IBJNews

Lechleiter bets history will repeat for Lilly

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. is pouring more money than ever into its research and development pipeline, but Wall Street has been rewarding companies that cut such spending, according to a recent report by the Oliver Wyman consulting firm.

Wyman points to the massive drop in the payoff of R&D spending by pharmaceutical firms. Wyman’s report concludes that big pharma companies are getting 70 percent less in sales from their R&D spending than they were before 2004.

Lilly is an extreme but not uncommom example in Oliver Wyman’s analysis. In the 1996-2004 period, Lilly and its peers launched a bevy of new drugs. Five years after launch, Lilly posted sales of $500 million per year for every $1 billion it had spent on R&D. But from 2005 to 2010, fifth-year sales of Lilly drugs recorded just $25 million in annual sales for every $1 billion spent on R&D. Ouch.
 
“The current industry mindset for drug development has become mismatched with the realities of the marketplace,” wrote Oliver Wyman consulants Jeff Hewitt, David Campbell and Jerry Cacciotti in their December report.

They suggest there will still be successful pharma companies going forward, but that only those that change their mindsets will win. “Whether your company is among the successful depends on how much you are willing to move the R&D organization away from historical mindsets,” they wrote.

What is mystifying to investors and analysts is that Lilly CEO John Lechleiter appears to have a very old-school mindset about R&D, which has led him to keep ramping up R&D spending to nearly $5 billion per year—compared with less than $4 billion just three years ago.

In June, after Credit Suisse analyst Catherine Arnold asked Lechleiter about Lilly’s Plan B if its 66 drugs currently in human testing don’t produce the new sales Lilly expects, Lechleiter responded with a story from Lilly’s history, which he is sure will happen again.

“Many of us who worked at Lilly in 2000 remember exactly where we were in August, when we got a phone call that our Prozac patent had been overturned and that we stood to lose patent protection for Prozac in 2001, which is what happened, versus what we had anticipated to be 2003. That was sort of an ‘Aha!’ moment," he said. "At that point in time, none of the molecules that subsequently launched form ’01 to ’05 … none of those were out of Phase 3 [testing] yet. … In fact, that entire Phase 3 portfolio basically matured and came through and it’s generated since that time $42 billion in revenue.

“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this portfolio of molecules you’ve seen in our pipeline today is going to result in a number of very good products,” Lechleiter continued. “Will they all launch? No, they won’t. We’ll be disappointed in a few along the way. But we have the substrate. So I don’t spend a lot of time on a Plan B thought process. I’m on a Plan A thought process, which is implementing and executing the clinical development and the market preparation to launch these products. We’ve done it before. We are going to do it again.”

To be fair, Lilly under Lechleiter has implemented many of the “new mindset” things that Oliver Wyman suggests, such as the aggressive use of external researchers and funding sources to advance new experimental drugs. Lilly also has tried to tailor new drugs to genetic subcategories of patients.

Lilly calls these efforts “Reinventing Invention.”

But Lilly has not cut its R&D spending, as New York Pfizer Inc. has done, nor has it engineered a major merger, as Pfizer and New Jersey-based Merck & Co. Inc. did, respectively, with Wyeth and Schering-Plough Corp.

Instead, Lechleiter has bet that the “old mindset” is still relevant and, given time, will produce revenue, too.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  2. If you only knew....

  3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

  4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

  5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

ADVERTISEMENT