Bristol’s $2.1 Billion Medarex Deal -Brilliance or Desperation?

The Wall Street Journal's Health Blog briefly discusses this week's acquisition of Medarex by Bristol-Myers Squibb here.

The article describes BMS as "an old-line pharma company sitting on a lot of cash ($8.1 billion as of the end of the second quarter, according to Bristol’s latest earnings report this morning) and facing the generic competition for its blockbuster Plavix in a couple of years." On the other side of the aisle, you have Medarex, which is more of the 'New Kid on the Block...the hot upstart Biotech with promising cancer meds in late stage development and testing.

The reality is this....The potential rewards of this acquisition are promising...but the price of admission is high.
According to the WSJ article..."Bristol is paying a 90% premium to Medarex's Wednesday closing price,..."

And a quick glance at Google Finance shows that Medarex earned $10 Million last quarter...but lost almost $47 Million.

So while the potential is there...the question is...Did BMS pay too much for some potential?
Is this a strategically brilliant move? Or is it one that smacks of desperation?

Celgene's Revlimid shows promise as first-line treatment

Reuters reports that:
"Celgene said its multiple myeloma drug Revlimid significantly improved progression-free survival in patients undergoing initial treatment. The study's findings could boost the chance of expanding Revlimid's use outside the U.S., the company said. The product is approved only for patients who failed to respond to other therapies. "

Very nice development for Celgene......

Pharma Death Spiral

Sally Church has another interesting post on her blog where she asks what Pharma companies are in the proverbial 'Death Spiral'.
There is no doubt about it....the Pharma/Biotech industry is going through a very dynamic time.
The reality however is that while there are a number of Pharma and Biotech companies that are in serious trouble, there are an even greater number of companies that are doing well. These companies are poised to not only survive in this new marketplace, but will actually thrive.

There will be losers in the industry...and change is inevitable. But we can rest assured that the industry will continue to thrive. Unless someone invents a pill that totall eradicates illness in all humans, the Pharma/Biotech industry as a a whole will continue to be successful.

Senate panel gives 12-year exclusivity to biotech drugs

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions approved a 12-year data exclusivity clause for Bitoech companies before they have to share their drug-making data with generic drug manufacturers. You can read the article here.

There was a strong push by the Obama administration for a seven-year exclusivity limit.

According to the article:

"Biotech companies had pushed for a longer period of data exclusivity because, they say, it can take 15 years and as much as $1 billion to bring a new medicine to patients. They say data exclusivity to recoup money they’ve invested to make the product.

But supporters of a shorter time limit say long-term data exclusivity gives profitable biotech companies an unfair monopoly on the costly drugs. They say their ability to make biosimilars - the lower-cost generic versions of the biotech drugs - will lead to lower health-care costs."

But the 12 year exclusivity period is by no means a done deal...the measure still needs approval buy the full House and Senate.

Stem cells used to repair heart damage

I know....3 posts in one day....But this story is absolutely fascinating...and this is why I love the Pharma/Biotech industry.

Your Biggest Weakness - How to answer this Interview Question

Over on the Recruiter's Roundtable at Yahoo Hotjobs there was a discussion regarding how to field one of the most commonly asked Interview Questions, "What is your Biggest Weakness?"
You can view the whole discussion here.

I thought the advice from Delynn Senna, Executive Director from Robert Half International, was excellent. She replied:

"There are times when I ask job candidates this question. It's not that I want to nitpick or make people feel uncomfortable, but rather I want to see in which areas they feel they need to improve and what they are doing about it. In order to advance professionally, we all need to be able to honestly identify not just our strengths but also our weaknesses and how we can upgrade in these areas.

I recommend that job candidates be upfront during interviews. Don't say you have "no weaknesses" or "work too hard." Instead, tell hiring managers what you are working on improving and what you've done to build your skills in these areas.

One thing to keep in mind: If one of your weaknesses is directly related to the position and could potentially take you out of the running, the opportunity may not be right for you."

Bottom line - the reality is that you should be honest. If you really have a weakness that would inhibit your ability to do the job....then you really should not be interviewing for it.

New Biotech Firms' Discoveries Need More Protection

Just read an interesting article here.

The article states that...

"According to a new study commissioned by the National Venture Capital Association....Early-stage venture capital-backed biotech companies should be able to hold exclusive rights on their medical discoveries for at least 12 years because their investors expect 20% returns to repay them for the “extraordinary (investment) risk.”

However, the article goes on to say that:

"Legislators now formulating a new FDA approval process are assuming a 10% internal rate of return for venture capital fund investors."

The articles closes by saying:

"A shorter exclusivity period would make it difficult for venture capital backers of biotech companies to earn returns on these companies, according to the study by Joshua Lerner, Jacob H. Schiff Professor of Investment Banking at Harvard Business School; and Iain Cockburn, professor of finance and economics and Everett W. Lord Distinguished Faculty Scholar in Boston University's School of Management."

I think the article is spot on.
The reality is this....no one is going to assume risk without the promise of some reward!!
It is that simple.
However Congress seems to believe that Venture Capitalists are going to fall all over themselves to fund companies involved in risky drug projects and that these same Venture Capitalists will assume all of the financial risk if the drugs fail. Yet Congress assumes these same folks are going to do this without the promise of any real Return on Their Investment.

Sometimes this stuff just boggles the mind....