Pfizer Case Analysis

One primary goal of Pfizer is to deliver sustained, excellent product by outperforming Pfizer’s competitors and must differentiate itself adequately from its competitors. Competitive advantage is central to strategic management in that it will produce and sustain superior performance. To be competitive in a business environment, often it requires the company to have a product or service different and better than other organizations competing in the same marketplace. According to Wadman (2007) “Pfizer and the rest of the pharmaceutical industry need to develop more sophisticated drugs, targeted at a smaller number of people more quickly, efficiently and at a lower cost” (p. 1). Once Pfizer’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are assessed and analyzed, managers must decide a set of strategies to reduce or eliminate its weaknesses and capitalize on its strengths and maximize opportunities. An example is Porter’s three generic strategy approaches of differentiation, cost leadership, and focus strategy by using differentiation strategies to differentiate Pfizer from its competitors. Strategies are essential; however, it is useless unless they are effectively implemented levels of the company. Business-level strategies are typically developed and implemented by heads of business units and are first approved by top management. The functional level strategy is the last level that focuses on developing strategies for managing the various departments to

b) (2 pts.) Does either firm have a dominant strategy? If yes, which firm and what strategy?

The company is so large that no one drug can lift it from its current sales doldrums. In addition, the company was once highly attractive to investors, but its recent stock price fell to 1997 lows. This may put pressure on the company to attempt acquisitions at a time when the company is ill-equipped to integrate a new company into its organization, and it is engaged in a cost-cutting program at a time when it may need to invest even more in research and development (McTigue Pierce, 2005).

Opportunities for Pfizer exist in two areas, first being the restructuring into a more lean and competitive organization and second is the penetration into emerging markets such as China and India who are now more able to purchase their products. With sales of approximately $50 billion per year, Pfizer has the opportunity to streamline its operations, cut costs, and add flexibility to the organization. If successful in this, they can better realize their profits and invest that money into future competitive products for the market.

If either Sepsis or Diabetes deal come through, the firm will be at an excellent position, with an assured firm value of $25 million and a complete control of the company for the owners. In terms of choosing between the two deals, the Sepsis deal is more fruitful as we receive $5 million up-front and $108 million milestone payments after the drug passes the phase 2 test in the Sepsis. In contrast, the Diabetes deal fetches $8 million up-front and $80 million milestone payment which is too less. In addition, the potential sales for Sepsis are $0.5 billion annually compared to $4 billion for diabetes. It is not a smart decision if we give up large portion of future proceeds from selling Diabetes drugs. Purinex only needs small cash to cover its general operating and R&D research costs; $5 million up-front payment from sepsis partner is enough for next 83 months.

F remains the pharmaceutical firm because it has higher Margins due to the capacity to keep high drug prices. It also spends a significant amount on R&D while the competition is always coming up with a new product.

6. If the company decides to go ahead with the targeted stock issue, what specific provisions or features should the stock include to ensure maximum value creation? How closely would you model USX’s targeted stock on GM’s alphabet stock?

Merck is one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world today. Although encountered with success, it still faces many problems today while trying to be the market leader competing against its competition. While being research and development driven company, Merck now has to go beyond R&D to stay competitive in the pharmaceutical industry. The main issue that seems to come up is that how far it can progress with the dual challenge of hitting peak annual financial performance while keeping the research pipeline full continued to weigh on senior management. Through the late 80s to early 90s, Merck was able to boast

The Pfizer case provides an introduction to external analysis. The case highlights the pharmaceutical industry, which has enjoyed extraordinary long-run profitability. The case also demonstrates how broad changes in broad environmental factors (i.e. demographics, technology, culture, etc.) have an impact on industry competition. The case is not especially complex, so it is not overwhelming as a first case.

Since the beginning of the agreement Warner Labs was aware that the partnership with Pfizer represented the risk of an hostile takeover, because of this Warner carefully designed a defensive agreement that allow the partnership, at the same time that avoiding somewhat the anticipated movement and merge proposal.

In 2000, Merck began to cooperate with Schering-Plough on several research products and in 2009 acquired their longtime partner in an effort to diversify its products and reach a broader consumer base. With challenges that include rising prices of research and prescription drugs, Merck has managed to forge forward and overcome obstacles. Merck’s survival has been a subject of speculation many times throughout the years; from the 2004 recall of their top selling drug (Vioxx) due to undesirable side effects to the recently curtailed trials of their very promising new anti-clotting drug (Vorapaxar) due to negative trial results. Kenneth Frazier, Merck’ CEO, has also come under heavy criticism due to his unconventional decision not to cut research budgets in order to increase profits. This strategy differs greatly from the usual path and it has cost Merck investor confidence which resulted in lowered stock prices . Although Merck has been subjected to challenges throughout their history they have always managed to stay afloat and maintain their reputation as a leader in healthcare.

In my point of view, Pfizer and its two competitors - Merck and Johnson & Johnson all have low cost of capital. Although they all involved in a lot borrowings , they all have very good capital structures as pharmaceutical companies. The reason is that the costs in R&D and innovation are extremely high in the pharmaceutical industry.

1. In theory, to fund an increased dividend payout or a stock buyback, a firm might invest less, borrow more, or issue more stock. Which of these three elements is Eastboro management willing to vary, and which elements remain fixed as a matter of policy?

It is an honor for me to lead Pfizer at this important time for both our company and the industry. I’ve spent my entire career at Pfizer and during this time I have seen the industry change and evolve in terms of customers’ needs, regulatory standards and where growth occurs. Among these changes, one of the most important has been the increasing pressure from payers, governments and society to deliver greater value. That’s why I believe there is a fundamental question facing the industry and Pfizer. Simply stated, it is: Do we have a research model that will consistently produce results that improve the lives of patients

Although R&D has been retained by the large pharmaceutical firms, there has been a continuous decline in the R&D productivity. Controlling R&D is imperative to the success of a Pharmaceutical firm. However, as the pharmaceutical industry is maturing, there are diminishing returns to the R&D investment. Fewer and fewer blockbuster drugs are being discovered and therefore R&D is not the most value adding component in the value