9 Out Of 10 Big Pharma Companies Spent More On Marketing Than On R&D
February 12, 2015 7:00pm by Barry Ritholtz
This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers Please see disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/blog-disclosures/
What's been said:
Discussions found on the web:Posted Under
Previous Post
Houses Keep Getting Bigger
Thank you for mentioning this situation. About 4 years ago, I heard a study evaluating the ROI for R&D among the top 10 pharma companies world-wide and I believe only Novartis had a positive ROI from R&D.
While the purpose of the chart is not to compare the companies, but to match marketing vs. R&D expenses incurred by each; nevertheless it should be noted that there is a significant lack of comparability, as the amount of consumer products versus ethical (prescription) drugs business, by each company, varies tremendously and some may not have both types in their portfolio.
For example, J&J does a very significant consumer business while Roche does mostly ethical products.
Another less significant factor to consider when interpreting the chart, but still worth mentioning is that pharma companies “window dress” their results by maximizing the R&D expenditures. Many expenses that the typical investor, or common senses dictates, should not be consider R&D are thrown in that caption of the Income statement to show the larger possible amount of R&D and the annual growth of it. Many companies throw 100% the expenses incurred by the Quality Control Department into R&D to inflate it, when QC expenses are generally incurred to control the quality of the production and handling of all products produced. Both new and old. The motivation is two-fold – 1) to show how much they do to create new products and 2) how costly to discover new products is to justify their horrendous prices. Auditing companies are generally, very accommodative about this.
There is an elegant solution to this particular problem in health care: Convert Pharmaceutical companies to non-profit.
From personal knowledge I can attest that researchers, given decent salaries, and great labs, will produce the same quality of R&D, indifferent to profits.
Which is supposed to be the primary function of a drug company: original and improved medications that will benefit society.
Shareholders can be bought out, on a decent pro-rated basis using enterprise value. Think ethically going private.
The losers? Employees relying on stock appreciation for their wealth, i.e. senior management.
I know, never going to happen…
Not sure about making pharmaceutical companies non-profit will help or not. The most profitable hospitals happen to be non-profit. Where I am from, the local non-profit hospitals make enough money to expand and build huge complexes and pay massive salaries to administrators. I’m sure that they don’t work out the best deals with their suppliers either. I believe that there was a Time article referencing some of this too (Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us).
Anyways, if non-profits can be better regulated to control salaries/bonuses, costs, and limit advertising, maybe this would be the best way to go. I agree with you that R&D likely will not change.
It should be noted that a substantial part of drug research is conducted at academic institutions and paid for by your tax dollars. Drug companies have moved further and further down the line of new drug development, relying on their ability to outgun and outmaneuver taxpayer funded research institutions and harvest the profits from public research. To add injury to insult they then patent products and gauge consumers who want to benefit from these taxpayer funded discoveries. There is no reason to believe that the for-profit sector can do the last few steps to the pill-pressing machine any better than the public sector. So lets make it he law that any patent that is in any way benefitting from public research findings are banned from being used in the for-profit sector. If they want to eat our cake they can make it themselves.
In defence of JNJ, R&D won’t sell many Q-Tips.
Have a swell weekend.
Maybe J&J’s DePuy Orthopaedics Division could, at a minimum, implement a register for recording which patients received their metal on metal artificial hips.
That’s not ‘R&D’ either:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-02/j-j-s-pinnacle-hips-face-first-trial-on-poisoned-patients