SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TideGlider who wrote (75272)3/15/2002 12:10:56 AM
From: AD  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 122087
 
THE BIOTECH BEAT -- A Shock to Lilly's System?


Thursday March 7, 11:13 am Eastern Time
BusinessWeek Online

Daily Briefing: THE BIOTECH BEAT

By David Shook

With the first available treatment for sepsis, which kills 215,000 people annually in the U.S., Eli Lilly was supposed to have a blockbuster on its hands. Analysts who projected 2002 sales of up to $475 million for the new drug, Xigris, figured it would help Lilly make up for sales lost to generic-drug makers when Prozac went off patent in 2001. Instead, on Mar. 4, Indianapolis-based Lilly (NYSE:LLY - news) disclosed that Xigris' initial sales aren't nearly as robust as analysts expected -- a mere $14 million in the first quarter.
ADVERTISEMENT



The stock barely budged following the announcement, remaining around $78 -- about where it was trading a year ago. But investors might want to think twice before shrugging off the disappointing news about Xigris.

PREMIUM PRICE. Lilly's stock is already one of the more expensive in the sector, and Xigris is an integral part of the company's growth strategy. True, Lilly has several other drugs that should help to make up for the loss of Prozac's $2.2 billion in annual sales, and Xigris, at best, was projected to contribute just a small percentage of total 2002 sales [estimated at $11.5 billion]. But Lilly has a forward price-earnings ratio of 28, and any continuing weakness in Xigris sales is likely to put pressure on the shares.

Xigris attracted attention on Wall Street because there's no comparable treatment for sepsis, also known as septic shock. The often lethal condition, which is triggered by bacterial infections, is marked by acute and total organ failure. Inflammation sets in. The lungs and kidneys can shut down. Blood pressure and body temperature may both drop.

With no competition, analysts predicted that Xigris could easily become a star capable of generating more than $1 billion annually within a few years.

IDENTITY CRISIS? That's if hospitals and trauma centers embrace the drug. So far, that hasn't been the case. Based on Xigris' cost and the revenues it has produced thus far, an estimated 2,100 patients have been given the drug since Jan. 1. ``Some challenges have affected the initial uptake,'' Lilly Chief Financial Officer Charles E. Golden explained in the Mar. 4 statement. The company says hospitals are still figuring out the most appropriate way to use the drug, which situations and patients it is suited for, and how to pay for it.

Xigris, which is delivered intravenously, costs an average of $6,800 per treatment. Stock analysts point out that the drug has one of the higher profit margins in the business. But cash-strapped hospitals are worried that it could break their emergency-room budgets. ``The drug is perceived as expensive, although I'd hesitate to call a life-saving drug expensive,'' says Ed Saltzman, president of Defined Health, a drug-industry consulting firm in Millburn, N.J.

Another obstacle to Xigris' widespread adoption is that it can be hard to identify candidates for treatment. The drug is intended for patients at a high risk of death from severe sepsis. Some physicians use it only if two or more organs fail, others prefer different criteria. ``It's not always easy to tell when a patient is at an extraordinarily high risk of death from sepsis,'' explains Saltzman. That's when Xigris' high cost may become an issue, he says, adding: ``There may be some subtle pressure on physicians from the hospitals as to when this drug should be used.''

``BOUTIQUE DRUG.'' The biggest limitation on sales, however, is probably the drug's efficacy. In clinical studies, 25% of patients given Xigris died from severe sepsis, vs. 31% of those given a placebo. Statistically, that's a very significant benefit -- a 20% relative reduction in the death rate. But in absolute terms, it represents only a 6% decrease, which may not translate into big sales. ``Overall, my suspicion is that Xigris will be a boutique drug, not a real slam dunk,'' says Dr. Steven Weisholtz, chief of infectious disease treatment at Englewood Hospital & Medical Center in Englewood, N.J.

While some analysts have tempered their forecasts, Dr. Mark Effron, a medical director at Lilly, remains confident that Xigris will emerge as a significant advance in the treatment of sepsis as emergency rooms embrace it over time. In the near term, however, ``our Xigris sales forecast appears to have been too optimistic,'' Banc of America Securities analyst Leonard Yaffe wrote in a Mar. 5 note. While maintaining a strong buy on Lilly, he lowered his 2002 sales estimates for the drug from $445 million to $245 million, and from $700 million next year to $535 million for 2003. Yaffe admits, however, that with Lilly trading at 28 times estimated earnings for 2002 and 23 times estimated profits in 2003, the stock is at a premium to its peers.

ABN Amro analyst Girish Tyagi says he remains comfortable with his estimate of $220 million in Xigris sales this year, a figure he sees reaching $450 million in 2003. ``But at this point, who knows if the drug will ever cross $500 million in sales?'' he says. ``Given the performance so far, it's debatable.''

FULL PIPELINE. Many analysts continue to believe that Xigris could be a late-blooming hit and have lowered neither their sales projections for the drug nor their ratings on Lilly. Even without Xigris, Lilly has a rich pipeline and is considered one of Big Pharma's better-positioned companies. Its upcoming drugs include Forteo for osteoporosis, Gemzar for cancer, an inhaled insulin product, and a drug for erectile dysfunction that's intended to compete against Pfizer's Viagra.

If Xigris fails to match expectation, it would likely put pressure on Lilly's stock, even as the company scrambles to replace the enormous sales lost because of Prozac going off patent, a figure that amounted to 22% of pharmaceutical revenues in 2000. But Xigris may not be Lilly's next big winner. And without a major hit, shareholders could take a short-term hit themselves.



To: TideGlider who wrote (75272)3/15/2002 12:12:21 AM
From: AD  Respond to of 122087
 
-- Before You Dive Back into Stocks...

Daily Briefing: STREET WISE

By Eric Wahlgren

Investors on the verge of dialing up their brokers to buy stocks after the recent rally might want to fight the urge. Although the market's are encouraging, now may not be the ideal time to jump back in, at least not in a big way. Market strategists are predicting more pain before there's much gain.




The early March rally, which has pushed the Dow Jones industrials up 5%, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index up 5%, and the Nasdaq Composite up 9%, isn't sustainable, they argue. The economy, corporate profits, investor sentiment, and other key factors are going to have to improve dramatically for the market to gain ground in 2002 [see BW Online, 3/6/02, ``It's Still Too Early to Celebrate''].

``I'm not saying that Nirvana isn't going to be upon us at the end of the year,'' says Bernie Schaeffer, chairman and chief executive of Schaeffer's Investment Research, a Cincinnati market research firm. ``I'm just saying that a lot of things are going to have to fall into place for it to happen.''

ON THE MEND? One of those things, naturally, is for the economy to get better. When it's chugging ahead again, consumers and companies will buy more Ford Expeditions and Cisco network routers, corporate profits will likely go up, and that should push stocks higher.

One recent sign that the economy may be on the mend was a Mar. 1 reading of the nation's manufacturing activity in February, which showed that the sector finally expanded for the first time in 18 months. But don't be fooled by the hype, says David Gitlitz, chief economist at Trend Macrolytics in Parsippany, N.J., another market research firm. After manufacturers spent months shedding excess inventory, it's hardly surprising that a subdued level of business activity would show up as an expansion, he says in a Mar. 5 note to investors.

``Nothing in this data as yet confirms anything more than the potentially ephemeral uptick that would be expected following the unprecedented inventory liquidation of recent quarters,'' says Gitlitz. A true recovery is really a ways off, adds Kevin McClintock, chief strategist and chief investment officer of David L. Babson & Co., a Massachusetts investment advisory firm. ``What we are seeing right now is a short-term inventory replacement,'' McClintock says. ``It will be long term when demand really picks up.''

``STOCKS AREN'T CHEAP.'' The problem is, market watchers say, stocks have already built into their prices a best-case scenario for a speedy economic recovery, but a more gradual comeback seems likelier. Companies in the S&P 500 are trading on average at nearly 22 times their 12-month forward earnings, compared with 17 times before the late 1990s' boom. And companies in the tech-stuffed Nasdaq are trading at 44 times 12-month forward earnings. ``Stocks aren't cheap,'' Jim Stanton, editor of the Low-Risk Strategy newsletter, says simply.

To justify current valuations, Stanton argues, earnings over the next two quarters would have to increase sequentially by 20% to 30%. Those chances are slim, given the economy is unlikely to blast off. First-quarter profits will probably be 11% lower than in 2001, says earnings-tracking service First Call/Thomson Financial. In the second quarter, they're expected to increase a meager 6%. ``For the market to keep going, earnings would really have to jump dramatically,'' Stanton says. ``I just don't think the market has that in it.''

What's more, future corporate earnings also have to be high quality for the market to make serious headway, market observers say. That's because the accounting scandal at collapsed energy trader Enron has already spooked a lot of investors about the potential for more unwelcome surprises. McClintock estimates that 10% to 25% of S&P 500 earnings could be low quality or potentially subject to revision -- due to aggressive accounting practices or other problems. ``Some earnings could evaporate,'' he says.

LOTS OF IFS. McClintock isn't saying more Enrons are waiting to happen. But at the very least, increased skepticism about earnings could tame buying impulses, he says, and thus hobble any market rally attempts.

For stocks to make a big move this year, a series of events would have to take place, says Schaeffer. The recovery would have to be real and would have to translate into higher corporate profits. It would help immensely if no other huge accounting blow-ups happen. And investors would have to be sufficiently impressed with companies' performance to assign valuations higher than the historically steep price tags that stocks are already carrying.

``It's almost like a chain of events has to fall into place to have the market respond more than it has already responded,'' says Schaeffer. It's possible, but not probable, he adds. Schaeffer, for one, is betting on another down year, with the Dow at 9,000 at yearend.

MARKET GOOSERS. McClintock, meanwhile, is expecting gains in 2002, but only in the single digits for the broad stock indexes. He expects the best returns to come from mid-cap and small-cap stocks, as their valuations tend to be not as high as those of the large-caps. And ``many of them also have not adopted the aggressive accounting stances of some larger companies,'' he says.

Of course, other factors could come into play that might goose the market higher, says Donald Luskin, Trend Macrolytics' chief investment officer. A big tax cut might stimulate more people to work and encourage companies to make new investments. A new transformative technology could hit the scene, much like the Internet did in 1995, he says. Or newly created companies could raise hopes of new jobs and new growth.

However, the outlook for all these isn't promising. In the first two months of this year, just 10 initial public offerings were priced, the lowest total for the same period in 23 years. ``None of these signs are there,'' says Luskin. ``It's going to be a long time before people loosen up and have the risk-tolerant attitude to make real growth happen.''

SIDELINED CASH. Conversely, another terrorist attack on the magnitude of the September 11 strikes on New York and Washington could stunt the market's growth, at least in the short term. ``It would definitely be a negative,'' says A.C. Moore, chief investment strategist at Dunvegan Associates in Santa Barbara, Calif. ``It would probably punctuate the improvement but not necessarily stop it.''

The doom and gloom clearly won't last forever. McClintock points out that the economy is waiting for the slew of stimulative interest-rate cuts enacted by the Federal Reserve in 2001 to take effect. At the same time, lots of investor money is sitting in money markets. And once investors begin to pump it back into the market, stocks could get rolling again. ``The ton of money built up in money markets is not going to stay earning 1.75% for a long period of time,'' he says.

At some point, the stock market will head up again for a long run. It probably won't be anytime soon though.
----------

and you thought the bottom was in, shame;-)
AD