IBJNews

Financial pressures stretching Lilly

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. executives are performing their rendition of the 1970s hit “The Rubberband Man.”

But Wall Street isn’t cheering.

In a series of presentations, Lilly executives stretched themselves in four directions at once to convince investors and stock analysts that the company will bend but not break next year, and then snap back stronger than ever in 2015.

However, since Lilly executives started talking Thursday morning, the company’s stock has fallen more than 5 percent to below $48 a share—its lowest since the start of the year.

Lilly brass acknowledged that the Indianapolis-based drugmaker will have a harder-than-expected time meeting a goal of $20 billion in sales next year. That’s because not only will Lilly lose patent protection on its bestseller Cymbalta in December, but it also faces difficulties as the growth of emerging markets has slowed and inflationary policies in Japan have lowered the value of the yen, and therefore of Lilly’s growing sales there.

Chief Financial Officer Derica Rice promised that Lilly would still meet its goals, although it might do so in different ways.

One way Lilly executives have been touting since July is cuts to overhead and research and development expenses. Rice said Lilly’s selling, general and administrative expenses declined $400 million last year and will fall another $300 million to $500 million this year.

“R&D spending will decline in 2014 as the number of Phase 3 assets declines from 13 to eight,” Rice said. Even after 2014, he added, Lilly expects R&D spending to grow slower than revenue, as the company tries to do a better job of advancing only the most promising drugs into the large-scale Phase 3 trials that determine if a drug reaches the market.

But in the next breath, Lilly executives promised they wouldn’t cut R&D too much, for fear of repeating the mistake the company made in 2001, when it lost patent protection on its then-bestseller, Prozac. Lilly cut back on R&D spending then, which contributed to a drought of new drugs the company has suffered since 2005.

“I’m confident we’ll not see another large gap like the one in our rearview mirror,” Rice said.

For the past decade, Lilly executives have been touting the company’s pipeline as the thing that would save the company from a loss of revenue during these lean years. Lilly ramped up the number of drugs in human testing from about 10 a decade ago to roughly 60 now.

But Lilly has suffered a bevy of late-stage failures, leaving it with no drugs with sales potential anywhere close to the $6 billion that Cymbalta will generate this year or the $5 billion a year Zyprexa was producing until its major patents expired in late 2011.

Lilly’s pipeline has certainly had successes—just none that have hit it big in the market. That reality forced Lilly executives Thursday to declare victory based on submissions of drugs to regulators, rather than products on the market.

Lilly has submitted four drugs for market approval this year and analysts expect that some of those, and perhaps all of them, will be approved.

“Today, we’re seeing our strategy bear fruit,” said CEO John Lechleiter.

But that fruit won’t actually bear revenue until well after Cymbalta’s revenue declines precipitously in December when patients switch en masse to cheaper generic versions of the medicine.

That’s why Lilly is talking more than ever about cutting costs. And why investors have cut Lilly’s stock price.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • The blame game
    It is true that Lilly had a one-year 3.8% decline in its R&D spending in 2002. But that spending returned to growth in 2003, and has since risen at an average annual rate of 9.4%. So, blaming that one-time decline 11 years ago for the drought of new drugs the company has suffered since 2005 seems bizarre. Since the onset of that drought, Lilly has spent $33 billion in R&D, plus another $7 billion in acquisitions that have never returned a dime. It is also surprising that this excuse only surfaces now, while for years Lilly has kept boasting about its pipeline and how it would bring to market two drugs per year starting in 2013. Rather than blaming ancient history, Lilly's leadership should look instead at its deficit of competence for having turned the second most innovative company in the industry into one of its least productive ones despite robust R&D spending and an R&D organization that is still regarded as one of the most respected in the industry. If Lilly, as is now feared, must go through another round of layoffs, perhaps it should use the opportunity to put some of its leaders at the top of that list. That would be called accountability.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Aaron is my fav!

  2. Let's see... $25M construction cost, they get $7.5M back from federal taxpayers, they're exempt from business property tax and use tax so that's about $2.5M PER YEAR they don't have to pay, permitting fees are cut in half for such projects, IPL will give them $4K under an incentive program, and under IPL's VFIT they'll be selling the power to IPL at 20 cents / kwh, nearly triple what a gas plant gets, about $6M / year for the 150-acre combined farms, and all of which is passed on to IPL customers. No jobs will be created either other than an handful of installers for a few weeks. Now here's the fun part...the panels (from CHINA) only cost about $5M on Alibaba, so where's the rest of the $25M going? Are they marking up the price to drive up the federal rebate? Indy Airport Solar Partners II LLC is owned by local firms Johnson-Melloh Solutions and Telemon Corp. They'll gross $6M / year in triple-rate power revenue, get another $12M next year from taxpayers for this new farm, on top of the $12M they got from taxpayers this year for the first farm, and have only laid out about $10-12M in materials plus installation labor for both farms combined, and $500K / year in annual land lease for both farms (est.). Over 15 years, that's over $70M net profit on a $12M investment, all from our wallets. What a boondoggle. It's time to wise up and give Thorium Energy your serious consideration. See http://energyfromthorium.com to learn more.

  3. Markus, I don't think a $2 Billion dollar surplus qualifies as saying we are out of money. Privatization does work. The government should only do what private industry can't or won't. What is proven is that any time the government tries to do something it costs more, comes in late and usually is lower quality.

  4. Some of the licenses that were added during Daniels' administration, such as requiring waiter/waitresses to be licensed to serve alcohol, are simply a way to generate revenue. At $35/server every 3 years, the state is generating millions of dollars on the backs of people who really need/want to work.

  5. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

ADVERTISEMENT