Sales Slow Down for Bristol-Myers

Recs

2

Losing patent protection and facing generic competition can be disastrous to sales and earnings if a pharmaceutical company doesn't have a way to drive revenue growth. That's why big pharmas will often do anything legally possible to protect patents and stave off generic competition. Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) this year faced the prospect of generic competition for Plavix, its top-selling blood thinner drug, but stopped the generic sales, at least temporarily, as a case drags through court.

Unfortunately for Bristol-Myers, the few months that generics flooded the market had a deleterious effect on Plavix sales, and the company used this as an excuse for its bad third quarter. So let's see if Plavix really was responsible for the mediocre quarter.

Bristol-Myers blamed generic Plavix for losing $525 million to $600 million in revenue, a 13% drop in total revenue year over year to $4.2 billion. There were also the decreased earnings, down to $340 million, or $0.17 per share, compared with the $960 million it earned in the year-ago quarter.

Even if Plavix had not faced generic competition, revenues for the quarter would have been flat at best compared with the $4.8 billion Bristol-Myers reported in 2005's third quarter. This is because the company's other top- selling products of 2005 aren't exactly growing sales rapidly, either:

Q3 Sales (In Millions)

Year-Over-Year Growth

Pravachol

$192

(64)%

Avapro

$277

10%

Abilify

$313

20%

Enfamil

$246

7%



Bristol-Myers raised its full-year guidance for earnings per share under generally accepted accounting principles to $0.97 to $1.02, but this would still be down about one-third from the $1.52 a share the company earned for 2005.

Considering the decreased sales from Plavix, this level of earnings is understandable, but it doesn't necessarily make Bristol-Myers a more enticing investment, especially with what's happening in its senior ranks and the fact that the Plavix patent might be declared null and void.

Want some new stock ideas? Learn more about what CAPS players -- now 11,500 strong -- think of the company you're interested in.

Fool contributor Brian Lawler does not own shares of any company mentioned in this article. The Fool has a disclosure policy.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

Be the first one to comment on this article.

Compare Brokers

TD AMERITRADE
more info
ShareBuilder
more info
Power E*Trade

more info
Scottrade
more info
Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 516803, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 3/20/2010 1:25:33 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 4 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 10,741.98 -37.19 -0.35%
S&P 500 1,159.90 -5.92 -0.51%
NASD 2,374.41 -16.87 -0.71%

Related Tickers

3/19/2010 4:01 PM
BMY $26.01 Down -0.06 -0.23%
Bristol-Myers Squi… CAPS Rating: ****

Community: Investing Wiki

Term Of The Hour

Planned obsolescence: Planned obsolesence. Certain products can be produced in such quantities in modern plants that they would saturate the market forcing the plant to shutdown for extended periods. To avoid this problem, some products are designed to be look old or wear out encouraging the user to replace the product with new. Typical examples include clothing, shoes, automobiles, personal computers, microprocessors,…

Want to learn more or edit this definition?
Click here to read more!