswithhead
2Mo
@Thommy98 I had the subjects during the Corona period and am simply referring to the lecturer and the reading. He may well be talking nonsense, but I trust him (also DR. Pharmzeut) more than the founder of curevac.
•
1
•
image de profil
MrMister@MrMister
2Mo
@Thommy98 1. ignorance: The information comes from BusinessInsider from 2020. also the information with the share launch of BioNTech in Oct 2019. I think the share launch without products and without market exposure is bullshit. 5 months later it was clear to me where the journey was going. Everyone can decide for themselves what they think. The state made payments to BioNTech and Curavac and whether you believe it or not, I don't really care.
2. the RSV vaccination is nothing more than a virus vaccination like the COVID-19 vaccination. We were talking about cancer or poison. The options there are simply better. For a virus vaccination, mrna is not recommended, see statements by Prof. Dr. Hockertz etc. 3. gravity: You cannot patent gravity, but you can patent products that create gravity or make systems inherently safe, such as heat exchangers. Your statement is therefore bullshit. There are indeed patents for heat exchangers for gravity circulation, for example. Mrna is only a transportation method, the know-how is given by the change of state or the transported goods in connection with the antivirus and is therefore patentable. 4. you clearly say no, I have to disagree with you: 2.3 Printed matter 18/16664 Bavarian State Parliament: The hazard assessment "... cannot be answered for lipid nanoparticles in general." Allergic reactions are possible.
5. look at the development of the BioNTech share. Outlooks, trends, profit expectations and price targets are constantly being revised downwards by analysts. I like to invest in the company. I am a realist. The hype is over and I really don't see a new upward trend.
•
1
•
image de profil
Thommy98@Thommy98
2Mo
Okey so just nonsense statements 1) yes they received money but I ask why they have to pay it back ? That's your claim 2) so if it's not recommended by the majority of science it's strange that both mRNA vaccines are approved (maybe a conspiracy ? ) 3) you're just talking nonsense as I said you can patent details of the mrna but not the whole technology otherwise it would be uninteresting for the companies to research, I have attached the source 5) so the price targets have all risen in the last 3 months the stock has made 40% in that period but yes you're right it's falling into the bottomless 😂😂😂
••
Participez à la conversation
S'inscrireConnexion