Analysts aren’t buying a Gilead-AstraZeneca merger
The weekend’s news that AstraZeneca might be considering a takeover of Gilead Sciences didn’t exactly make waves on Wall Street, as analysts found little in the way of incentive for either party to join forces.
As STAT’s Ed Silverman reports, the two companies appear to be on different trajectories that don’t quite complement one another. AstraZeneca has a resurgent oncology business and a warmly regarded pipeline that should pay off in the years to come, whereas Gilead has a positive short-term outlook with major questions about the future. And from Gilead’s perspective, the company’s current valuation doesn’t account for management’s sweeping ambitions, meaning selling now would amount to admitting defeat.
To Wolfe Research analyst Tim Anderson, there’s no compelling reason for AstraZeneca to spend the more than $100 billion it would cost to buy Gilead, and there’s not much to suggest the other party is looking to sell. As Anderson wrote in a note to investors, “this is why our first response to the news was ‘huh?!’”
Read more.
As STAT’s Ed Silverman reports, the two companies appear to be on different trajectories that don’t quite complement one another. AstraZeneca has a resurgent oncology business and a warmly regarded pipeline that should pay off in the years to come, whereas Gilead has a positive short-term outlook with major questions about the future. And from Gilead’s perspective, the company’s current valuation doesn’t account for management’s sweeping ambitions, meaning selling now would amount to admitting defeat.
To Wolfe Research analyst Tim Anderson, there’s no compelling reason for AstraZeneca to spend the more than $100 billion it would cost to buy Gilead, and there’s not much to suggest the other party is looking to sell. As Anderson wrote in a note to investors, “this is why our first response to the news was ‘huh?!’”
Read more.
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario