Now Everything Is Just A Show Directed And Performed By Zelensky And His Friends: Critical-Mineral Diplomacy Must Focus on Supply

"Diplomacy has a role to play in creating non-Chinese supply chains for renewable energy -- but not this kind of diplomacy.

Politicians are talking a lot about critical minerals: metals, such as lithium and rare earths, that today are turned into valuable manufacturing inputs mainly in China, and that in the future will be needed in much greater quantities for things like electric vehicles and wind turbines. On Friday, the subject played a starring role in a meeting between U.S. President Biden and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. This week, the European Union will launch a Critical Raw Materials Act to improve its green-energy security.

Investors have a lot riding on critical minerals, too. Last year, battery costs rose for the first time in recent history due to supply-chain bottlenecks that pushed up metal prices. EV startups and wind-turbine manufacturers struggled, while mining stocks soared. The tide has turned a bit this year amid signs of softening EV demand. Given the difficulty of bringing new mines online, though, shortages could soon be front and center again.

Against this backdrop, you might expect the political focus to be on expanding supply. Instead, a lot of talk lately has centered on coordinating demand through buyers' clubs. This is a big part of the EU bill, based on previews, and it was also a talking point between Mr. Biden and Ms. von der Leyen. Washington reportedly wants to coordinate buying among Group of Seven nations, as it has with Russian oil.

The EU struggled politically to deal with competitive bidding among its member states first for vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic, then for natural gas after sanctions on Russia and sabotage cut pipeline supplies last year. It understandably wants to avoid similar problems with new-energy metals.

But high vaccine and gas prices caused by competitive bidding also generated results: Europe got vaccinated and gas inventories were refilled.

Buyers' clubs probably aren't effective anyway: The purchasing cartel for Russian oil hasn't had big market impacts. They seem a way for politicians to demonstrate action more than a solution.

A more useful focus for critical mineral strategies is making sure the market can respond to price signals. The EU bill aims to speed up permitting processes to no more than 24 months for mines, and just 12 months for processing plants. If it can walk this talk -- which might be challenging given the power of local politics in permitting -- it will make a difference.

What is conspicuously absent from any EU proposals reported to date is dedicated subsidies to accelerate projects in the region. In the U.S., critical-mineral miners and refiners can write off 10% of their costs as part of last year's Inflation Reduction Act. So far, the EU has responded only by making it easier for its member states to match U.S. offers if there is a risk of a project relocating.

The elephant in the room on both sides of the Atlantic is that there can be no such thing as self-sufficiency. Australia and South America are currently the big producers of lithium; Indonesia leads nickel output. The EU hopes to mine just 10% of its domestic critical-material needs in 2030. In the U.S., manufacturers will eventually need to source most battery metals or inputs from U.S. free-trade partners to qualify for the new EV tax credits, but Washington pragmatically intends to take a very broad view of who qualifies.

With renewables as with fossil fuels, developing diplomatic relations with big producer nations will be key to energy security. Talks between worried buyers are a sideshow." [1]

1. Critical-Mineral Diplomacy Must Focus on Supply
Wilmot, Stephen.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 14 Mar 2023: B.10.

„Pfizer“ permoka už „Seagen“ --- Geriausio biotechnologinio turto pirkimas, kai kiti turtai susiduria su patentų skardžiu, turėjo būti brangu

„Tai yra biotechnologijų pardavėjų rinka.

 

     Keletas vaistų kompanijų ieško vis mažėjančio pageidaujamų biotechnologijų sąrašo, todėl sandorių kainos paremtos su daug optimizmo. „Pfizer“ susitarimas sumokėti 43 mlrd. dolerių už Seagen yra brangi kaina. Tačiau, atsižvelgiant į staigią pardavimo uolą, su kuria susidūrė Pfizer, negalima kaltinti generalinio direktoriaus Alberto Bourla dėl agresyvumo.

 

     Remiantis „Visible Alpha“, analitikų prognozuojama Seagen 2030 m. pardavimų apimtis yra maždaug 5,5 karto mažesnė, negu Pfizer sumokėta kaina, o šis „Pfizer“ mokamas vertinimas viršija maždaug 4,5 kartotinį, kurį „Amgen“ sumokėjo už „Horizon Therapeutics“, gruodį sudarydamas 28 mlrd. dolerių sandorį, kuris buvo vertinamas, kaip brangus.

 

     „Pfizer“ akcijos popietinėje prekyboje pabrango apie 2 proc., investuotojams sukantis į sveikatos priežiūros sektorių, nerimaujant dėl finansų sektoriaus po Silicio slėnio banko žlugimo. „Pfizer“ pirmadienį uždarė su 1,2 proc. padidėjimu. Prieš pirmadienį jis sumažėjo maždaug 5%, nes praėjusio mėnesio pabaigoje apie derybas pranešė „The Wall Street Journal“.

 

     „Amgen“ ir „Pfizer“ buvo bendra tai, kad jos susidūrė su gresiančia patentų skardžiu, darančiu spaudimą pajamoms. Pfizer atveju apie 17 milijardų dolerių pajamų iš geriausiai parduodamų vaistų vėliau šį dešimtmetį iškilo pavojus dėl patentų praradimo.

 

     Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad tiek daug vaistų kompanijų susiduria su ta pačia situacija – apie 200 mlrd. dolerių pakibo - šios kompanijos konkuruoja sudaryti tokus sandorius. Prieš sudarydama sandorį su „Amgen“, „Horizon“ teigė, kad sulaukė susidomėjimo iš „Johnson & Johnson“ ir „Sanofi“.

 

     Nežinome, kiek vaistų kompanijų tarėsi su „Seagen“, bet „Pfizer“ galėjo veikti agresyviau, kai žurnalas pradėjo skelbti, kad „Merck“ vedė derybas praėjusią vasarą. Ponas Bourla apie tai užsiminė per analitiko skambutį pirmadienį. „Akivaizdu, kad „Seagen“ stebėjome daug, daug metų“, – analitikams sakė M. Bourla. – Ir aišku, kai buvo naujienų ir veiklos... žiūrėjome dar labiau.

 

     Norėdamas pritraukti investuotojų, J. Bourla žengė neįprastą žingsnį ir pažadėjo iki 2030 m. per įsigijimus gauti 25 mlrd. dolerių pajamų per metus iš tokių įsigyjimų. 10 milijardų JAV dolerių, kuriuos, kaip prognozuoja, iki 2030 m. gali gauti iš Seagen. Analitikai prognozuoja, kad tais metais bus arčiau 8 milijardų JAV dolerių. Ji tikisi iš susijungimo sutaupyti apie 1 mlrd. dolerių. Tačiau šiuose skaičiuose yra daug optimizmo.

 

     Nors beveik kiekviena didelė JAV vaistų kompanija žvalgosi dėl susijungimų ir įsigijimų, yra ryšys tarp bendrovės patentų uolos dydžio ir jos noro rizikuoti permokėti.

 

     „Pfizer“ tikrai buvo vienas agresyviausių sandorių sudarytojų ir dėl geros priežasties. Nors „Pfizer“ balansas atrodo tvirtas iš dalies dėl „Covid-19 uždarbio“, kai 2022 m. uždirbo 100 mlrd. dolerių, tačiau patentai sensta. Tai padarė spaudimą akcijoms, kurios per pastaruosius 12 mėnesių sumažėjo apie 20%.

 

     „Jų kainų etiketė daro prielaidą, kad jungtinei įmonei viskas eisis tinkamai“, - sako Jaredas Holzas, „Mizuho“ sveikatos priežiūros nuosavybės strategas. „Tačiau biotechnologijų turtas, generuojantis materialines pajamas farmacijos įmonėms, yra menkas, palyginus su kaina, todėl tam turtui bus skiriama tokia didelė priemoka."

 

     Remiantis „FactSet“, „Pfizer“ prekiauja 10,8 karto didesniu išankstiniu pelnu, palyginti su 10 metų vidurkiu – 12,2 karto, taigi, tikėtina, kad čia nėra daug neigiamų pasekmių. Tačiau, atsižvelgiant į didelę kainą, kurią ji moka, nesitikėkite, kad „Pfizer“ akcijos šoktų į priekį.“ [1]

 

Rusai, norėdami įsūdyti lenkams, mums padovanojo lenkų apgyvendintą Vilnių. Mes tuos dovanotus Vilniaus turtus atidavėme Landsbergiams ir jų šaikai už vieną eurą.  Tai buvo klaida. Pernelyg durni Landsbergiai. Jeigu bent dalį tų turtų būtume skyrę Janulaičio biotechnologijų gamykloms statyti, tai jau būtume, kaip Šveicarija. O dabar esame pasaulio juodariai, kovotojai su didžiuliais vėjo malūnais - Kinija ir Rusija. Mums tose durnose kovose pelno nėra, vieni guzai ir nuostoliai. 

 

1. Pfizer Is Overpaying for Seagen --- Buying top biotech assets as others face a patent cliff was bound to be pricey
Wainer, David.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 14 Mar 2023: B.10.

Pfizer Is Overpaying for Seagen --- Buying top biotech assets as others face a patent cliff was bound to be pricey

"It is a seller's market in biotech.

With several drug companies on the prowl for a diminishing list of desirable biotechs, deal prices are having to bake in a lot of optimism. Pfizer's agreement to pay $43 billion for Seagen values the fast-growing cancer company at a lofty valuation that rivals like Merck balked at paying last year. But given the steep sales cliff that Pfizer was up against, you can't blame Chief Executive Albert Bourla for being aggressive.

At about 5.5 times analysts' projected 2030 sales according to Visible Alpha, the valuation Pfizer is paying trumps the roughly 4.5 multiple that Amgen paid for Horizon Therapeutics in a $28 billion deal in December, which was seen as pricey.

Pfizer's stock was up about 2% in afternoon trading as investors rotated into the healthcare sector amid worries about the financial sector after the Silicon Valley Bank collapse. Pfizer closed up 1.2% on Monday. Before Monday, it was down about 5% since The Wall Street Journal reported the talks late last month.

What Amgen and Pfizer had in common is they faced a looming patent cliff, putting pressure on earnings. In Pfizer's case, about $17 billion of revenue from top-selling drugs is at risk later this decade due to patent losses.

Given that so many drug companies are facing the same situation -- about $200 billion in sales is going off patent this decade -- they are often competing against each other for the most prized biotechs, driving takeover prices higher. Before its deal with Amgen, Horizon said it was receiving interest from Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi.

We don't know how many drug companies circled Seagen, but Pfizer might have moved more aggressively once the Journal began reporting Merck was holding talks last summer. Mr. Bourla hinted as much during an analyst call on Monday. "Clearly, we were watching Seagen for many, many years," Mr. Bourla told analysts. "And clearly when there was news and activity . . . we looked even more."

To win over investors, Mr. Bourla took the unusual step of promising to get to $25 billion in annual revenue through acquisitions by 2030. On the call Monday, the company indicated it is at about $20 billion in acquired projected revenue by that year, including $10 billion that it forecasts could come from Seagen by 2030. Analyst projections are closer to $8 billion for that year. It expects to squeeze about $1 billion in cost savings from the merger. But there is a lot of optimism baked into those numbers.

While nearly every big drug company in the U.S. is on the prowl for M&A, there is a correlation between the size of a company's patent cliff and its willingness to risk overpaying.

Pfizer has definitely been one of the most aggressive deal makers, and for good reason. While Pfizer's balance sheet looks strong thanks in part to the Covid-19 bonanza that earned the company $100 billion in sales in 2022, its earnings are facing several threats including a shrinking Covid business. This put pressure on the shares, which are down around 20% over the past 12 months.

"Their price tag assumes everything goes right for the combined entity," says Jared Holz, a healthcare equity strategist at Mizuho. "But there's scarcity value with respect to biotech assets that are generating material revenue for pharma companies, so there's going to be a premium being placed on those assets."

Pfizer is trading at 10.8 times forward earnings, compared with a 10-year average of 12.2 times, according to FactSet, so there likely isn't much downside from here. But given the steep price it is paying, don't expect Pfizer's stock to gallop ahead either." [1]

 

The Russians, in order to hit the Poles, gave us Vilnius inhabited by Poles. We gave the donated by Russians property of Vilnius to the Landsbergiai and their friends for one euro. It was a mistake. The Landsbergiai are too stupid. If we had allocated at least part of that wealth to the construction of biotechnology factories by Janulaitis, we would already be like Switzerland. And now we are the but of jokes for people of the world, fighters with huge windmills - China and Russia. There is no profit for us in those stupid fights, only bumps and losses.

 

1. Pfizer Is Overpaying for Seagen --- Buying top biotech assets as others face a patent cliff was bound to be pricey
Wainer, David.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]. 14 Mar 2023: B.10.