All,
GILD
has a trailing 1 yr PEG=0.09, PE of 9.5, and a dividend of 1.75% while the S&P 500 has a PE = 18. If we assume that GILD deserves an average multiple for its earnings, then the market is telling us that it thinks 50% of GILD earnings should evaporate shortly.
I submit to you the following:
If GILD cuts prices, then much of the loss of sales will be made up with volume (I hope they cut prices anyway, but that’s just me).
If they continue as they are, earnings will definately not go up at the same rate, BUT they can buy back stock at such favorable rates that the effective 1 year PEG can stay high.
They are in a position to expand their business through acquisitions.
I realize that single drug risks are HIGH, but I think GILD is so beaten down that it deserves a look in even a GARP investor’s account.
Best,
bulwnkl
Long GILD since 7/14 with about 5% of my portfolio.
@bulwnkl
PE might be a bit misleading, so I don’t put too much weight behind it. However, I do think the market is discounting GILD too much.
Given GILD’s dominant position in HEP C and HIV drugs, revenue and cash flow should continue to grow, but even if revenue stagnates (highly unlikely), they have a decent pipeline of HIV, oncology, liver (incl’d HEP B) and cardiovascular drugs in development or in clinical trials, which should lead to new revenue streams. In fact, GILD is expecting an FDA decision on new HIV formulations by November 5th, with other formulations to follow in early 2016. But if that isn’t enough, then look at the cash they have to fund acquisitions.
There are some rather compelling numbers from the GILD earnings reports. Based on Yahoo finance GILD generated $5.7 billion in cash flow in the past 2 quarters, on $8.2B and $7.6B in revenue respectively, or $18.4B cash flow from $29.2B in revenue TTM. As of June 30th the company also had over $7 billion in cash on the books (down from over $10B in the 2 prior quarters).
The recent pullback is largely attributable to the general market downdraft, and the Clinton tweet regarding cracking down on price gouging. I expect these kind of headlines to continue since health care will continue to be a major political football for the foreseeable future. That tends to create volatility in GILD stock, which creates good entry points.
Although I’m already a little overweight GILD, it’s tough to resist the opportunity in front of us right now. TEMPTED…
----- Invest wisely my friends
CMFSoloFool
Ticker Guide: NTGR and OTEX
This article confused me. It mentions this new drug to combat HBV as being more effective than Viread. Viread is Gilead’s treatment for HIV, not HBV. To the best of my knowledge, Gilead does not have a drug for HBV although I’m sure they are looking at this.
I don’t see this impacting Harvoni sales in the HCV market.
Lastly, I trust management at Gilead is or already has been eyeing this company and that they’ll make the right move accordingly. I trust management based on their past history. Of course, they could make the wrong move either not purchasing a superstar or overspending for a flop, but they’ve navigated these waters well in the past. Let’s hope that is repeated in the future.
If anyone has further info or can correct any untruths I’ve written above, I’d be glad to hear. It isn’t terribly easy remembering all of the drugs and what they are targeting.
Lastly, if this new drug is, in fact, competing with Viread in the HIV market, it will now have to compete with Gilead’s new drug (TAF if I’m not mistaken). I understand TAF to be the new and improved Viread.
Viread is used to treat both Hepatitis B and, in combination with other medications, HIV. It affects an enzyme pathway (reverse transcriptase) which both the HIV and Hepatitis B viruses use. The active agent is tenofovir, which gets incorporated into a cell’s DNA by the reverse transcriptase but does not function properly and eventually causes the replaced viral DNA to be destroyed. It treats Hepatitis B but does not cure it. My guess is that it only reduces the replication or uptake of Hepatitis B but does nothing about the already incorporated viral load.
From what I can tell, CMX157 (the drug being developed by ContraVir), is a different formulation of tenofovir. It probably get taken up by the liver much more rapidly, which is good for treating Hepatitis B but not so much for HIV. It’s still a long way away from becoming approved for use. And, given that it has the same mechanism of action, it’s also not going to cure the disease on its own.
Hepatitis C does not use the reverse transcriptase pathway so tenofovir would not be effective in treating it, so it should have no effect on that aspect of GILD’s business.
GILD has some stuff in the pipeline for Hepatitis B but I don’t know anything about it. Based on the GILD pipeline website (http://www.gilead.com/research/pipeline) TAF is a different formulation of the same tenofovir molecule, and GS-4774 is something completely different.