Amgen – Biology vs. Chemistry

Amgen – Biology vs. Chemistry
By The original uploader was King of Hearts at English Wikipedia [Public domain], <a href="">via Wikimedia Commons</a>

June 22, 2016 – Excerpt from Q2 2016 letter to IMA’s clients

Purchase of Amgen: First we need to explain a peculiar difference between pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.  A simplistic explanation would point to the sciences they pursue – chemistry vs. biology.


Pharmaceutical companies work with chemical compounds (some of which are derived from plants).  Biotechnology companies rely on biology since they are trying to duplicate or change the functioning of living cells. Biotechnology firms rely heavily on advances in genetic research.

Choice Equities Fund March 2021 Performance Update

Choice Equities FundChoice Equities Fund generated a net return of 29.2% for the 1Q 2021 resulting in annualized returns of 31.7% per year since inception of January 2017. Q1 2021 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Choice Equities Fund, LP Overview Choice Equities Fund (“CEF” or the “Fund”) is an investment partnership that seeks to generate market-beating Read More

This difference in the fundamental building block of their research – living organism vs. chemical compound – has a profound impact on the economics of their respective businesses.  In theory, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies receive the same patent protection under US law.  They are granted 20 years of exclusivity, after which their compound becomes fair game to any competitor that can prove to the FDA that their copy is the same (bioequivalent) as the original (branded) drug.

Here is an example of what happens to a simple chemical drug after its patent expires:  Today a one-month supply of Pfizer’s Lipitor (branded drug) will cost a consumer $212.  However, a generic copy will cost only $10.50 a month.  Lipitor used to be the highest-grossing pharmaceutical – its sales in the US peaked in 2009 at $11 billion.  After its patent expired, sales dropped by 84% to $1.9 billion in 2015.

Generic chemical drugs are considered to be a perfect copies with the same active ingredients as the originals – a pharmacist is able to substitute Lipitor script with a generic at will (unless the doctor specifies no switch to a generic – some people may be allergic to an inactive ingredient in a generic, e.g. coloring).  As you a consumer you won’t even know or care which you receive (unless you’re the one paying for it).

Now enter biopharmaceuticals.  After patent exclusivity expires, a biotech firm’s drug also becomes fair game for others to make copies (they are called bio-similar).  However, biopharmaceuticals are based on living organisms, and the copy-maker has to prove that this is an equally efficacious copy by conducting clinical trials that may cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

The copy cannot be worse and – just as importantly – cannot be better than the original.  If it is better, then the firm may have to undertake even more extensive and far costlier clinical trials.

Unlike plain-vanilla generic drugs, bio-similars are not perfect copies, and thus they are treated by doctors and pharmacists as similar but different drugs.  Because their development costs are very high due to the need for clinical trials, they are only 15-20% cheaper than the drugs they are trying to replicate.  Also, pharmacists cannot arbitrarily substitute script of an original drug with a bio-similar drug.

Usually, when a bio-similar becomes available, existing patients continue to take the original drug and the bio-similar is introduced only to some new patients.  Therefore, patent expiration may lead to a deceleration of growth, maybe even a slow decline, but not a collapse of sales.

This chemistry vs. biology dynamic makes a portfolio of bio-pharmaceutical companies much more valuable than a portfolio of plain-vanilla pharmaceutical companies that have drugs with similar expirations.

Amgen is one of the largest biotechnology companies in the world.  Though some of its major drugs are rolling off of patent protection, for the aforementioned reasons the negative impact on overall sales will not be significant.  In addition, Amgen has over 30 drugs in various stages of development.  Amgen trades at about 12 times next-year earnings which will likely to grow at a high single or maybe even low double-digit rate.  It also pays a 2.5% dividend that it will likely raise in the future.

As with other pharmaceutical companies, there is a significant tailwind for Amgen, as aging baby boomers are consuming more and more drugs.  The company has as a net cash balance sheet (its cash reserves exceed its debt liability).

Over the next few months political discourse will reach a boiling point as we get closer to a very divisive presidential election.  Pharmaceutical companies will be demonized – we’ve seen it many times before.  However, cooler heads will prevail, since even politicians and their relatives get sick, and they want Amgen, Gilead Sciences, and Allergan to invest tens of billions in new drugs.  We look at the next few months as an opportunity to increase our positions in stocks we already own and take positions in new ones if see a politically driven sell-off.

It is important to note that we are taking smaller than usual positions in pharma stocks. Each of these companies derives a significant portion of its sales come from just a handful products.  Current depressed valuations in the pharmaceutical sector have given us an opportunity to take a basket approach (more stocks, smaller positions sizes) to this sector  – reducing the risk of a black swan hitting an individual company, without sacrificing overall returns.

Article by Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA – Contrarian Edge

Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA, is Chief Investment Officer at Investment Management Associates in Denver, Colo. He is the author of Active Value Investing (Wiley) and The Little Book of Sideways Markets (Wiley). His books were translated into eight languages. Forbes Magazine called him “The new Benjamin Graham”.

Previous article A Half-Million People Demand Disney CEO Leave Trump’s Business Advisory Council
Next article Facebook Inc In German Court Again Over Hate Speech
I was born and raised in Murmansk, Russia (the home for Russia’s northern navy fleet, think Tom Clancy’s Red October). I immigrated to the US from Russia in 1991 with all my family – my three brothers, my father, and my stepmother. (Here is a link to a more detailed story of how my family emigrated from Russia.) My professional career is easily described in one sentence: I invest, I educate, I write, and I could not dream of doing anything else. Here is a slightly more detailed curriculum vitae: I am Chief Investment Officer at Investment Management Associates, Inc (IMA), a value investment firm based in Denver, Colorado. After I received my graduate and undergraduate degrees in finance (cum laude, but who cares) from the University of Colorado at Denver, and finished my CFA designation (three years of my life that are a vague recollection at this point), I wanted to keep learning. I figured the best way to learn is to teach. At first I taught an undergraduate class at the University of Colorado at Denver and later a graduate investment class at the same university that I designed based on my day job. Currently I am on sabbatical from teaching for a while. I found that the university classroom was not big enough for me, so I started writing and, let’s be honest, I needed to let my genetically embedded Russian sarcasm out. I’ve written articles for the Financial Times, Barron’s, BusinessWeek, Christian Science Monitor, New York Post, Institutional Investor … and the list goes on. I was profiled in Barron’s, and have been interviewed by Value Investor Insight, [email protected], BusinessWeek, BNN, CNBC, and countless radio shows. Finally, my biggest achievement – well actually second biggest; I count quitting smoking in 1992 as the biggest – I’ve authored the Little Book of Sideways Markets (Wiley, 2010) and Active Value Investing (Wiley, 2007).

No posts to display