Pharmaceuticals: Same end, entirely different means

Their headquarters stand less than two kilometres apart, on opposite sides of the river Rhine in the city of Basel in Switzerland.

But the strategies adopted by pharmaceutical groups Roche and Novartis could not be more different. They exemplify the growing divergence in the sector, one that has been intensified by the financial crisis.

Helped by strong cash flows from top-selling products, both companies have been able to finance substantial acquisitions designed to sustain high sales, profits and market capitalisation. Yet their approaches to achieving these common goals differ markedly.

Roche has recently completed the takeover of Genentech. It long held a majority stake in its US-based biotechnology partner but was forced to launch a hostile bid last year to buy out minorities. The deal has reinforced and recentralised the focus of the combined group on speciality care medicines and diagnostics.

Despite the recent success of Tamiflu, the antiviral drug now selling widely to treat pandemic flu, most of Roche's income comes from hospital-prescribed biological treatments such as Avastin, which has ever wider applications in cancer and has been relatively shielded from post-patent competition.

That has allowed the company to charge high prices and avoid the need for costly large primary care sales forces, often much criticised for their marketing tactics.

But while Roche was planning - though it is now re-thinking - a new headquarters in a skyscraper, Novartis is completing a campus-style home.

The scattered selection of low-rise buildings in widely varying styles symbolises its much more diversified approach to business.

Novartis sells primary care as well as speciality drugs. It has also extended itself beyond prescription-based, patent-protected medicines.

At the moment, it is in the process of acquiring Alcon, an eyecare company, adding to takeovers in recent years of Hexal - which made it the world's second largest generic drug company - and of Chiron, to build its portfolio in vaccines.

While Severin Schwan, who took charge of Roche last year, represents a new generation of recently-appointed pharmaceutical bosses drawn increasingly from law (in his case), finance and marketing, Novartis chief executive, Daniel Vasella, who was appointed more than a decade ago, is one of the few doctors still in charge.

The two men represent many of the extremes of the divergence in approaches of drug companies.

In the Novartis camp are GlaxoSmithKline, strong in over-the-counter drugs and generics; and Pfizer,broadening its activities with the acquisition this year of Wyeth, which will bolster its presence in vaccines and enable it to access the over-the-counter niche it had turned its back on only a few years before.

Sanofi-Aventis has also expanded into generics and animal health through Merial, buying out its joint venture partner Merck, which itself will strengthen its position in animal health by taking over Schering-Plough. Such diversification lowers overall margins, but smoothes cash flow and the uncertainty of developing drugs.

The "pure pharma" approach of Roche, on the other hand, is taken by a shrinking number of companies. This includes AstraZeneca, which has persistently rejected large-scale acquisitions since the purchase of the biologicals business MedImmune. Like Eli Lilly, which includes an animal health division, it labours under questions about its smaller scale, as it is over-shadowed by mega-mergers elsewhere.

There is undoubtedly pressure to consolidate. "The changes in the macro-environment have transformed everything," said Fred Hassan, head of Schering-Plough, earlier this year when explaining his agreement to the takeover by Merck. He argued that the financial crisis accelerated existing cost and pricing pressures.

Further deals may draw in companies including Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Biogen Idec and Elan (in which Johnson & Johnson recently bought a stake). Generic companies Ratiopharm and Actavis are up for sale.

The crisis has created a buyers' market for "big pharma", while many fledgling biotech companies have struggled to extend financing and been forced to seek outright purchasers rather than partners.

Three other trends mark the sector. The first is growing pressure from payers in the US and beyond, with greater scrutiny of pricing. That, combined with drug patent expiries and uncertainty over replacement, is driving talk of more innovative commercial and research models. The short-term consequence is cost cutting, such as Eli Lilly's recently announced 14 per cent headcount reduction by 2011.

A second common factor is geographical expansion. As the US market stagnates, most growth is coming from middle income countries, from China to Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa. That requires new thinking about pricing to reach large but poorer pools of patients, often without state or private healthcare cover.

Finally, as consultancies including AT Kearney and Roland Berger have highlighted, there is a shift away from central internal control of the drug development and distribution process towards external alliances and partnerships.

© The Financial Times Limited 2009. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation