We've got a bit of time before the next orgy of football tension at Wembley, so to keep us busy...... I'd be interested in hearing what people think about this potential takeover which has of course been all over the news recently. I work in this industry (not a great way to win friends and influence people), and I think the level of public debate has been very shallow and in some cases misleading. If it were almost any other company than Pfizer I would probably be fully behind a takeover. Some points to ponder (or ignore, it's dawning on me than many will find this stunningly tedious): - the whole 'innovative' (companies which 'discover' and sell new drugs) pharmaceutical industry has a broken business model, all companies are drastically cutting their workforces and trying to find new ways of getting more new products to market quicker - Astra Zeneca is in real trouble, they have cut plenty of jobs in this country off their own back, 90% of its 50k employees are not based in the UK and it's CEOs claims about potential future revenue are laughable - seriously he should be dumped on these grounds alone. - Pfizer's record with companies that it has taken over stinks - it essentially asset strips them very quickly. But it is a very effective operation. This may be a tax dodge, but the UK gets the tax revenue, which will be £billions So what do you think? In a global economy does the Government make the decision about who can own what company, or should that be up to the shareholders? Can there be such a thing as an industry which should be protected 'in the national interest'? Are MPs qualified to ask the right questions about this? Can Chukka Umunna get his face on TV any more? The floor is yours.
Pfizer is doing badly and has a large number of patents that are expiring, so that means even less income from licensing, etc. They do not have much coming through to replace these at the moment. Astra Zeneca is doing better than Pfizer despite shedding UK jobs. It has more active patents and new products nearer the end of the pipeline which will come on line quicker. Pfizer's only hope of seeming to be a stable company is to take over a company like Astra Zeneca that has active patents and more on the way (well, quicker than there own). It broadens their portfolio and also removes competition. This is not expansion for them, it is buying in order to stand still and not regress. Ultimately it is just a question of time before R&D would be assimilated into its US operation and production moved to cheaper alternatives than Western Europe. The alleged tax dodge is a bit of a red herring as it would only be a small, short term thing even if they achieved it.
I'm actually working at Pfizer in New York in a few weeks time as my company is sharing development of a new product with them. I'd contest the strength of Astra's pipeline (as with all pipelines in this industry a large chunk of it will fail before getting to market), but what do think of the Government involvement in this issue Eamon?
Surely SB in a free market as long as Pfizer meet all criteria then their takeover should go through. The government's posturing is mostly to do with the Euro elections and next years general election.
It seems to me that this government is in favour of the deal because it wants to move the UK towards being some kind of tax haven. Of more concern to me, though, is what you say about the innovative pharmaceutical industry having a broken business model. There is a national, and global, interest in ensuring that levels of R&D expenditure by drug companies is maintained or increased. Antibiotics are becoming less and less effective and I think I read that no new antibiotic drugs have been developed since the early seventies.
