Analysts: Lilly faces 'ugly' period until its pipeline produces

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

For Eli Lilly and Co., it's going to get worse before it gets better.

Investors smiled on the Indianapolis-based drugmaker early last week when the company unveiled experimental cancer drugs and an aggressive play for the animal health market in China. But those smiles turned to frowns after Lilly disclosed surprisingly deep cuts to its U.S. sales force.

Lilly saw its stock price rise 2.7 percent from its closing price on April 9 until a peak on April 11—just after the news of the sales force layoffs broke.

That mini rally was fueled by a report out of China on April 8 that Lilly’s Elanco Animal Health unit had invested $100 million to acquire a 20-percent stake in China Animal Healthcare Ltd., and by Lilly’s release the next morning of new details about cancer drugs in its pipeline.

But when Lilly said it would cut roughly 1,000 salespeople—which is about 30 percent of its total U.S. sales force, according to the Wall Street Journal—the company's stock dropped 1.3 percent. Lilly shares closed Friday at $57.47 apiece.

Lilly's stock price has risen 45 percent in the past year, not counting its healthy dividend, mainly on rising hopes for the success of drugs in its pipeline.

“Lilly’s got some things in the pipeline, but until they actually see the light of day, they’re like a lot of people in pharma; they have to align costs with revenue,” said Les Funtleyder, a health care investing analyst at Polliwogg in New York City. He added, “I hope Lilly gets a few new drugs and then they can hire more people.”

In fact, Lilly does plan to submit as many as three new diabetes drugs for regulatory approval this year and, if approved, those drugs could lead the company to hire 300 salespeople, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited a person familiar with the situation. Lilly has been trying to grow its diabetes, animal health and emerging markets' business units to counteract revenue it is losing from a string of patent expirations that began in 2010.

But the only certainties at this point are that Lilly will see two of its blockbuster drugs lose their U.S. patents in roughly the next year, which will sap $4.7 billion in annual sales as patients switch to cheaper generic versions of those drugs.

Losing patent protection will be antidepressant Cymbalta, Lilly’s best-seller, and the osteoporosis drug Evista.

Wall Street analysts still expect Lilly’s overall revenue to fall from $22.6 billion last year to as low as $20 billion in 2014. Lilly’s revenue already declined from an all-time high of $24.3 billion in 2011, after the patent expirations of its blockbuster cancer drug Gemzar in 2010 and its blockbuster antipsychotic Zyprexa in 2011.

“It is going to get a little ugly for Eli Lilly in this transition period,” said David Williamson, the health care analyst for the personal finance website Motley Fool. “If you believe in Eli Lilly’s pipeline, you shouldn’t be shaken by job cuts in the near term.”

In addition to diabetes, cancer is the other big category in which Lilly is trying to bring new drugs to market. Its leading experimental cancer drug candidate right now is ramucirumab, which it is studying as a treatment for gastric and breast cancer.

On April 10, Lilly also unveiled four early-stage drugs that it is studying as treatments for melanoma, lymphoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, gastric cancer, and cancers of the bile duct and liver.


  • Generic Olanzapine
    Generic Zyprexa (Olanzapine) still a cash cow Well, Lilly did make an astounding $70 billion to date on Zyprexa and sales off-patent are still at $2 billion year.Not a bad hunk of change.-Daniel Haszard Zyprexa patient who got diabetes from it's side effect

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.