IBJNews

Lilly braces for decline in Europe

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Austerity and upheaval in Europe have not hurt Eli Lilly and Co.’s $4 billion-a-year drug business there, but the company is moving forward with plans to survive a coming swoon anyway.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker reported July 25 that its European sales rose 3 percent during the three months ended June 30, excluding the loss of sales for Zyprexa, Lilly’s former blockbuster which saw its European patents expire last fall.

Prices for Lilly’s products fell 3 percent in the quarter in Europe, where most drug prices are set by government-run health plans. Governments in Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain all have had to enact spending reductions to deal with massive debt costs even as their economic growth has stagnated or declined. The government pullback has further exacerbated economic growth, and many say Europe has fallen back into recession.

“Historically, we've experienced a 1-percent to 2-percent price decline in Europe, so this 3-percent decline confirms that we've not seen significant new austerity measures that impact our products,” said Ilissa Rassner, Lilly’s director of investor relations, during a July 25 conference call with investors. She added that the private wholesalers Lilly uses to distribute its drugs have not fallen behind in paying their bills.

Even so, officials still see dark clouds over the European market. Consumers there account for 20 percent of Lilly’s global drugs sales, and cash-strapped governments will make it more difficult for the company to get favorable pricing and access to drug formularies, said Chief Financial Officer Derica Rice. A plethora of cheap, generic drugs also will take a toll on Lilly.

“While Europe will continue to be an important market for Lilly, we expect it to decline in value, driven by the difficult macroeconomic environment, faster generic erosion than in the past, and excessive hurdles for reimbursement and access of new products,” Rice told investors during the July 25 conference call.

In response, Lilly intends to reduce its number of locations and costs to operate in Europe.

“Specifically, we're simplifying the organization from 12 to five geographic hubs, giving us critical mass and delivering efficiencies across markets. In addition, we'll organize marketing medical, and other commercial support functions into pan-European therapeutic communities,” Rice said. “These changes will create a more focused organization, one able to respond effectively to customer needs.”

Rice declined to quantify how much Lilly could save with these changes, other than to say they will produce “substantial savings in the coming years.” However, Rice delighted analysts by saying that Lilly would reduce its worldwide selling, general and administrative expenses to no more than 30 percent in the few years after 2014.

Overhead expenses have been running at nearly 34 percent of revenue recently as Lilly deals with declining revenue from Zyprexa at the same time it has ramped up marketing efforts to generate new sales. That strategy has worked better than many Wall Street analysts expected. Lilly’s second quarter earnings per share were six cents higher than analysts predicted, and the company raised its full-year profit forecast by 10 cents to 15 cents per share.

In response, most analysts raised their long-term profit forecasts for Lilly, but some wondered whether the cost cuts will actually materialize—especially if Lilly fails to launch new products before then.

“We believe that cutting costs will be easier than growing revenues, and we remain cautious about revenue growth beyond 2014,” Alex Arfaei, a drug analyst at BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a July 27 research note.

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. 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...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT