IBJNews

Pressure rises as Lilly tries squeeze play

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Call it Lilly’s squeeze play.

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. is now in the predicament of watching revenue fall as its patents on older products expire, even as the company needs to spend more money on marketing and research to boost sales of new drugs.

Lilly hopes it can score a run by launching new products before its high level of spending gets it thrown out at first base.

But its margin for error is even smaller than Wall Street analysts expected, which bumped Lilly’s stock price down a notch late last week. Lilly expects its 2012 profits to range between $3.10 and $3.20 per share, compared with analysts’ estimates of $3.61 per share.

Sales of Zyprexa, Lilly’s best-selling drug that lost patent protection in October, are falling faster than expected in international markets. Analysts thought the drug would bring in $2.1 billion this year, but Lilly now expects $500 million less than that.

Analysts also thought Lilly would reduce its spending this year compared with 2011—chopping $300 million—but now the firm says that’s not to be. It needs to boost sales efforts on its existing products. And it has to keep pouring money into its drug pipeline, which currently has an unprecedented 66 molecules in human trials. Twelve of those are in Phase 3, the final testing stage before regulatory approval.

“We’ve successfully rebuilt our mid- to late-stage pipelines to position Lilly for growth post-2014,” Derica Rice, Lilly’s chief financial officer, said during a Jan. 5 conference call with analysts and investors. But, he added, “the growth in our Phase 3 pipeline will ... create upward pressure on R&D spend.”

Lilly’s bet is that it can get enough of those molecules approved as new products to offset its loss of Zyprexa sales, as well as sales of four other blockbusters that are seeing patents expire by 2013.

But doing that requires money, something Lilly will have less of over the next three years. That’s not to say the company can’t afford that; it’s just a question of how much it has to chop its profits—or its work force—to get it done.

Lilly executives have been adamant that the company’s revenue won’t fall below $20 billion (from more than $24 billion last year) and its profits won’t dip below $3 billion (compared with nearly $5 billion last year).

To help in that process, Lilly over the past two years eliminated 5,500 jobs and cut its expenses $1 billion. But Citbank analyst John Boris doesn’t see how Lilly can stay above its minimum revenue and profit goals without more cuts—$900 million of them, he estimates.

“Therefore, we expect LLY to implement some level of cost cutting by [year’s end],” wrote Boris, referring to Lilly by its ticker symbol, in a Jan. 6 note to investors. And because he doesn’t expect Lilly’s pipeline to produce enough new sales to replace expiring blockbusters, Boris said Lilly will have to acquire more companies to get its sales and profits growing after 2014.

But not every analyst agrees entirely. Barclays Capital analyst Tony Butler expects Lilly’s pipeline to produce annual sales ranging between $2.5 billion and $4.5 billion by as early as 2015. And by 2020, he said, Lilly’s new products could be racking up $14 billion each year.

“However,” Butler noted, “these pipeline assets [which include the heart drug evacetrapib and the rheumatoid arthritis drug LY3009104], would require a significant amount of continued R&D investment.”

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT