Under the agreement, MacKenzie Bezos, 49, will receive approximately 19.7 million Amazon.com shares, giving her a four percent stake in the company valued at $38.3 billion, and landing her at 22nd on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, the news service said, although her former husband will remain at the top of the list.
Read story: http://u.afp.com/JexM
"But, alas! husbands, as well as their helpmates, are often only overgrown children; nay, thanks to early debauchery, scarcely men in their outward form—and if the blind lead the blind, one need not come from heaven to tell us the consequence."
--from "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" By Mary Wollstonecraft
William Shakespeare
"Love all, trust a few,
Do wrong to none: be able for thine enemy
Rather in power than use ; and keep thy friend
Under thy own life's key. Be checked for silence,
But never taxed for speech. What Heaven more will
That thee may furnish , and my prayers pluck down,
Fall on thy head!"
--Countess Rossillion from "All's Well That End's Well" (Act 1, Scene 1)
紐約時報DealBook:
In a report released Monday Credit Suisse's Catherine Arnold wrote that Wyeth is ripe, and troubled Pfizer should do the plucking -- even at the tune of $90 billion.
Go to Article from The Deal.com» 如下
Go to Article from The Deal.com» 如下
helpmate
ˈhɛlpmeɪt/
pluck
pluck (MUSIC)
verb [I or T] (US
to pull and then release the strings of a musical instrument with your finger to play notes:
He sat on the bed, idly plucking (at) the strings of his guitar.
verb [I or T] (
to pull and then release the strings of a musical instrument with your finger to play notes:
He sat on the bed, idly plucking (at) the strings of his guitar.
tune (AMOUNT)
noun
to the tune of to the stated amount:
The City Council had financed the new building to the tune of over 4 million pounds.
noun
to the tune of to the stated amount:
The City Council had financed the new building to the tune of over 4 million pounds.
Should Pfizer buy Wyeth?
by Alex Lash
Updated 09:16 AM EST, Aug-22-2007
 |
Arnold saw a $69 per share takeout price for Wyeth, which would push the total outlay into the $90 billion range. But why Pfizer? The main reason is Wyeth's biologics business, Arnold said. Pfizer and other big pharmas were skeptical and took a pass on the biotech business in the past decade, only to watch drugs such as Genentech Inc.'s Avastin, Biogen Idec Inc.'s Rituxan and Genzyme Corp.'s portfolio of enzyme-replacement drugs become some of the industry's most lucrative offerings. Meanwhile, the big pharmas have floundered in getting their own drugs to market. The late scramble to get into biologics is highlighted by the fierce bidding for MedImmune Inc., which AstraZeneca plc snapped up earlier this year for $15 billion.
Wyeth has two billion-dollar biotech drugs, Enbrel for several autoimmune disorders and Prevnar, a children's vaccine to prevent bacterial infection. On the nonbiotech side, it also has a $4 billion a year depression drug Effexor that would help Pfizer offset the 2006 loss of Zoloft to generics, though Effexor's patent could also expire in a few years.
Because of the lack of overlap, Arnold believes the Pfizer-Wyeth combination would present less antitrust risk than other big pharma tie-ups.
She prophesies other merits — cost efficiencies, a boost to Pfizer's cash flow — but her report begs the question: Doesn't Pfizer have enough to worry about? That includes more than 10,000 layoffs the past two years, the imminent patent expiration of the $13 billion a year cholesterol drug Lipitor and the late-stage failure of its expected replacement, torcetrapib, and the drive to cut billions of dollars in spending.
Arnold writes that at $69 per share — her fair-market value — Pfizer would bear a heavy burden to break even. To ease the pain of post-merger cost cutting, it would probably have to pony up a lot of cash, which raises another caveat: Any deal that requires a lot of debt — Arnold uses an example of Pfizer raising $30 billion in new debt to boost the cash portion of the deal — will bump up against the new reality of tighter credit. No one sees the credit crunch scuttling a major pharma acquisition, but borrowing will certainly be more expensive.
Pfizer does need to do something. Of the eight major U.S.-based drug companies, Credit Suisse estimates only Pfizer will have a negative growth rate through 2011.
The firm last year sold off its consumer-products division to Johnson & Johnson for $16.6 billion and is likely to divest more, including perhaps its animal health division. Even with the divestitures, Pfizer needs more drugs to keep its pipeline flowing.
But lower-risk deals, such as its April collaboration with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., seem more likely than major acquisitions. Pfizer paid Bristol-Myers Squibb $250 million up front and will pay 60% of development costs for the right to share profits on the late-stage anticoagulant apixaban.
If it reaches market, Pfizer could pay $750 million more in milestones.
Pfizer's former CEO, Hank McKinnell, began the cost cutting three years ago, announcing the goal of $4 billion saved annually by 2008, the year of McKinnell's retirement. He didn't last that long. General counsel Jeffrey Kindler took over in mid-2006 and announced deeper cuts and layoffs.
Seeing that his predecessor didn't move fast enough, it would be a surprise indeed if Kindler approves what could be Pfizer's biggest cost ever.
" type="hidden">Beset by cost cutting, layoffs and high-profile drug failures, what's a big pharma to do? How about spend $90 billion to take out a competitor?
That's what a Wall Street drug industry analyst recommends for Pfizer Inc., the troubled, top-heavy drug giant in the midst of a drastic restructuring from its executive suite to its far-flung labs and sales offices. In a report released Monday, Aug. 20, Credit Suisse Group analyst Catherine Arnold wrote that Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. is ripe and Pfizer should do the plucking.
Wyeth's stock is down $16.64, or 27%, from a late-June high of $62.20 after a series of pipeline setbacks, including the rejection of two drugs this month by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Even with its shares in decline, Wyeth has a market capitalization of more than $60 billion and has produced $21 billion in revenue the past 12 months.
Arnold saw a $69 per share takeout price for Wyeth, which would push the total outlay into the $90 billion range. But why Pfizer? The main reason is Wyeth's biologics business, Arnold said. Pfizer and other big pharmas were skeptical and took a pass on the biotech business in the past decade, only to watch drugs such as Genentech Inc.'s Avastin, Biogen Idec Inc.'s Rituxan and Genzyme Corp.'s portfolio of enzyme-replacement drugs become some of the industry's most lucrative offerings. Meanwhile, the big pharmas have floundered in getting their own drugs to market. The late scramble to get into biologics is highlighted by the fierce bidding for MedImmune Inc., which AstraZeneca plc snapped up earlier this year for $15 billion.
Wyeth has two billion-dollar biotech drugs, Enbrel for several autoimmune disorders and Prevnar, a children's vaccine to prevent bacterial infection. On the nonbiotech side, it also has a $4 billion a year depression drug Effexor that would help Pfizer offset the 2006 loss of Zoloft to generics, though Effexor's patent could also expire in a few years.
Because of the lack of overlap, Arnold believes the Pfizer-Wyeth combination would present less antitrust risk than other big pharma tie-ups.
She prophesies other merits — cost efficiencies, a boost to Pfizer's cash flow — but her report begs the question: Doesn't Pfizer have enough to worry about? That includes more than 10,000 layoffs the past two years, the imminent patent expiration of the $13 billion a year cholesterol drug Lipitor and the late-stage failure of its expected replacement, torcetrapib, and the drive to cut billions of dollars in spending.
Arnold writes that at $69 per share — her fair-market value — Pfizer would bear a heavy burden to break even. To ease the pain of post-merger cost cutting, it would probably have to pony up a lot of cash, which raises another caveat: Any deal that requires a lot of debt — Arnold uses an example of Pfizer raising $30 billion in new debt to boost the cash portion of the deal — will bump up against the new reality of tighter credit. No one sees the credit crunch scuttling a major pharma acquisition, but borrowing will certainly be more expensive.
Pfizer does need to do something. Of the eight major U.S.-based drug companies, Credit Suisse estimates only Pfizer will have a negative growth rate through 2011.
The firm last year sold off its consumer-products division to Johnson & Johnson for $16.6 billion and is likely to divest more, including perhaps its animal health division. Even with the divestitures, Pfizer needs more drugs to keep its pipeline flowing.
But lower-risk deals, such as its April collaboration with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., seem more likely than major acquisitions. Pfizer paid Bristol-Myers Squibb $250 million up front and will pay 60% of development costs for the right to share profits on the late-stage anticoagulant apixaban.
If it reaches market, Pfizer could pay $750 million more in milestones.
Pfizer's former CEO, Hank McKinnell, began the cost cutting three years ago, announcing the goal of $4 billion saved annually by 2008, the year of McKinnell's retirement. He didn't last that long. General counsel Jeffrey Kindler took over in mid-2006 and announced deeper cuts and layoffs.
Seeing that his predecessor didn't move fast enough, it would be a surprise indeed if Kindler approves what could be Pfizer's biggest cost ever.
沒有留言:
張貼留言