Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AGENDA
Agenda
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
10
11
-100
Acquisition Cost
R&D
Launch Cost
Selling Cost
Other Cost
Revenue
12
13
PROCESS
Assessing
the
projects
Finding
projects
that fit
Negotiating
deals for
the projects
in the face
of
competition
Delivering
on the
potential of
the projects
Realizing
the value
Evaluation Criteria
Financial Analysis
What is the time
horizon to peak
revenues for each
product?
What will sales and
marketing costs be?
What are the total
cash requirements?
What is the value of
each product
opportunity?
Ability to Execute /
Risks
How achievable are
the returns and how
significant are the
risks?
Do we have the
competencies to
succeed?
Can we control the
key success factors?
Perception of Wall
Street / Shareholders?
Identify
the
Opportunity
Initial
Technical
Evaluation
Detailed
Technical
Evaluation
Detailed
Commercial
Evaluation
Technical
Due
Diligence
Commercial
Due
Diligence
Final
Approval
Contract
Negotiations
Source: Talk by BMS: The Role of Licensing / Business Development in the Pharma Industry, 2004.
Deal Terms
Manufacturing / Tax Considerations
PTRS
PTRS
92%
78%
20%
80%
74%
58%
30%
85%
27%
53%
81%
26%
59%
72%
62%
36%
40%
24%
26%
89%
55%
7%
24%
64%
ENPV
370
120
250
182
80
80
250
80
90
18
23
214
582
87
1,400
77
27
371
102
1,538
633
100
152
272
EIRR
535%
345%
318%
301%
230%
230%
210%
90%
83%
83%
76%
59%
58%
54%
48%
42%
41%
40%
40%
35%
34%
33%
31%
30%
Assets
Opportunity ID
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
PTRS
6%
48%
25%
10%
82%
63%
40%
14%
21%
21%
43%
14%
35%
45%
35%
46%
19%
60%
42%
8%
31%
7%
18%
38%
ENPV
3
411
129
71
837
288
12
116
137
132
183
80
151
12
8
230
28
3
123
15
52
22
7
6
EIRR
29%
29%
27%
27%
26%
26%
26%
24%
24%
24%
24%
23%
22%
20%
19%
19%
19%
19%
19%
18%
18%
17%
15%
13%
Source: Talk by Kazuo Ezawa, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmaceutical Portfolio Management, DAAG, February 2004.
PROJECT RANKING
11
There are numerous fine points and ways in which firms differ in
approach.
We will discuss many of these but the key focus will be on the
hands on how to approach to valuation.
TODAYS DISCUSSION
Our Approach
ROI
(IRR)
Small Project
Big Payoff
Big Project
Big Payoff
(The zone of shareholder bliss)
Small Project
Low Payoff
Allergan Botox
Biovail Wellbutrin XL
Cephalon - Provigil
ENDO lidoderm patch
Forest Lexapro
Gilead - Truvada
King Altace
Reliant - Lovaza
Salix Rifaximin
Viropharma - Vancomycin
Big Project
Low Payoff
Scale of
Project
13
Big Pharma
A, B, C
Biotech A
TODAYS DISCUSSION
Big Pharma An organization called that carries out financial analysis of licensing and
M&A projects. They have prepared an internal manual on how to value
D
every aspect of a project which standardizes their approach. Tends to do
careful valuation work with reasonable discount rates. Always have at
least three scenarios. Organization tends to be intelligent but financially
conservative in looking at opportunities. Will occasionally look at real
options and offer option deals to biotechs.
Has created a management science group that engages in sophisticated
Big Pharma predictive modeling of pharma product performance. Their view is that
good forecasts are the most important and most difficult aspect of
E
pharma licensing. This group has been driving real options work but
hard for organization to grasp.
The focus is much more on simplicity, insight and medical soundness
Big Pharma than say Big Pharma E. Every projects gets summarized on two pages
(and not more ever) for either the head of commercial or the head of
F
R&D. Once there is a preliminary approval an AIF (autorissation
investiment financiere) is prepared (30 to 50 pages). This document
does not skimp on commercial analysis but uses basic rNPV models.
14
TODAYS DISCUSSION
$10
Added Value
$50
16
Initial Investment
17
$50
Added Value
Initial Investment
Ct
NPV C
0 (1 r)t
For two
periods
C1
C2
Ct
NPV C0
...
1
2
t
(1 r ) (1 r )
(1 r )
N
or
18
Ct
NPV
t
t 1 (1 r )
19
20
Revenues
Total Market
Prescriptions
Written
X
Penetration of
Product
=
Units Sold
X
Price
=
Revenue
Costs
COGS
+
Research and
Development
Expense
+
Selling Costs
Other Cash
Outflows
Net Cash
Flow
Capital
Expenditures
+
Change in
Working Capital
Cash Taxes
+
G&A / Other
Costs
+
Acquisition Costs
rNPV
RNPV FORMULA
R1Ct
rNPV
t
t 1 (1 r )
22
The risk-adjusted IRR is the discount rate that would give an rNPV equal to zero.
In other words, it is the expected rate of return on a project.
We refer to the rIRR as the risk-adjusted IRR.
23
IRR ANALYSIS
rIRR
Issue
Equity
vs.
Partner
Drug
24
An Example Trade-Off
ACCOUN
TING
TREATM
ENT
Straight-line amortization
Negative EPS impact in later years due to smaller profit share
payments
Acquisition price set standard treatment
Amortize based on profit share payments
EPS accretive each year
What happens if we dont achieve projections? Write-down
Amortize in full each until asset is gone, then recognize full benefit
Most conservative approach
Not EPS accretive in the beginning years
Many pharma companies are highly focused on EPS management
Will prefer to use investment dollars over R&D dollars whenever
possible
Will prefer to push out spending into the future
25
EPS
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
$0.02
$0.03
$0.05
$0.06
$0.07
$0.08
$0.04
$0.04
$0.01
$0.01
$0.01
Assumptions
Discount Rate: 10%
26
Revenue
Forecasting
27
Cost
Assumptions
Tax and
Working
Capital
Risk
ACCOUN
TING
TREATM
ENT
Cash Flow
Estimates
Discount Rate
Selection
rNPV
Computation
REVENUE FORECASTING
Analyst
Bottom Up
Looking at
Reports and
Market
Similar
Research
Analysis
Products
Reports
We believe the best approach is to have a good bottom up model and
check the thinking by looking at external reports and similar product
revenues.
29
Market / Valuation
Analysis
30
Incidence/Prevalence
Potential
Market Size
% Diagnosed
Addressable
Market Size
% Treated for Disease
% Prescription of Drug
It is very
common to
build several
scenarios
(good, poor,
expected)
Penetration, Pricing
Studies, Competitive
Analysis, Compliance
Analysis, Reimbursement
Analysis and Utilization
Patterns
Revenue Estimates over the
Planning Horizon
31
2000
2025
U.S. Patients are Not Controlled with ACEs, ARBs and Beta Blockers
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Developed
Market
Economies
China
India
197680
198891
199194
19992000
Awareness
51
73
68
70
Treatment
31
55
54
59
Control
10
29
27
34
Other
Economies
Source: JNC 7
36 Months
30
20
Direct Renin
Inhibitors
ACEs, ARBs
10
0
<100 100- 110- 120- 130- 140- 150- 160- 170- 180+
109 119 129 139 149 159 169 179
32
Diuretics, Beta
blockers,
Calcium Channel
Blockers
*Source: Sealey and Laragh,
American Journal of
Hypertension, May 2007
Better outcomes
in patients on
Cox-2s and
NSAIDs
Better outcomes
in patients at risk
of nephropathy
Better outcomes
in nonresponders
to existing antihypertensives
Better outcomes
in salt sensitive
hypertensives
Novel Antihypertensive
Better outcomes
by genetic
biomarker
Better outcomes
in obese patients
Better outcomes
in cardiac
patients
33
Better outcomes
in patients with
inflammation
DIFFERENTIATION OPPORTUNITY
Key Assumptions
Daily Cost of Therapy
ROW as % of US Market
$4
80.0%
2010
2012
2014
2015
2016
2018
2019
2023
2028
2031
80,000,000
84,872,000
3%
90,040,705
3%
92,741,926
3%
Diagnosis Rate
Treatment Rate
# of Patients Treated
Compliance Rate
50.0%
70.0%
28,000,000
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
29,705,200
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
31,514,247
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
32,459,674
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
33,433,464
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
35,469,562
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
36,533,649
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
41,118,944
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
47,668,126
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
52,088,248
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.0%
8.0%
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
0
250
4.00 $
1,000
$0.0
0.0
0
250
4.20 $
1,050
$0.0
0.0
0
250
4.41 $
1,103
$0.0 $
0.0
Hypertension - US
Penetration Rate
Patients on drug
Average Days of Therapy
Cost Per Day
Cost per Day * Days of Therapy
Total Revenues
Probabil. Adj Revenues
0
250
0
0
$0.0
0.0
5.0%
0
250
0$
0
$0.0
0.0
2,128,174
250
4.86 $
1,216
2,586.81 $
129.3
2,922,692
250
5.11 $
1,276
3,730.18 $
186.5
4,934,273
5,720,175
6,250,590
250
250
250
6.21 $
7.92 $
8.73
1,551
1,980
2,183
7,654.68 $ 11,325.56 $ 13,644.25
382.7
566.3
682.2
Hypertension - ROW
Begin Year Patient No.
Growth in Patients
64,000,000
67,897,600
3%
72,032,564
3%
74,193,541
3%
76,419,347
3%
81,073,285
3%
83,505,484
3%
Diagnosis Rate
Treatment Rate
# of Patients Treated
Compliance Rate
50.0%
70.0%
22,400,000
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
23,764,160
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
25,211,397
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
25,967,739
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
26,746,771
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
28,375,650
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
29,226,919
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
32,895,155
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
38,134,501
50.0%
50.0%
70.0%
41,670,598
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.0%
8.0%
12.0%
12.0%
12.0%
0
250
0$
0
$0.0 $
0.0 $
0
250
4.00 $
1,000
- $
- $
0
250
4.20 $
1,050
- $
- $
0
250
4.41 $
1,103
- $
- $
1,702,539
250
4.86 $
1,216
2,069.45 $
103.47 $
2,338,154
250
5.11 $
1,276
2,984.14 $
149.21 $
3,947,419
250
6.21 $
1,551
6,123.74 $
306.19 $
- $
- $
- $
- $
4,656 $
6,714 $
13,778 $
Penetration Rate
Patients on drug
Average Days of Therapy
Cost Per Day
Cost per Day * Days of Therapy
Total Revenues
Probabil. Adj Revenues
Total Worldwide Revenue
34
0
250
0
0
$0.0
0.0
5.0%
$
- $
4,576,140
5,000,472
250
250
7.92 $
8.73
1,980
2,183
9,060.44 $ 10,915.40
453.02 $
545.77
20,386 $
24,560
Prevalence:
Total number of potential
customers at any one point in
time
Best for products purchased
by same customer on a
recurring basis (chronic Rx)
Incidence:
Number of new potential
customers each year
Best for products treating
onetime acute event (heart
attack)
35
ACCOUN
TING
TREATM
ENT
Identify Segments
Penetration is usually the main driver of revenue forecasts. There are a few
different means to estimate the peak penetration that a new product can be
expected to achieve:
1. Historical penetration of comparable products
2. Objective comparisons versus currently available treatments (efficacy, safety,
convenience)
3. Physician interviews to gauge acceptance and potential use versus competing
treatments (preference share analysis)
4. Analysis of likely reimbursement and factors related to achieving reimbursement
from key payor groups
5. Mapping of commercial effort into physician prescribing behavior (companies
often use IMS analysis)
6. Almost all bottoms up approaches to penetration analysis tend to overestimate
penetration in practice. Preference analysis tends to do a poor job of predicting
actual prescribing behavior in the face of detailing and sampling
7. Comparison versus pipeline products and relative timing to market
36
P&T
Committees
Physicians by
Segment
Payor
Research
By Physician
Segment
By Disease State
(e.g., first line,
second line)
Total
Products
on Market
1st
100
58
42
43
31
26
35
26
21
18
30
22
18
16
26
19
16
14
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
13
12
Research Sources:
G. Kalyanaram,The order of entry effect in prescription (Rx) and over-thecounter (OTC) pharmaceutical drugs, International Journal of
Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing, 2008, pp. 35-46.
Hans Bauer and Marc Fischer, Product life cycle patterns for
pharmaceuticals and their impact on R&D profitability of late mover
products, International Business Review, 2000, 703-725.
t
uc
od
Pr
w
Ne
ed
a t al
tim rci
Es me
m
Co s
ve
Li
T3
T3
T2
NF
T3
NF
T2
T2
T3
T3
NF
T3
T3
NF
T2
T3
T2
T2
ia
id
iz
T2
T2
T2
NF
T3
NF
T2
T3
T3
T3
NF
T3
T3
NF
T2
T3
T2
T3
d
an
Av
lip
G
T2
T2
T2
F
T2
NF
T2
T3
T2
T2
T2
T2
T2
T2
T3
T2
T2
T3
in
rm
fo
et
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
NF
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
24,900,000
12,020,000
10,960,000
9,000,000
8,990,000
7,290,000
3,340,000
2,730,000
2,520,000
2,290,000
69,000,000
49,000,000
49,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
3,300,000
8,900,000
1,200,000
275,440,000
ia
National
National
National
Internal PBM
National
Regional
Internal PBM
Regional
Regional
National
PBM
PBM
PBM
PBM
PBM
PBM
PBM
PBM
PBM
v
nu
Ja
Target Payers*
WellPoint/Anthem
Aetna/US Healthcare
United Healthcare
Prime Therapeutics
Cigna
Kaiser
RxSol / PacifiCare
Coventry
HealthNet
Humana
Caremark
ExpressScripts
Medco
PharmaCare
MemberHealth Rx
Anthem
NMHCRx
Coventry
pe
Ty
38
an
Pl
T3
T3
T2
NF
T2
F
T2
T2
T2
T3
NF
T3
T3
NF
T2
T3
T2
T2
39
COST ESTIMATION
ACCOUN
TING
TREATM
ENT
Estimating Costs
COGS
Look at COGS estimates on comparable products
Use expected dosing and treatment length to generate unit sales. Estimate COGS
at that sales volume
Important to be aware of fixed / variable elements of COGS
Review status and current data on scale-up issues
41
Estimating Costs
Pre-Clinical Costs
Time in Trial
Raw materials
Inventories
Small molecular
versus biologic
43
ACCOUN
TING
Input Costs
TREATM
ENT
COGS Factors
and production
costs
Batch size
Production process
(complexity, steps)
Storage and
inventories
Delivery to
customers
ACCOUN
TING
TREATM
ENT
Number of
Personnel
Fully Loaded
Cost
Total Annual
Costs
Senior
Management
$380,000
$760,000
Regional
Managers
$260,000
$1,300,000
MSLs
$250,00
$4,000,000
Sales Reps
120
$180,000
$21,600,000
Support Staff
12
$80,000
$960,000
Total
$28.6 million
Level
44
ACCOUN
TING
TREATM
ENT
SG&A Typically is Typically Much Higher than Direct Sales Force Cost
Company
Pfizer
GlaxoSmithKline
Sanofi-Aventis
Novartis
AstraZeneca
Merck
Wyeth
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Eli Lilly
Schering-Plough
King Pharmaceuticals
Sepracor
Reliant Pharmaceuticals
Sciele
Revenues
2006 ($mil)
$ 48,371
$ 45,500
$ 38,934
$ 36,749
$ 26,475
$ 22,636
$ 20,351
$ 17,914
$ 15,691
$ 10,594
$
1,998
$
1,196
$
800
$
293
SG&A
Expense
($mil)
$ 15,589
$ 14,268
$ 10,641
$ 13,157
$ 9,464
$ 8,165
$ 6,501
$ 6,270
$ 4,890
$ 4,718
$
714
$
764
$
550
$
145
SG&A
Margin
32%
31%
27%
36%
36%
36%
32%
35%
31%
45%
36%
64%
69%
49%
Salesforce
Cost ($mil) Revenue / Rep
$ 4,140
$ 1,389,971
$ 4,375
$ 1,229,730
$ 3,342
$ 1,364,191
$ 1,940
$ 2,370,903
$ 1,950
$ 1,765,000
$ 1,900
$ 1,741,231
$ 1,575
$ 1,695,917
$ 1,348
$ 1,628,545
$ 2,175
$ 950,970
$ 1,618
$ 827,656
$
193
$ 1,816,364
$
333
$ 629,474
$
126
$ 1,111,111
$
114
$ 450,769
U.S. Reps
8,800
9,000
6,500
5,200
6,000
8,000
5,000
3,300
7,000
4,500
1,100
1,900
720
650
Worldwide
Reps
34,800
37,000
28,540
15,500
15,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
16,500
12,800
1,100
1,900
720
650
45
ACCOUN
TING
TREATM
ENT
46
2011
1,000,000
6,000,000
30,000
86,500
100,000
43,000
98,750
58,000
250,000
12,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
40,000
37,000
32,000
27,000
37,000
15,000
20,000
250,000
205,000
60,000
107,000
1,000,000
120,000
20,000
150,000
630,500
3,000,000
568,000
17,496,750
250,000
20,000
100,000
50,000
420,000
262,500,000
75,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
372,500,000
50,000,000
Sales
Sales Incentive (trip/other)
Training
Inventory sample cost
Total
Shipping costs
3,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
5500000
1,000,000
Total
$ 446,916,750
RISK ESTIMATION
Phase 1:
Done Q3 2008
Phase 1b:
Done Q2 2009
Phase 2:
Done 2010
Phase 3:
Done 2012
Opportunity to show
range of doses
Opportunity to find
clear efficacy and start
to see safety profile.
Hopefully, primate tox
is complete and we
have a backup
compound in Phase 1.
Phase 3: Large
safety confirmation
trial / write label
48 48
Terminate /
Consider Other
Indications
Terminate /
Consider Other
Indications
Terminate /
Consider Other
Indications
Terminate
Development
Terminate
Development
Terminate
Development
Drug approvable
but inferior to
existing meds
AR9281 Phase 1a
Safety Trial
Drug Approval /
Label: 2013
100%
80%
100%
60%
80%
Cumulative probability
of success (percent)
40%
52%
20%
26%
18%
15%
0%
Pre-Clinical
Successful
IND
Submission
Phase I/IIa
Successful
Phase IIb
Successful
Stage of Development
49
Phase III
Successful
NDA
Successful
Kaitin (1995)
DiMasi / Hansen / Grabowski / Lasagna (1997, 1995)
Struck (1994 biotech)
Struck (1994 conventional NCE)
DiMasi / Seibring / Lasagna (1994)
Wenzel (1993)
Grabowski (1991)
Tucker / Blozan / Coppinger (1988)
Sheck / Cox / Davis et al. (1984)
Hansen (1979)
Recombinant Capital (o.D.)
Bienz-Tadmor / DiCerbo / Lasagna (1992)
Grosse / DiMasi / Nelson (1996)
Average
Average (excl. high and low)
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
FDA
4
22
38
11
19
10
24
20
23
69
25
63
64
62
64
92
66
63
64
?
60
90
75
90
75
100
100
83
29
21
30
32
30
31
79
33
30
31
?
50
30
19
18
25
23
38
34
66
64
87
87
23
?
17
19
Notes
(2)
(3)
(4)
Source: "Real Option Valuation in R&D Decision-Making in Pharmaceuticals" by Dr. Gunnar Pritsch, Associate Principal, McKinsey & Co.
(1) No empirical study, but conclusion estimates.
(2) Gastrointestinal: 79%; anti-infective: 84%; cardio: 90%; oncology: 92%; antiviral: 93%; endocrine: 94%; neuropharmacologic + radiologic: 100%.
(3) Peptide hormone analogous: 24%; antiviral 29%; antineoplastics: 33%; cardiovascular: 34%.
(4) Data 1980-89; number reflects average expected success for all recombiment protein and monoclonal antibody drugs; all recombinants: 19-43%;
new recombinants: 15-39%; therapeutic MAbs: 4-29%.
50
Cost ($ million)
Success Rate /
Transition
Probability (%)
Duration
(Months)
Phase I
71%
12
Phase II
12
44%
26
Phase III
68
69%
34
NDA
NA
18
Total
88
21%
90
Stage
In biotech the success rate was even lower, averaging 9% for NCEs and 15% for
biologicals.
51
Source: JA DiMasi, L Feldman, A Seckler and A Wilson, Trends in Risks Associated With New Drug
Development: Success Rates for Investigational Drugs, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, March
2010, pp. 272-277.
52
Source: DiMasi, J.A., 2001, Risks in New Drug Development: Approval Success Rates for
Investigational Drugs, Clin Pharmacol Ther, vol. 69, p. 297-307.
53
Source: JA DiMasi, L Feldman, A Seckler and A Wilson, Trends in Risks Associated With New Drug
Development: Success Rates for Investigational Drugs, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, March
2010, pp. 272-277.
54
Source: JA DiMasi, L Feldman, A Seckler and A Wilson, Trends in Risks Associated With New Drug
Development: Success Rates for Investigational Drugs, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, March
2010, pp. 272-277.
55
ACCOUN
TING
Nominal / Real
TREATM
ENT
Discount Rate
Company
Actelion
57
Source
Nominal
13.2%
HY Report 2009
Large Pharma A
Real
10%
2010 Interview
Spec Pharma A
Nominal
12%
2010 Interview
Large Biotech A
Nominal
10%
2009 Interview
Spec Pharma B
Nominal
14%
2009 Interview
Large Pharma B
Nominal
12%
2009 Interview
AstraZeneca
Nominal
11%
Range
10 to 14%
ACCOUN
TING
TREATM
ENT
58
The return that investors require for taking systematic risk over and above
the risk-free rate
Weighted Average
Cost of Capital (WACC)
Cost of Equity
Cost of Debt
Risk-Free
Rate
Credit
Spread
Country/
Political
Risk
Premium
Tax Shield
Risk-Free
Rate
Equity
Market
Risk
Premium
Equity
Beta
Business
Risk
Country/
Political
Risk
Premium
Financial
Risk
WACC is a weighted average of cost of equity and debt, where the weights for cost of debt
and cost of equity are determined by market values of equity and debt. Because a number of
inputs to WACC are of statistical nature, WACC is a range rather than a point estimate.
60
EQUITY BETA(1)
(1) When calculating the asset beta for high-levered, non-investment grade companies, it is important to utilize a debt beta in the calculation.
61
RISK-FREE RATE
62
We prefer to pick a
fixed rate that reflects
the leveraged
opportunity cost of
equity
Another approach is to
look at industry wide
implied cost of equity
from actual market
prices.
Illustrative
Value to
Original
Developer
NPV= $30
License
Milestones
Royalties
NPV= $80
R&D
Sales
COGs
R&D
NPV= $50
Sales
S&M
License
Value to
Partner
COGs
Milestones
S&M
R&D
64
Royalties
Partnering a Program Splits the NPV Between the Original Developer and the Partner
NPV Split
65
66
PARTNERSHIP DASHBOARD
1. Ask licensor to show what they can do for you. Get financial forecasts if
possible. Ask for a capabilities presentation.
2. Figure out the licensors financial modeling approach and assumptions
as best as possible.
3. Figure out the licensors hurdle rate on rIRR.
4. Solve for the licensors model and the rIRR as terms change.
5. Focus less on deal comparables.
6. Try to get payments made early in the collaboration.
7. Avoid including equity as consideration.
68
Assume $20 million upfront, $160 million in milestones and a 22% royalty.
Cash Flows to BigPharma from Partnership Transaction - US
Items
Forecast Revenue
Cost of Goods Sold
Royalty payment to Biotech
BigPharma development expense
SG&A and launch cost
Milestone payments to Biotech
BigPharma Pre-tax cash flows
After-Tax Cash Flow
Probability of Success in Year
Probability of Payment if Deal in 2008
Probability Adjusted Cash Flow
2008
0
0
0
5
0
20
(25)
(25)
10%
100%
(25)
$
(0.00)
22%
36%
2009
0
0
0
10
0
0
(10)
(10)
20%
50%
(5)
$
(0.00)
2010
0
0
0
20
0
40
(60)
(60)
40%
25%
(15)
$
(0.01)
2011
0
0
0
20
0
0
(20)
(20)
40%
25%
(5)
$
(0.00)
2012
0
0
0
50
(30)
60
(140)
(140)
70%
20%
(28)
$
(0.02)
2013
0
0
0
50
(30)
60
(140)
(140)
70%
20%
(28)
$
(0.02)
2014
0
0
0
10
0
0
(10)
(10)
85%
15%
(2)
$
(0.00)
2015
624
62
137
0
(156)
200
68
53
100%
10%
5
2016
1,686
169
371
0
(422)
0
725
565
100%
10%
57
2017
2,918
292
642
0
(642)
0
1,342
1,047
100%
10%
105
2018
4,339
434
954
0
(954)
0
1,996
1,557
100%
10%
156
0.01 $
0.08 $
0.15 $
0.22 $
The deal on the table here is for a Phase 1b cardiometabolic drug. The
proposal made of 20mm upfront gives the licensor (big pharma company) a
generous return of 36%. However, the project is highly risky. The licensee
should keep bargaining to try to get the pharmas return down to a sub 25%
area. This will require getting the upfront to be higher.
69
2019
5,972
597
1,314
0
(1,314)
0
2,747
2,143
100%
10%
214
0.31 $
2024
8,836
884
1,944
0
(1,944)
0
4,064
3,170
100%
10%
317
0.45 $
2029
12,450
1,245
2,739
0
(2,739)
0
5,727
4,467
100%
10%
447
0.64
1. Look at the IRR on your own company what is your cost of cash?
2. Look at missing elements particularly the targets pipeline.
71
OUR
UNDE
RSTAN
DING
OF
LILLYS
VALUA
TION
APPRO
ACH
72
Revenues
$3,966
$3,549
$3,163
Revenues
$3,072
$2,777
$2,725
$2,373
$2,199
$526
2005
$699
$772
$803
2006
2007
2008
Warner Chilcott
$996
$726
$625
$351
$377
2007
2008
$270
$216
2006
Allergan
Pro Forma
$1,000
$856
$841
2005
Operating Margin
Allergan
$1,377
$1,207
Warner Chilcott
Pro Forma
EPS
2003-2008 CAGR
19.9% accretive
18.8% accretive
14.1% accretive
$5.54
$4.62
$4.42
$3.28
$3.55
2005
$5.48
$3.87
2006
Allergan
2007
Pro Forma
2008
2005-2008 CAGR
8.4% accretive
21.4% 22.4%
20.5%
$6.51
17.0%
15.2%
12.9%
17.9%
18.7%
13.3%
Revenue
Allergan
Warner Chilcott
Pro Forma
EPS
Be aware of how your own company looks through the same lens
For the purpose of a stock for stock merger its important to look at each party with the
same analytical approach
If you ignore their pipeline, you should ignore yours etc.
74
DISCLAIMER
These materials have been provided to you by Torreya Partners LLC or Torreya Partners (Europe) LLP together with their respective affiliates and the members,
directors, officers, employees, advisers or agents of each of them (together Torreya Partners) and may not be used or relied upon for any purpose other than as
specifically contemplated by a written agreement with Torreya Partners. t The information used in preparing these materials was obtained from public sources
and is intended only for educational and illustrative purposes. The material herein was prepared by the authors and may not represent the opinions or methods
employed by Torreya Partners. Torreya Partners assumes no responsibility for independent verification of the validity of the content herein nor can it indicate
that the content is complete and accurate in all material respects. No representation, warranty or undertaking, express or implied, is made and no responsibility
is accepted by Torreya Partners as to or in relation to the accuracy or completeness or otherwise of these materials or as to the reasonableness of any other
information made available in connection with these materials (whether in writing or orally) to any interested party (or its advisers). Torreya Partners will not be
liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of relying on any statement contained in these materials or any
such other information. None of these materials, the information contained in them or any other information supplied in connection with these materials will
form the basis of any contract. To the extent such information includes estimates and forecasts of future financial performance (including estimates of potential
cost savings and synergies) prepared by or reviewed and discussed with the managements of your company and/or other potential transaction participants or
obtained from public sources, we have assumed that such estimates and forecasts have been reasonably prepared on bases reflecting the best currently available
estimates and judgments of such managements (or, with respect to estimates and forecast obtained from public sources, represent reasonable estimates). These
materials were designed for us by specific persons familiar with the business and the affairs of your company and Torreya Partners assumes no obligation to
update or otherwise review these materials. These materials have been prepared by Torreya Partners and its affiliates and accordingly information reflected or
incorporated into these materials may be shared with employees of Torreya Partners and its affiliates and agents regardless of location. This presentation speaks
only as of the date it is given, and the views expressed are subject to change based upon a number of factors, including market conditions and the Companys
business and prospects.
Nothing contained herein should be construed as tax, legal or accounting advice. You (and each of your employees, representatives or other agents) may
disclose to any and all persons, without limitation of any kind the tax treatment and structure of the transactions contemplated by these materials and all
materials of any kind (including opinions or other tax analyses) that are provided to you relating to such tax treatment and structure. For this purpose, the tax
treatment of a transaction is the purported or claimed US federal income tax treatment of the transaction and tax structure of a transaction is any fact that may
be relevant to understand the purported or claimed US federal income tax treatment of the transaction.
Torreya Partners (Europe) LLP, which is authorised and regulated in the United Kingdom by the Financial Conduct Authority, is not acting for you in connection
with any potential transaction(s) described in these materials and thus will not be responsible for providing you the protections afforded to clients of Torreya
Partners (Europe) LLP or for advising you in connection with any potential transaction(s) as described in these materials except and unless subject to a
subsequent specific written agreement relating to such potential transaction(s) between you and Torreya Partners (Europe) LLP.
Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority