Pfizer - zu Unrecht im Keller
hat det Emittent Derivate unterlegt.
Für den Anleger ergeben sich Unterschiede zur Aktie nur im Korridor,
also im Geld. Der liegt bei Dai-Chry zwischen 38, und 46,-EUR Basiskurs.
Im Korridor läuft das Papir etwa 2:1, darunter und darüber 1:1, also
genauso wie die Aktie. Einziger Nachteil für das Geschenk: Du bekommst
keine Dividende. Die bekommt der Emittent und erwirbt dafür einen Call.
Kaufst Du also genau am Geld, riskierst Du nicht mehr, als mit der Aktie
nach unten. Kein Verfall durch Zeitwert oder implizite Vola!
Aber im Geld sahnst Du eben doppelt so viel wie mit der Aktie ab.
Die Scheine gibt's auch für viele andere Aktien und von anderen Emittenten
unter den verschiedensten Namen. Ich hab eine ganze Reihe davon.
Pfizer CEO sees Celebrex rebound
Mon Nov 7, 2005 5:06 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc. Chief Executive Officer Hank McKinnell on Monday said he expects sales of the company's Celebrex arthritis drug to rebound to earlier levels, despite safety concerns that have decimated sales this year.
The New York-based drugmaker last month withdrew its earnings forecast for 2006 and 2007 and said it expects a modest decline in company revenue this year, amid tumbling sales of Celebrex and generic competition for other medicines.
"With (new) information now on the label and with additional clinical results that will be available over the next year or two, I don't doubt for a minute Celebrex will be a far bigger drug than it is today," McKinnell said.
When asked if Celebrex could return to far-higher earlier sales levels, he replied: "We certainly think so."
Sales of Celebrex plunged 44 percent to $446 million in the third-quarter. The drug was tarnished by being a member of the same class of drugs as Vioxx, the Merck & Co. pill that was withdrawn in September 2004 after being linked to heart attacks and strokes.
Celebrex has also been hurt by one of its own large clinical trials, detailed last December, in which it more than doubled the risk of heart attack among patients taking it to prevent polyps that can cause colon cancer.
McKinnell defended the drug's safety, however, saying heart risks were not seen in dozens of other Celebrex trials.
Company sales have also been hurt by generic competition for its Diflucan anti-fungal drug, epilepsy treatment Neurontin and Accupril for high blood pressure. Pfizer lost U.S. patent protection only days ago on antibiotic Zithromax and patents will lapse over the next two years on its depression drug Zoloft, hypertension drug Norvasc and Zytrec for allergies.
McKinnell declined to say when he will give new earnings forecasts for 2006 and 2007. But he said higher profit growth will hinge largely on rebounding sales of Celebrex and impotence drug Viagra, as well as a return to accustomed high sales growth for cholesterol fighter Lipitor.
Viagra should be helped, he said, by a return of direct-to-consumer ads that stopped late last year. He said the new ads will appear soon, with "a different look and different feels" than prior ads.
Lipitor should get a boost from new clinical trial data showing the drug's ability to reduce heart attacks and strokes among diabetics, McKinnell said.
McKinnell said Pfizer is counting on a number of experimental drugs to help drive profit growth in coming years, including Torcetrapib, which greatly raises the body's level of heart-protective HDL cholesterol. It is being tested in combination with Lipitor, which cuts levels of artery-clogging LDL cholesterol.
"It looks like a combination of raising HDL and lowering LDL cholesterol could have dramatic impact, maybe eliminating cardiovascular risk," McKinnell said. He described the combo pill as potentially one of the most important new heart medicines in decades.
McKinnell said Pfizer intends to seek marketing approval soon for Varenicline, a smoking-cessation drug he predicts will far outstrip GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Zyban in effectiveness.
"Our drug looks like it can take the quit rate up to 50 percent," McKinnell said, meaning that the percentage of smokers managed to quit smoking and stay off cigarettes a year after beginning the therapy.
McKinnell said Pfizer aims to continue buying drugs from other companies, but will not be greatly helped in doing so by an estimated $37 billion in overseas profits it is repatriating this year.
REUTERS - Mon Nov 7, 2005 9:42 PM ET
By Edward Tobin and Ransdell Pierson
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc.'s (PFE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) chairman and chief executive on Monday affirmed his commitment to steer the world's largest drugmaker through "murky" waters, but said he would leave early if he lost support of the company's board.
Hank McKinnell, speaking to the Reuters Health Summit in New York, acknowledged that management credibility was questioned after Pfizer withdrew its profit targets on October 20 for 2006 and 2007 in the face of slowing sales of key drugs and a reconfiguration of Pfizer's sales force.
McKinnell said he should not personally be held responsible for a series of factors that suddenly altered the company's previous "gangbuster" performance earlier in the year.
"The future suddenly got murkier," McKinnell said.
He cited continued sharp declines in sales of arthritis drug Celebrex, which he said was partly explained by a regulatory delay in approving a helpful change to the drug's label.
[KOMMENTAR A. L.: Wenn es nur am Waschzettel lag, steht dem Celebrex-Rebound ja nun nichts mehr im Wege.]
Moreover, McKinnell said he could not have anticipated that a large clinical trial would show that Celebrex raised the risk of heart attacks in patients who were given the medicine to prevent colon cancer.
"It came out of the blue," he said of the trial, but he noted that Celebrex has been proven safe in dozens of other trials.
McKinnell, who is slated to retire in 2008, said he is committed to leading Pfizer through a very difficult period. The company's stock has fallen by more than 50 percent since Pfizer's merger in 2000 with Warner-Lambert Corp.
"I personally think I should complete my next couple of years. The board has agreed with that. If they change their views -- then I certainly would leave early," McKinnell said.
"You know I've been working for 35 years ... retirement is looking pretty good," he said.
The stock tumbled to an eight-year low and industry analysts were shaken when Pfizer yanked the profit forecasts last month. One analyst in a conference call that day told McKinnell there was a "crisis of confidence" in the company. He rebuffed the assertion.
"My goal was to hand over the company to my successor in better shape than I received it. You can't say that today. We've got to get through this period of patent expirations," he said.
McKinnell, the 12th chairman of the 156 year-old drugmaker, said future profit will also be hurt as more of the company's drugs face competition from generics, noting the medicines at risk now have annual combined sales of $14 billion.
"It's hard to swallow that lump," he said.
But McKinnell said Celebrex should eventually rebound and that a new epilepsy drug, Lyrica, is doing very well. And a handful of new drugs could soon win U.S. approvals, he said.
Pfizer has said it expects revenue to fall slightly this year, a marked change from stellar sales growth in recent years -- before Celebrex hit the skids and generic rivals were introduced.
"I think we certainly have a good basis for a return to growth," he added.
Sinngemäß mag das für die gesamte US-Börse gelten; natürlich auch für PFIZER.
""...Fazit:
Der S&P 500 hat sich schrittweise an seine signifikanten Kursmarken heran-
gearbeitet. Der Druck wird umso heftiger, je näher sich der S&P 500 seinem
bisherigen Jahreshoch annähert. Die Mehrheit der Anleger rechnet bisher nicht
mit einer aufkommenden Dynamik. Obwohl die US-Märkte in den letzten zehn
Jahren ausnahmslos - von den Oktobertiefs gerechnet - jeweils prozentual
zweistellige Jahresendrallyes hinlegten, erwartet dies - für das laufende Jahr
- nur eine Minderheit. Für Überraschungspotential ist also gesorgt.""
(ETF = exchange traded funds = börsennotierte Indexfonds. In diesem Fall sind Sektorfonds im Bereich Pharma/Gesundheit wie XLV oder PPH gemeint).
Roger Nusbaum
A Better Way to Play Pharma
By Roger Nusbaum
Street.com
11/8/2005 8:07 AM EST
Over the past few weeks, I have heard a couple of different analysts refer to big domestic pharma stocks as bonds, and that got me to thinking. The idea of a drug stock as a proxy for a bond doesn't hold up very long, but perhaps the higher-yielding drug stocks could be a proxy for Treasury inflation-protected securities, or TIPS.
I maintain very little exposure to big American pharma -- clients own Johnson & Johnson (JNJ:NYSE) , but that's it. And I invest in overseas drug companies in the context of foreign diversification.
The problem I see with American drug companies is that they have poor prospects for double-digit revenue growth. Pfizer (PFE:NYSE) has about $52 billion in revenue. Consensus for 2006 is no revenue growth. Will it be able to find $5 billion in new revenue for 2007? If it does, will it then be able to find $6 billion in 2008? I don't see how it can. If it can't, it's reasonable to believe the stock will idle, assuming no death-blow news to one of its drugs.
My expectations for price appreciation for the big domestic drug companies are very low. TIPS also have quite low chances for price appreciation (their par value inches up at the rate of inflation, and they pay an interest rate that is usually lower than that of regular bonds), so there's one thing they have in common.
The drug-stock-as-bond comments that I heard referred to individual stocks. Bondholders don't usually take on single-stock risk, so for me, a stock doesn't quite hold up as a bond substitute.
The drug sector ETFs might be a different story. Clearly, any product that reasonably diversifies its holdings won't have substantial single-stock risk.
A five-year TIPS yields about 1.8%. The Healthcare Select Sector SPDR (XLV:Amex) yields 1.2%. The Merrill Lynch Pharmaceutical HOLDRs Trust (PPH:Amex) yields 2.5%.
Hard Times in Pharmaceuticals
Merck (MRK:NYSE) and Pfizer have dropped significantly over the past few years; the Healthcare Select Sector SPDR and the Pharmaceutical HOLDRs Trust have held up better.
So the yields are in the same ballpark, and both TIPS and pharmaceuticals have limited upside.
What about the downside for health? This idea would make no sense if Pfizer and Merck (MRK:NYSE) plummet from here.
But here is an anecdote that may point to a bottom. When I first wrote about my Pfizer revenue theory a year and a half ago on another Web site, I received an incredible amount of hate email. When I repeated the idea in a Columnist Conversation post last week, I only got one email that mildly disagreed. This leads me to think the selling could be about done.
Three things might be enough to tie this theory together: similar yield, limited upside and limited downside.
If the broad market provides below-average returns for the next few years, as some contend, and if my thoughts about pharmaceuticals hold water, it might result in the pharmaceutical-centric ETFs averaging 2%-3% returns plus the dividend. That's not much different from what TIPS are likely to do.
But pharma ETFs offer something TIPS don't. Despite what anyone thinks about the fundamentals, the entire sector could rally significantly at any time for no reason at all. This has happened repeatedly throughout market history. Pharma-centric ETFs should participate to some degree in a broad market rally -- this can not be expected of TIPS.
This idea makes some sense if you believe that, after being cut in half or worse, domestic pharma stocks have now seen most of the selling.
Ich schreibe dies auch, weil ich ein Herz für Charttechniker habe, die in dem heutigen Kursrückgang womöglich das Menetekel neuerlicher Abgründe sehen.
""In den kommenden zwei Jahren wechseln geschätzte 0,9 bis 1,2 Bio Dollar
das Feld. Rückzug aus Immobilien und Investments in Aktien. Das übertragen
Sie nun auf die künftige Tendenz an der amerikanischen Börse.""
Ich werde mir wieder verstärkt den "Briefträgerblick" (ein Auge auf die Türklingel,
ein Auge aufs Kuvert) angewöhnen:
Ein Auge auf den deutschen Markt, eins auf den US-Markt.
____________________________
Postscriptum:
Mit dem Platzen der Immo-Blase lecker Geld verdienen: WKN ABN0JX
Bei PFE stehen 150 Mrd. MK derzeit 50 Mrd. Umsatz gegenüber, hinzu kommen noch mal 50 Mrd. Cash. Zieht man das Bargeld von der MK ab, wird PFE nur zum Doppelten des Umsatzes gehandelt. Dass es kaum Schulden gibt, beruhigt ebenfalls.
füx
Insiderkauf:
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/quotes/...w&symb=PFE&sid=3746&time=8
füx
aber nicht ob Kauf oder Verkauf..."
War die Frage Ironie oder Ernst? Jeder Trade ist doch Kauf und Verkauf
zugleich...oder nicht?
Weißt Du was das bedeutet? (*grübel)...hochgerechnet 103 EURO fuffzig
für Pfizer.
Aufgeht's Buam' - her mit Zeugs.
Klar geht Pfizer zu unseren Lebzeiten nicht mehr auf 103 Dollar. Dafür besteht jetzt aber auch keinerlei Pleitegefahr. Entsprechend niedriger ist der "Hebel" dieses Turnarounds.
Pfizer Wins Lipitor Ruling Vs Ranbaxy In Norway
Morningstar
11-09-05 03:48 PM EST
NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- A Norwegian court ruled that a Pfizer Inc. (PFE) patent on the company's blockbuster anticholesterol drug Lipitor would be infringed by the proposed sale of India's Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.'s generic product in Norway.
India-based Ranbaxy can appeal the decision, Pfizer said in a press release Wednesday. The patent exercised in the Norway case covers an intermediate compound used to make atorvastatin, the active ingredient in Lipitor.
If the court upholds its decision after Ranbaxy's possible appeal, Pfizer's Lipitor patent will be protected in Norway until at least 2009, according to a Pfizer spokesman.
Separately, the Oslo District Court also ruled that another Pfizer patent, which covers a process for converting atorvastatin to powder form from crystal, is valid but not infringed by Ranbaxy.
The Pfizer spokesman said the company is considering its options on the second ruling on the process.
According to the Pfizer spokesman, the company still has Lipitor patent cases outstanding in Western Europe and Canada, and the U.S. case has been tried and is awaiting decision. Pfizer's various patents on Lipitor worldwide are set to expire between 2009 and 2017, he said.
Last month, a London court upheld a patent on Pfizers's Lipitor, which will remain protected in the U.K. from generic copies until the patent expires in November 2011. Earlier this year, Ranbaxy won a similar case in Austria against Pfizer's Lipitor patents, and Pfizer said it would appeal that decision.
Sales of Lipitor reached nearly $11 billion world-wide in 2004, and are expected to hit $12 billion this year.
Blocktrades geben Hinweise auf Käufe/Verkäufe von Institutionellen Anlegern; von einem Blocktrade spicht man, wenn mehr als 500 000 Stück auf einmal abgehandelt werden...
und Institutionelle Anleger sind keine Daytrader...
gruss
füx
aus dem Trade keine Schluß ableiten läßt. Sicher ist es (aus Sicht der
Investierten) ein Zeichen von Vertrauen, wenn ein Institutioneller einen
Block mit 500k kauft. Kanner aber nur, wenn ein anderer sich von diesem
Block trennt; was die gegenteilige Wirkung hat...
Im Ernst: nein, ich bin's noch nicht. Seit mehreren Tagen steigt PFIZER
stetig an. Ich tu mich immer schwer, in einen Anstieg hinein zu kaufen.
Der beste Kaufkurs lag natürlich unter 17,-EURO.
Deshalb lauere ich auf einen Rücksetzer (ist bei PFIZERS & Co. immer
nur eine Frage der Zeit).
Im übrigen habe ich schon einige Pharmas im Depot und möchte nicht
übergewichten. Derzeit überlege ich, ob ich für PFIZER einen anderen Wert
rausschmeißen sollte.
Postscriptum:
Mein #539. war nicht ironisch, sondern satyrisch gedacht. "Die Hochrechnung"
ist à la Bernie...
Allgemein: Wenn ich jetzt einige Aktien von einem Unternehmen erwerbe und weiß, dass ein Insti auch mit 640 000 Aktien an Board ist, dann wäre das für mich schon ein guter Grund in dieser Aktie zu bleiben; andererseits wäre es für mich ein Warnsignal zu wissen, dass ich gerade einige Aktien zum Preis von X kaufe und ein Insti verkauft gerade zu diesem Preis X 640 000 Aktien...Insits wissen eben meist mehr und kaufen/verkaufen nicht zum Spaß mal Aktien im Wert von 13 Mrd. Dollar...;
aber wenn du das nicht für wichtig einstufst ists natürlich auch ok
gruss
füx
Das betsriete ich gar nicht. Aber ich kann eben keine Schlüsse daraus ziehen.
"Wenn ich jetzt einige Aktien von einem Unternehmen erwerbe und weiß, dass
ein Insti auch mit 640 000 Aktien an Board ist, dann wäre das für mich schon
ein guter Grund in dieser Aktie zu bleiben;"
Darin liegt aber auch ein mindestens ebenso hoch einzuschätzender Nachteil:
Erstens kommt jemand, der mit 640k investiert ist schon nicht mehr als Käufer
dieser Menge in Frage - was nachfragedämpfend wirkt.
Zweitens kann ein Investor, der über ein solch "waffenscheinpflichtiges Geschoß"
verfügt auch ein ständiges Damoklesschwert sein, von dessen "Wohlverhalten"
(sprich: Investiert-bleiben) ich abhängig bin.
Denn verkauft einer ein solches Geschoß, bleibt das nicht ohne Folgen für den
Kurs.
Fazit: Ein Handel kommt nur zustande, wenn beide sich davon Vorteile versprechen. Die Gründe haben nicht unbedingt etwas mit der Aktie selber zu tun. In diesem Fall läge der Vorteil für Insti A in der Steuerminderung, für Insti B darin, einen runtergeprügelten Standard-Wert günstig einzukaufen.
Konspiration = Null.