Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (1639)	3/16/1999 8:12:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Bayer (maker of Aspirin) on the acquisition trail:- Europe's Drugmakers Step Up Consolidation Plans as Profits Lag Bloomberg News March 16, 1999, 12:15 p.m. ET Europe's Drugmakers Step Up Consolidation Plans as Profits Lag Frankfurt, March 16 (Bloomberg) -- Europe's biggest drug companies stepped up plans to unite amid signs their profit growth this year will lag U.S. rivals such as Merck & Co., the world's biggest drugmaker. Hoechst AG of Germany and Rhone-Poulenc SA of France agreed to accelerate a plan to create the world's No. 2 drugmaker amid shareholder criticism, while Zeneca Group Plc of the U.K. said it's close to winning U.S. approval for a $35 billion purchase of Sweden's Astra AB. And as Sanofi SA of France won European approval to buy Synthelabo SA, Germany's Bayer AG indicated it will join the acquisition fray. The consolidation comes as Novartis AG, the world's No. 3 drug company, indicated earnings growth will slow this year after a 20 percent increase in the second half of 1998, highlighting concern that European drugmakers won't be able to match profits growth at U.S. rivals such as Merck or Pfizer Inc., maker of the impotence pill Viagra. ''You look at all of the major blockbusters of the last three years, and the vast majority of them originate in the hands of American companies,'' said Viren Mehta, a managing member of the research firm Mehta Partners in New York. European companies ''recognize that, and they're trying to address it.'' While Novartis's earnings grew in double digits, Roche Holding AG, a Swiss rival that makes the slimming pill Xenical, indicated earlier this month its second-half profit rose 2.3 percent. Zeneca's implied second-half profit grew just 1.8 percent. Pfizer, by contrast, said in January its fourth-quarter earnings rose 42 percent, helped by Viagra and by Zithromax, an antibiotic. Faster Track Hoechst and Rhone-Poulenc said they plan to complete their merger, worth at least 16 billion euros ($17.5 billion), this year instead of the original 2001 deadline. Their announcement followed prompting by Kuwait Petroleum Corp., the German company's biggest shareholder with 24.5 percent, amid concern a three-year timetable would hand an advantage to competitors. Separately, Zeneca said it expects to complete negotiations with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission by the end of this month over what products to divest to win approval of its plan to unite with Astra, creating one of the world's biggest drugmakers. Zeneca and Astra have said they plan to complete their union by the end of the second quarter. Today, Bayer AG of Germany became the latest company to say it wants to expand in drugs and agrochemicals as its earnings come under pressure from falling prices of chemicals, its other major business. Chief Executive Manfred Schneider said the company is prepared to spend ''significantly more'' than last year's 12 billion deutsche marks ($6.7 billion) to expand. Pressure to Grow European drug companies are combining and acquiring as government-imposed price cuts and soaring development costs make it more expensive to develop blockbusters such as Viagra, or Monsanto & Co.'s new painkiller Celebrex, which had the second most successful introduction in the U.S. behind Viagra. Novartis's best-selling drug, the organ-transplant treatment Sandimmun/Neoral, had 1998 sales of 1.85 billion Swiss francs ($1.26 billion), up just 2 percent from 1997. Voltaren, a painkiller that once was the Basel, Switzerland-based company's main product, yielded sales of 1.57 billion francs, down 2 percent from 1997, the company said today. ''They've really got a lot to prove,'' said Annabel MacIver, a drug industry analyst at Enskilda Securities in London. While Novartis tries to introduce new products, Pfizer's Viagra, for one, is expected to produce $1 billion in sales soon, while Eli Lilly & Co.'s Prozac had annual sales of $2.55 billion in 1998, up 10 percent. Lagging Returns In the past five years, Novartis shareholders have made a total of 240.7 percent on their investment, one of the best performances among European drugmakers. Glaxo Wellcome Plc returned 231 percent, while Hoechst generated about 150 percent. Merck shareholders, by contrast, had a return of 448 percent, while Pfizer investors made 877 percent. ''European companies just don't seem to match up to U.S. rivals,'' said Yves de Vilmorin, who helps manage $1.3 billion in shares at Banque Privee St. Dominique in Paris. He said he's considering selling some of his shares in Novartis, Roche, Glaxo- Wellcome and Rhone-Poulenc to buy U.S. drugmakers. While mergers are the quickest way for European companies to grow, ''so far, that doesn't seem to be enough,'' he said. --Reto Gregori in the Frankfurt newsroom (49-69) 92041-146,

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (1639)	3/16/1999 8:31:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Respond to of 2539

Some of the reasons for today's rise are in this Bloomberg 3/15 article (seed companies are hot properties, if the European companies want them, they'll have to buy MTC): snap.com Excerpts: With Pioneer's seed technology, DuPont will be able to compete head-on with Monsanto in offering a ''bundle'' of products at one price through a single supplier, said Leonard Teitelbaum, a Merrill Lynch analyst who tracks Pioneer. Monsanto already has all the pieces for a bundle. It makes herbicides and pesticides, and with last year's acquisition of DeKalb Genetics Corp., it also has insect-resistant and herbicide- tolerant seeds. With DuPont's acquisition of Pioneer, both companies ''could bundle everything,'' Teitelbaum said. ''This redraws the battlefield.'' Increase in Market Share He said the combination of new technology and new marketing is likely to increase market share for both companies. DuPont- Pioneer and Monsanto now control 55 percent of the corn market -- Pioneer has 42 percent and Monsanto 13 percent. Teitelbaum said he expects the share the two companies control to grow 20 percent after they introduce their ''bundles'' later this year. Today's announcement ''doesn't preclude'' a combination of some sort between DuPont and Monsanto, said Bob Goodof, an analyst at Loomis Sayles & Co., which owns DuPont shares. DuPont's tracking-stock plan comes about a year after the company said it would increase its focus on life sciences, which are generally faster growing than its traditional chemicals businesses. The new class of shares could be used as currency in mergers and joint ventures, DuPont said last week.

To: Dan Spillane who wrote (1639)	3/16/1999 9:41:00 PM
From: Anthony Wong	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2539

Not good enough from The Press, New Zealand March 16, 1999 Should genetically modified food be so labelled? Few would doubt that the answer is yes. But despite assurances from the Prime Minister that consumers have a right to know what is in the food they eat, there is still suspicion that National will fudge the issue. Mrs Shipley maintains that consumers should get useful and credible information. Just what that means in practice will be hard to work out. The Government has compounded confusion by talking with different voices. Last month, the Associate Minister of Health, Tuariki Delamere, ruled out mandatory labelling because it would increase industry costs and thereby consumer prices. He appears now to have been reined in, in effect to have had his mind changed. He nevertheless raised practical questions. Two, in particular, are not yet answered: how should genetically modified food be defined; and how far down the processing chain should its identification be mandatory? Mrs Shipley's assurances are themselves a turnaround. In August the Government engineered the defeat of a bill which would have required genetically altered food to be labelled. It refused to send it to a select committee. That was shortsighted. Committee hearings would have given consumers a chance to outline their concerns. The Government would have had a bellwether of public opinion. Now it wants to head off the sort of onslaught that last month bedevilled the British Government. Tony Blair was forced to backtrack in his support for genetically modified foods after unprecedented criticism. Distrustful of official assurances after the mad-cow scare, the public made clear its anxieties that the foods may be dangerous, may threaten the environment, and may allow a few big pharmaceutical companies to monopolise agriculture. One of them, Monsanto, had earlier fuelled the furore. Exporting both standard soya and its genetically modified equivalent into Europe, the company had said it was impossible to segregate the two types and label them accordingly. That position -- and the fact that tests of genetically modified foods are mostly left to the companies developing them -- has led to widespread alarm, not all of it the preserve of cranks. National's earlier position opposing labelling as unworkable is not good enough. Identifying all genetically modified components in food may indeed be very difficult. But a moratorium on their use while the problem is worked out is not unreasonable. The protests themselves are likely to bring a halt to some harvesting. The British row has virtually ensured that no genetically altered crops will be commercially grown there for years. Many safety tests of food do not go much beyond toxicity and allergy potential. That is why any present assurance about genetically altered foods is not worth much. Their potential for good or harm is simply unknown. In the absence of any definitive scientific results, people revert to instinct. Already attracted by organic foods without additives, they are suspicious of any food manipulation. That has not stopped companies from going ahead with food alteration. The latest is Nestle, which is developing functional foods -- those designed to prevent disease, for example tomato sauce with anti-oxidants. Functional foods will be available within five years. Critics say they blur the line between food and drugs. But at least such foods should be labelled without difficulty. Ideally, the far harder labelling of genetically altered foods should be internationally addressed. Meantime, this country's best hope might lie with the Australian New Zealand Food Authority, the body trying to standardise food regulations in both countries. It would need first to reverse its opposition to the full labelling of genetically altered foods. But it is at least a forum where sensible consideration of the issue might bear fruit. Australia has long been more stringent than New Zealand in requiring adequate labelling. That gives some confidence that the Australians will not duck the latest and toughest labelling job. Mrs Shipley discussed the matter with John Howard during his recent visit. Both countries have the expertise to give an international lead. At the very least, they must keep the issue to the forefront. press.co.nz