IBJNews

Eli Lilly's shares slip after it forecasts mixed profits in coming years

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Investors dumped stock in Eli Lilly and Co. this morning after the company issued a long-term forecast that suggested its profit could tumble after patents expire on several of its bestselling drugs.

Lilly shares fell as much as 4.9 percent, to $34.76 each,  before recovering partially in late-morning trading.

The Indianapolis-based drugmaker expects to post profit of more than $3 billion each year from 2012 to 2014, according to Chief Financial Officer Derica Rice. Those are the years in which Lilly’s blockbusters Zyprexa, Cymbalta, Gemzar, Humalog and Evista could face competition from cheaper generic drugs.

But profit this year is on pace to exceed $4.5 billion and could approach $5 billion.

Lilly spokesman Phil Johnson emphasized that the $3 billion figure is a “minimum threshold.”

Lilly said it expects its earnings per share to grow in the double-digit range through 2011. The drugmaker expects to earn $4.65 to $4.85 per share in 2010, excluding the impact of health care reform and other items. On average, analysts expect income of $4.74 per share, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters.

Lilly said it would launch two new drugs each year beginning in 2013. The company has more than 60 molecules in clinical development, including 25 in mid- and late-stage development.

But since the blockbusters that will lose patent protection make up more than half of Lilly’s current revenue, investors and analysts do not think Lilly’s pipeline can make up the losses.

“Although Lilly has a growing mid-stage pipeline, these assets remain several years away from the market, leaving the company in the difficult position of needing to heavily invest in its next wave of product opportunities at a time of significant erosion,” Chris Schott, a JPMorgan Securities analyst, wrote to clients today, according to Bloomberg News.

In August, Lilly debuted blood thinner Effient in the United States, the company's first new product launch since 2005.

Lilly's fastest-growing product is Alimta, which saw its sales climb 47 percent in the third quarter. Lilly said Thursday it plans to pursue additional indications for the cancer drug, either as monotherapy, or in combination with other oncolytics.

Earlier this year, the Indianapolis company said it would cut annual costs by $1 billion by 2011 by trimming 5,500 workers (13.5 percent of its work force) and producing new drugs faster. Today, Lilly said its U.S. sales force would be 25 percent smaller in 2010 than it was at the beginning of 2009.

Lilly CEO John Lechleiter opened the investor meeting with a presentation meant to convince investors that Lilly’s high-risk strategy is the right one to take.

“We want you to leave this meeting sharing our confidence in our future prospect,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Zyprexa litigation

    Eli Lilly sells a drug (Zyprexa) that can cause diabetes and then turn a profit on the drugs that treat the condition that they may have caused in the first place!

    Eli Lilly has made $38 billion on Zyprexa and it was way oversold and caused diabetes and in some cases sudden death.
    Eli Lilly has received a huge criminal fine over their Zyprexa cash cow,add it all up comes to $4.6 billion, in Zyprexa settlements,fines,litigation.

    Did you know that Lilly made $ billions last year on diabetic meds, Actos,Humulin and Byetta?

    They sell a drug that can cause diabetes and then turn a profit on the drugs that treat the condition that they may have caused in the first place!

    ----
    Daniel Haszard Zyprexa whistle-blower

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT