Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



10-Bagger Returns Without R&D

Don't let it get away!

Keep track of the stocks that matter to you.

Help yourself with the Fool's FREE and easy new watchlist service today.

My favorite drug company, Valeant Pharmaceutical (NYSE: VRX  ) , has returned 72% annually over the past five years. That's more than three times the average return of the industry. And it's not the result of a blockbuster drug developed by the company. In fact, Valeant barely does any investment research and development.

The traditional approach: Big Pharma
Numerous academic studies have shown that investments in research and development generate high-returns. And the traditional model in pharmaceuticals has been to spend heavily to research, develop, and gain regulatory approval for new compounds. Obviously, not every research dollar generates a return, but by maintaining a portfolio of research projects, hopefully a few big winners will more than justify the cost of the total portfolio. Big Pharma companies such as Pfizer (NYSE: PFE  ) and Merck (NYSE: MRK  ) tend to follow this approach -- spending lots on research each year. Last year, Pfizer spent $7 billion (12.5% of revenue) on research. Merck spent nearly $8 billion (17% of revenue).

So what's the problem with this approach? Unfortunately, actually developing a drug is very difficult and expensive. And the average rate of return on research spending isn't very high -- 7.2% based on a study by Deloitte. That rate of return barely justifies the investment, and it's probably one of the many reasons we've seen large pharma companies increasingly rely on acquisitions to bolster their product pipelines.

The radical approach: Valeant
Valeant does invest in research, but only a relatively small amount. According to management, the returns on investing in research simply aren't high enough in most cases. Management believes that it can get a better return by purchasing proven drugs or companies with existing product portfolio. It's a lot less risky, and the returns, especially if acquisitions are made judiciously, are a lot higher than investing in drug development. Internally, Valeant targets a cash-on-cash return of 20% on its acquisitions. And generally, the company has achieved that target.

Obviously, some people -- scientists and researchers, especially -- find this approach abhorrent. But, it's worked out very well for shareholders. Since CEO Michael Pearson joined the company five years ago, the stock is up 10-fold.

Foolish bottom line
Conventional methods are bound to yield mediocre results. Valeant's acquisition-based strategy doesn't conform to industry norms -- it's actually a fairly radical departure. But its unconventional approach has yielded outstanding results.

Keeping an eye on cancer treatments
The best way to play the biotech space is to find companies that shun the status quo and instead discover revolutionary, groundbreaking technologies. In The Motley Fool's brand-new free report "2 Game-Changing Biotechs Revolutionizing the Way We Treat Cancer," find out about a new technology that big pharma is endorsing through partnerships, and the two companies that are set to profit from this emerging drug class. Click here to get your copy today.

Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (6)

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.

  • Report this Comment On November 24, 2013, at 12:37 PM, Really wrote:

    This is so misleading. As a scientist - it is obvious that someone had to do the original research to create those portfolios. The question is whether the acquisition costs of the portfolios are higher than the original research costs. If they are - then the companies are not saving money - they are just extremely bad at managing innovation. If it is less, then they are taking advantage of the situation - not necessarily a negative. But just wait until China and India come into full swing with research. The US will be left behind because of shortsighteness. Right now they are the ones that badly manage innovation. Who manages it well wins.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2740892, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/30/2016 6:34:46 PM

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 Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,308.15 164.70 0.91%
S&P 500 2,168.27 17.14 0.80%
NASD 5,312.00 42.85 0.81%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

9/30/2016 4:01 PM
VRX $24.55 Down -0.50 -2.00%
Valeant Pharmaceut… CAPS Rating: ***
MRK $62.41 Up +0.50 +0.81%
Merck and Co. CAPS Rating: ****
PFE $33.87 Up +0.55 +1.65%
Pfizer CAPS Rating: ****