Pharmaceutical Companies Listed in London Stock Exchange - Essay Example

Profitability Analysis 4/7 s Figure Logos by: (Abbott Laboratories, (AstraZeneca, 2007) (BTG, (Eli Lilly & Co., 2011) (Johnson & Johnson, 2011) (Merck, 2011) (Pfizer, 2011) (SFC-ACS, 2010) (Shire, 2011) (Ventura, 2011) ABSTRACT: This report encompasses a comprehensive yet meticulous account of the financial positions of the top pharmaceutical companies listed in London Stock Exchange as well as NYSE, with laser-focused emphasis upon the performances of GlaxoSmithKline (LSE) and Pfizer (NYSE). Furthermore, this report will shed light upon the expected returns upon investments within the sectors/companies under consideration. Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Foreword 4 Company and Industry Backgrounds 5 Share price trends 6 Fundamental Analysis 9 I.Companies listed in London Stock Exchange 9 A.Return on Net operating Assets (RNOA) 9 B.Net Borrowing Cost 9 C.Operating Profit Margin 9 D.Net Comprehensive profit Margin 10 E.Operating Liability Leverage 10 F.Financial Liability Leverage 11 G.Spread 11 H.Asset Turnover 11 I.Return on Common Equity 12 II.Companies listed in London Stock Exchange 12 A.Return on Net operating Assets (RNOA) 12 B.Net Borrowing Cost 13 C.Operating Profit Margin 13 D.Net Comprehensive profit Margin 13 E.Operating Liability Leverage 14 F.Financial Liability Leverage 14 G.Spread 14 H.Asset Turnover 15 I.Return on Common Equity 15 Findings 15 Companies listed in LSE 15 Companies listed in NYSE 23 GlaxoSmithKline v/s Pfizer 30 Limitations 36 Conclusion 37 Works Cited 38 Endnotes 43 Foreword Profitability analysis for companies within the pharmaceutical industry is often extremely intricate and tricky, some reasons for this are: Drug-discovery and innovation costs are very high; Bain & Company places the estimate for discovery and development of a drug at about USD 1.7 billion. (Krauss, 2003, pp.21-26) Many drugs fail to pass the various drugs administration tests issued by respective government agencies, this leads to heavy research and development costs to be levied on products that could never be seen in the markets. (Bleavins et al., 2010, p.35) Drug testing is a very time consuming as well as expensive process. This is usually disastrous for a company’s results as the R&D investment may not generate any returns in the near future, making it difficult to judge the true position of a financial statement. (Bleavins et al., 2010, p.35) It is because of such reasons why analyzing the results of a pharmaceutical company is considered to be an extensive and taxing task. Furthermore, short-term financial statement analysis may be rendered ineffective because of these reasons, as the numbers will never consider ‘what if’ scenarios (such as what if R&D costs do not provide any return in the future? or provide exceptional returns?) It is very essential to take all these factors into account as the two chief companies under investigation are GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, and both of these companies are highly innovative. Company and Industry Backgrounds Perhaps the industry with the highest innovation rates, the pharmaceutical industry is an essential element of the financial system. According to Fortune Magazine, 12 pharmaceutical companies have made it in the Fortune 500 list in 2009, amongst these 6 companies were from the US, and 2 companies were from UK; the rest were also from other European regions. (Fortune, 2009, p.27) With Johnson & Johnson (US) leading the pact, Pfizer (US) is the second largest pharmaceutical company closely followed by GlaxoSmithKline (UK) at number 4. GlaxoSmithKline (hereafter referred to as GSK) and Pfizer have been close competitors for a long time, although their major focus in terms of type of drug differs substantially, these two companies still compete for top spot within many drug categories. Nevertheless, both these companies are very accomplished: GlaxoSmithKline World’s fourth largest pharmaceutical company by sales. Has generated employment for about 100,000 people. Owns 85% stake in ‘Viiv Healthcare’ (the remaining 15% is owned by Pfizer), which is engaged in the research-and-development as well as manufacturing of drugs for HIV patients. GSK is an accomplished name when it comes to philanthropy. Some renowned products by GSK are Horlicks, Imitrex, Levitra, Amoxil, etc. (GlaxoSmithKline, 2011) (GSK, 2011) Pfizer World’s second largest pharmaceutical company by sales. Has over 110,000 people working for it. In 2009, Pfizer had invested the most money in R&D for new drugs amongst all other pharmaceutical companies of the world. Owns dominant brands such as Lipitor, Diflucan, Viagra, Lyrica, etc. Overall, the brands owned by Pfizer are much more prominent than GSK’s brands. Pfizer is more often in the news as compared to any of its counterparts, mostly it generates media for all the wrong reasons, but it gets lots of free publicity nonetheless. Most recently the company was surrounded in a controversy involving bribing doctors to recommend Pfizer’s products. (Pfizer, 2011) Share price trends The impact of the recent economic crisis is very evident within the charts of both companies (see fig 2 & 3). A positive factor is that the shares did not lose volume and momentum even during the worst market sessions since the last 60 years. Figure 2: GSK 5 year share price (Yahoo! Finance, 2011) Figure 3: Pfizers 5 year share price (Yahoo! Finance, 2011) Figure 4: Volumes in GSK (up) and Pfizer (down) (Yahoo! Finance, 2011) While at the first glance it may seem that Pfizer’s shares have underwent a much greater fall as compared to GSK, further analysis shows that it is not so and the fall is actually very close to that of GSK (see fig 5 below) Figure 5: Share price comparison: GSK & Pfizer (Yahoo! Finance, 2011) There is no doubt that Pfizer’s shareholders experience a higher momentum, but overall both shares are showing signs of recovery after the low in the first quarter of 2009. Fundamental Analysis I. Companies listed in London Stock Exchange A. Return on Net operating Assets (RNOA) Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline 40 32 33 13 AstraZeneca 34 28 36 40 Shire Plc -71 23 33 32 BTG 11 85 -15 3 Vectura -26 -17 -27 -23 MEDIAN 11 28 33 13 Table 1: RNOA LSE (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) B. Net Borrowing Cost Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline 5 7 6 8 AstraZeneca 7 5 18 -140 Shire Plc -3 -709 188 -13 BTG 4 5 -4 11 Vectura 6 5 2 2 MEDIAN 5 5 6 2 Table 2: NBC LSE (All amounts in percent) (Allen, 2003, p.159) C. Operating Profit Margin Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline 24 22 22 9 AstraZeneca 19 21 25 26 Shire Plc -59 9 18 18 BTG 2 9 -13 4 Vectura -99 -67 -74 -47 MEDIAN 2 9 18 9 Table 3: PM LSE (All amounts in percent) (Pinson, 2008, p.115) D. Net Comprehensive profit Margin Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline 23 19 19 6 AstraZeneca 19 19 23 24 Shire Plc -60 5 16 17 BTG 5 12 -15 11 Vectura -80 -53 -70 -43 MEDIAN 5 12 16 11 Table 4: NP (All amounts in percent) (Pinson, 2008, p.116) E. Operating Liability Leverage Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline 76 77 82 86 AstraZeneca 92 77 92 107 Shire Plc 102 193 140 131 BTG 446 299 87 62 Vectura 43 34 37 35 MEDIAN 92 77 87 86 Table 5: OLLEV (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) F. Financial Liability Leverage Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline -42 -85 -104 -96 AstraZeneca -11 -55 -24 2 Shire Plc 21 1 -2 11 BTG 86 85 44 31 Vectura 47 44 47 46 MEDIAN 21 1 -2 11 Table 6: FLEV (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) G. Spread Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline 35 25 27 5 AstraZeneca 28 22 18 180 Shire Plc -68 731 -155 45 BTG 7 80 -11 -8 Vectura -32 -22 -29 -25 MEDIAN 7 25 -11 5 Table 7: SPREAD (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) H. Asset Turnover Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline 165 147 151 147 AstraZeneca 175 132 144 153 Shire Plc 121 243 184 179 BTG 737 962 113 66 Vectura 27 26 36 49 MEDIAN 165 147 144 147 Table 8: ATO (All amounts in percent) (Porter & Norton, 2010, pp.428-29) I. Return on Common Equity Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 GlaxoSmithKline 55 52 62 17 AstraZeneca 37 40 41 37 Shire Plc -54 12 31 27 BTG 5 17 -10 5 Vectura -11 -8 -13 -12 MEDIAN 5 17 31 17 Table 9: Return on Common Equity (ROCE) LSE (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) II. Companies listed in London Stock Exchange A. Return on Net operating Assets (RNOA) Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer 11 11 8 6 J&J 24 29 27 26 Abbott 18 19 20 17 Merck 16 36 28 1 Eli Lilly 22 -15 37 40 MEDIAN 18 19 27 17 Table 10: RNOA (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) B. Net Borrowing Cost Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer 1 -1 0 0 J&J -7 5 -390 -18 Abbott 8 -3 -23 6 Merck 0 0 0 0 Eli Lilly 0 0 0 0 MEDIAN 1 -1 0 6 Table 11: NBC (All amounts in percent) (Allen, 2003, p.159) C. Operating Profit Margin Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer 17 17 17 12 J&J 17 20 20 22 Abbott 16 16 16 14 Merck 14 33 47 2 Eli Lilly 16 -10 20 22 MEDIAN 16 17 20 14 Table 12: PM (All amounts in percent) (Pinson, 2008, p.115) D. Net Comprehensive profit Margin Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer 17 17 17 12 J&J 17 20 20 22 Abbott 14 17 19 13 Merck 14 33 47 2 Eli Lilly 16 -10 20 22 MEDIAN 16 17 20 13 Table 13: CPM (All amounts in percent) (Pinson, 2008, p.116) E. Operating Liability Leverage Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer 48 49 52 51 J&J 61 66 65 57 Abbott 57 55 68 69 Merck 95 95 57 48 Eli Lilly 58 76 99 91 MEDIAN 58 66 65 57 Table 14: OLLEV (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008) F. Financial Liability Leverage Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer -12 -20 -42 -50 J&J -5 -3 0 4 Abbott -46 -38 -21 -30 Merck -4 -6 -13 -13 Eli Lilly -10 -33 -44 -14 MEDIAN -10 -20 -21 -14 Table 15: FLL (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) G. Spread Table 16: SPREAD (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer 10 12 8 6 J&J 31 24 417 45 Abbott 10 22 43 11 Merck 16 36 28 1 Eli Lilly 22 -15 37 40 MEDIAN 16 22 37 11 H. Asset Turnover Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer 64 65 48 51 J&J 141 144 133 119 Abbott 112 121 126 119 Merck 116 108 59 69 Eli Lilly 139 151 186 184 MEDIAN 116 121 126 119 Table 17: ATO (All amounts in percent) (Porter & Norton, 2010, pp.428-29) I. Return on Common Equity Company 2007 2008 2009 2010 Pfizer 12 13 12 9 J&J 26 30 26 25 Abbott 23 28 28 20 Merck 18 43 33 2 Eli Lilly 24 -20 53 46 MEDIAN 23 28 28 20 Table 18: ROCE (All amounts in percent) (Pratt & Grabowski, 2008, pp.506-19) Findings Companies listed in LSE At the outset, it is imperative to calculate RNOA (return on net operating assets) for companies within this industry, this is due to the fact that the research and development expenses are very uncertain for these companies, and even after spending a substantial amount on R&D, they may or may not get any returns. Figure 6: RNOA LSE; see table 1 GSK’s RNOA appears to be quite stable, the drop from 33% - 13% is due to the fact that the operating income of GSK took a huge dip, this was due to the higher R&D expenses in 2010. It may be safe to assume that once the research pays off, the RNOA will return to normal or even break the previous barriers so as to cover for the current dip. When it comes to lowering pecuniary expenses, GSK’s cost of borrowing stands at 8% in 2010, with a low of about 5% in 2007. 8% is acceptable in this case as the majority of the company’s liabilities are long term debts. While Vectura’s and BTG’s cost of debt are significantly lower, these companies also do not carry as much a burden of unsecured debt as GSK. Figure 7: Net Borrowing cost While Shire and Astra Zeneca have been removed from the chart here (as their figures were very volatile and therefore were impacting the chart), AstraZeneca’s NBC also stood at a median of 7, while Shire’s median was a massive 32%. GSK’s resulting operating profit margins seem to be taking a steady dip into the red (see fig 8), may be credited to the growing marketing and administrative expenses of GSK which were about 45.97% of revenues (1305300/28392), compared to just 31.39% in the case of Abbott Labs (1044500/33269). This may prove to be disastrous for GSK, as Abbott uses much of its saved money towards new research and development, so in the longer run Abbott might be able to take the lead away from GSK. Figure 8: Operating Profit Margins (LSE) While other ‘big pharmas’ of the UK seem to be making a steady recovery after recession, GSK is not. The company needs to find ways to cut down on their hefty unnecessary expenses. If it were not for the dip in operating profits in 2010, this error might have gone unnoticed. Is this really a threat for GSK? […] A more meticulous ratio will tell us: Figure 9: Net Comprehensive Profit Margins. With a net comprehensive profit margin of just about 6%, GSK is indeed under a lot of monetary pressure; the company needs to rethink their strategy and if possible, and except for their marketing and administrative expenses they should also focus on reducing their 14 billion pound debt (long term obligation). This will help the company save a lot of money that they now use to pay off interest on their sizable debt. In order to further clarify the liability position of the companies listed in the UK, OLLEV was calculated, the rang of OLLEV for GSK was 0.76 – 0.86 (see fig 10), the fact that OLLEV is positive is strong, but still an idle liability leverage is 1, i.e., an asset-liability ratio of 2:1. Nonetheless GSK’s position is quite safe, but higher interest rates and administrative costs could affect the results in the coming years. Figure 10: OLLEV A more detailed account of the financial position of liabilities and assets could be witnessed within figure 11 below. Figure 11: FLLEV Since GlaxoSmithKline has significantly more financial liabilities as compared to financial assets (about 8.75 billion more), they have a negative FLLEV. Since the company is operating with such figures, they must believe that their return on borrowed money would be higher than the interest that they pay upon it. But that does not seem to be true, as even though their financial assets have risen by about 45%, their financial liabilities have risen by over 65% (from 5490 million in 2006 to over 15000 million in 2010). So it does not seem to be feasible. Especially since other companies are performing extremely well in terms of financial liability leverage. Figure 12: Spread Obviously since RNOA as well as NBC of Glaxo has been on a constant decreasing spree, spread would follow in its footsteps. Although the company’s results and future will be safe until SPREAD is positive, once SPREAD falls below zero, that would mean that the company is now making less money through sales than the interest levied upon its liabilities. Although a SPREAD of 5% in 2010 should be deemed as risky, especially since the SPREAD of its top competitors is higher than its own. Figure 13: Asset Turnover GSK’s figures are also the median for the UK portfolio, which suggests that the company’s ATO is in normal range. Yet when it comes to ATO, there is no ‘normal range’, a perfect ATO depends upon the profit margins of the company and industry under concern. In this case, pharmaceutical companies have significantly lower profit margins as compared to some other industries such as finance and IT, so their ATOs are usually higher. Figure 14: ROCE Finally it all comes down to Return on Common Equity. ROCE is a measure through which common shareholders could identify how much profit the company is able to generate through their money and how much money is attributed to them. Since GSK’s overall performance has been satisfactory, the company barely manages to reach average rates throughout the 2010 figures, the ROCE follows; but overall, the chart suggests that the ROCE will return to normal once the company stabilizes. Nonetheless, AstraZeneca’s ROCE performance has been spectacular since a shareholder could easily judge the amount of dividend he would be offered in the coming years and the growth in the stock prices, as the ROCE is very stable. Companies listed in NYSE Again the analysis starts with the most basic parameter, the RNOA. Here the company under core concern is Pfizer, the return on net operating assets is significantly lower as compared to its competitors […] Figure 15: RNOA […] One reason for that is the fact that the company has a large portfolio of short term investments and accounts receivable. Whilst J&J leads with comparatively lower operating assets and a much more stable graph of returns. Figure 16: Net Borrowing cost Yet, the Net Borrowing costs of American companies comes out to be much better than the NBC of companies listed in the LSE. Most of the times, its either zero or even lower. Figure 17: Net Comprehensive Profit Margin The Net Comprehensive profit margins of all big pharma’s in the US are very stable and concurrent. Since the post operating expenses were amazingly lower for most companies, The operating returns as well as the net comprehensive returns are almost similar, thus the missing chart of OPM. While Merck’s profit margins are the highest, they are not attributed to lower operating expenses or cost of sales, but because Merck had opportunistic and non recurring operating income for the years 2009 ($10,668 million) and 2008 ($2,318 million). Figure 18: OLLEV OLLEV of Pfizer falls in a short range of 0.48 – 0.52, which is somewhat acceptable considering the margins in their industry. But it also suggests that Pfizer has a much larger portfolio of operating assets as compared to operating liabilities. That means an asset to liability ratio of 2:1 which is good in a manner. Pfizer has the worst OLLEV amongst all the American companies. Although the same could not be said in the case of financial liability leverage for Pfizer, far from it […] When it comes to liquid assets, Pfizer has just about $1.7 billion worth of cash against a financial liability of about $44 billon. Figure 19: FLEV Although the company does have significant amount of fixed and operating assets to cover up for the damage. Therefore, in the case of Pfizer, the FLEV ratio will be disregarded from the UK vs. US comparison. Figure 20: SPREAD Since the RNOA and NBC were stable in the case of Pfizer, it follows that SPREAD would follow the suit. Although Pfizer enjoys a much larger portfolio of assets as compared to many of its competitors in the US and overseas, the SPREAD will bother it as the company is unable to generate significant returns to craft a glistening return on assets figure. Except for Eli Lilly, rest of the companies seem to be taking a dip. Yet another, even more successful company at generating return on assets has been J&J. The figures of J&J were removed from Figure 20 so as to give a more clear picture of Pfizer’s position, with J&J, this chart would look as follows: Figure 21: J&J SPREAD J&J’s figures (fig 21) are not so high because of RNOA, but because of NBC which is about -390% in 2009. This is the reason why the SPREAD is so high. The lowest NBC is possibly the reason why J&J is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, as they have significantly lower repayment and interest dues. Figure 22: ATO Once again, the higher amount of assets have proven to be disastrous for Pfizer; actually, more assets = better, but since the company is unable to generate enough revenues from its assets as compared to other companies its ratio falls in the range of 0.5 – 0.65, while ratios of other companies such as its prime competitor J&J is in the range of 1.2 – 1.5, which is significantly higher as compared to Pfizer. Figure 23: ROCE It would be extremely difficult to release a good amount of dividends if the ROCE is less than 10%, same is not the case with J&J. Overall, from a long term perspective J&J will provide better returns, with higher dividends and a better growth in market capitalization. This is not only because of the higher ROCE but also because J&J’s net borrowing cost is much lower, operating and net profit margins are almost double than those of Pfizer, and J&J has enough cash reserves to counter any financial liability. Overall, J&J would be a much better choice as compared to Pfizer; as even though Pfizer might have a better drug portfolio, J&J has a much more capable management team. GlaxoSmithKline v/s Pfizer Figure 24: RNOA Even though the chart may convince one that Pfizer’s returns are significantly lower as compared to GlaxoSmithKline based on the RNOA, it is not at all so. Pfizer’s returns as a matter of fact are much higher than GlaxoSmithKline. And no, the chart is not erroneous, statistics is never wrong; it merely suggests that the amount of assets that Pfizer has are much higher as compared to its operating income. The net borrowing cost is quite uniform and consistent for both the companies, their cultural similarity is to be blamed for that, and even though the medians of companies in LSE are higher, it is mostly because of the fact that some companies within the US have little or no financial obligations. Figure 25: NBC This being the case, the operating profit margins are the real deal […] Figure 26: Operating PM GSK vs PFZ Except for 2010, when GSK was massively hit by higher SG&A expenses, GSK was well over Pfizer in terms of operating profit margins. And once the company cuts down its marketing and administrative costs, it is eminent that it will regain its margin gap quite easily. Figure 27: PM Median Although the same could not be said for the medians of the two different cultures, poor results of Vectura group and Shire Plc may be blamed for the lower operating average of companies listed in LSE. And while LSE’s net comprehensive profit margins improved, possibly due to higher financial (other/interest/gains from investments) gains as compared to companies listed in NYSE: Figure 28: NPM Figure 29: OLLEV GSK is a clear winner in terms of OLLEV. But considering the fact that the net borrowing cost of Pfizer is lower than GSK, this is not a big threat to Pfizer. Whereas, just the opposite is true in the case of FLEV, as it is witnessed from the chart below: Figure 30: FLEV The prime reason for this is the growing long term debts of GSK, which have grown from just over 5.4 billion pounds to about 15.1 billion pounds, which is a considerable figure. Whereas, against this 15.1 billion pounds, the company has just over 6 billion pounds as cash and other liquidity. Figure 31: SPREAD Travelling against the winds, GSK has scored yet another win in terms of SPREAD ratios, as it leaps well past the median of companies listed in the LSE as well as a giant leap across Pfizer; this is probably because the return on assets is substantially higher in the case of GSK, and Pfizer has a bulk load of assets that do not provide sufficient returns. The same reason is also responsible for the lower asset turnover ratio of Pfizer, which is about 0.5 in 2010 against 1.5 of GSK (see fig 32). Figure 32: ATO But overall, the utilization of assets was actually not very impressive, the ATO should have been at least higher than 2. This was especially poor in case of Pfizer, as even the US median’s ATO is more than twice than that of Pfizer. Pfizer should seriously consider selling off some of its low-return providing assets, if these assets are machinery or something else that is used in production, they should consider outsourcing as an option to increase their Asset Turnaround. Figure 33: ROCE Once again Pfizer was heavily impacted by its non performing operating assets, as the return on common equity is well below that of GSK. This has not been a strong contest, as GSK clearly outperformed Pfizer even after GSK made several mistakes in 2009-2010 sessions. Limitations Average was not calculated for stock exchanges because the difference between some figures was humongous and therefore, an average would be impractical; hence median has been used. This is also the reason why some companies had been eradicated from the various charts. Regional disparities in business practices was a hurdle, such as the financial leverages of companies from both regions differed extensively, so more in-depth research helped eradicate this problem. Conclusion GSK not only outperformed Pfizer, but also other companies in the UK. That actually did not come as a surprise as GSK is the largest pharmaceutical company in the UK and just the raw numbers of other companies from the UK were quite pale in comparison to GSK. Considering the fact that GSK has made a lot of mistakes, this seemed unlikely at first as GSK was the very first company to be analysed, and it was assumed that Pfizer is a better company, until the charts were prepared using Excel after which the true position of both these companies was discovered. The very first blunder of GSK that had come under notice was the sudden jump of marketing and administrative costs associated with selling and distribution took a hard jump from £6.9 billion in 2007 to £13 billion in 2010, which set the profits back to a great extent, a jump in comprehensive income by £5.2 billion in 2007 to £1.6 billion in 2010. The second large mistake of GSK is that they are constantly increasing their liabilities, especially ‘financial liabilities’ (long term + short term debt) constantly since the last 5 years, this might prove disastrous for the company as its borrowing cost is much higher than Pfizer’s. Considering the case of Pfizer, its largest executioner were its ‘dead assets’, i.e., assets that do not actually help the company in production or other earning activities, or at least help the company earn enough to ward off the borrowing costs; high number of underperforming assets eventually ruined the company’s winning streak. The second largest problem with Pfizer is the fact that the company is operating at lower profit margins than its competitors (both national and international) Even though both companies share a unique feeling of being amongst the world’s 5 largest pharmaceutical companies, it is overwhelming as to how much their business practices and policies differ. The results are very clear, pointing straight towards GSK as the winner. Works Cited Abbott Laboratories, 2011. Abbott Labs. [Online] Available at: http://www.abbott.com/index2.htm [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Allen, S., 2003. Financial risk management: a practitioners guide to managing market and credit risk. New York: John Wiley and Sons. AstraZeneca, 2007. Metabolomics. [Online] Available at: http://metabolomics2007.org.uk/pic/logo/astrazeneca.png [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Bleavins, M.R., Carini, C. & Jurima-Romet, M., 2010. Biomarkers in Drug Development: A Handbook of Practice, Application, and Strategy. New York: John Wiley and Sons. BTG, 2011. BTG - BTG Home. [Online] Available at: http://www.btgplc.com/ [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Eli Lilly & Co., 2011. Eli Lilly & Co. [Online] Available at: http://www.lilly.com/ [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Fortune, 2009. Global 500: Pharmaceutical. Fortune Magazine, 20 July. p.27. GlaxoSmithKline, 2011. Annual Report 2010. [Online] Available at: http://www.gsk.com/investors/reps10/GSK-Annual-Report-2010.pdf [Accessed 26 March 2011]. GSK, 2011. Our Company - About Us. [Online] Available at: http://www.gsk.com/about/company.htm [Accessed 26 March 2011]. Johnson & Johnson, 2011. J n J - Healthcare products and pharmaceuticals. [Online] Available at: http://www.jnj.com/connect/ [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Krauss, C., 2003. Has the Pharmaceutical Blockbuster Model Gone Bust? Bain & Company, III(12), pp.21-26. Merck, 2011. [Online] Available at: http://www.merck.com/ [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Pfizer, 2011. PFE Phizer.com. [Online] Available at: http://www.pfizer.com/home/ [Accessed 07 April 2011]. Pfizer, 2011. PORTIONS OF THE 2010 FINANCIAL REPORT. [Online] Available at: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/78003/000119312511048877/dex13.htm [Accessed 26 March 2011]. Pinson, L., 2008. Anatomy of a business plan: the step-by-step guide to building your business and securing your companys future. 7th ed. AKA Associates. Porter, G.A. & Norton, C.L., 2010. Financial Accounting: The Impact on Decision Makers. 7th ed. Cengage Learning. Pratt, S.P. & Grabowski, R.J., 2008. Cost of capital: applications and examples. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. SFC-ACS, 2010. GSK Logo. [Online] Available at: http://www.sfc-acs.org/graphics/site/GSK_logo.JPG [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Shire, 2011. Home | Shire. [Online] Available at: http://www.shire.com/shireplc/en/home [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. Abbott Labs. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=ABT [Accessed 29 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. AstraZeneca. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=AZN [Accessed 29 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. BTG Plc. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=BTG [Accessed 29 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. Eli Lilly & Co. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=LLY [Accessed 29 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. Financial Results GlaxoSmithKline. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=GLAXF [Accessed 30 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. JNJ. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=JNJ [Accessed 29 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. Merck & Co. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=MRK [Accessed 29 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. Pfizer Inc. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=PFE [Accessed 29 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. Shire Plc. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=SHP [Accessed 29 March 2011]. Thomson Reuters, 2011. Vectura. [Online] Available at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?symbol=VEG [Accessed 27 March 2011]. Ventura, 2011. Home - Vectura Group Plc. [Online] Available at: http://www.vectura.com/ [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Yahoo! Finance, 2011. GlaxoSmithKline Historical Charting. [Online] Available at: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=PFE#symbol=pfe;range=5y;compare=gsk.l;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=; [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Yahoo! Finance, 2011. Pfizer Inc Historical Charting. [Online] Available at: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=PFE#symbol=pfe;range=5y;compare=;indicator=volume;charttype=ohlc;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=; [Accessed 08 April 2011]. Yahoo! Finance, 2011. Pfizer Inc. | Common stock chart. [Online] Available at: http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=PFE#symbol=pfe;range=5y;compare=gsk.l;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=; [Accessed 10 April 2011]. Endnotes Sources of Data are as follows: Alphabetically from Abbott – Vectura [references in table above] (Thomson Reuters, 2011) (Thomson Reuters, 2011) (Thomson Reuters, 2011) (Thomson Reuters, 2011) (Thomson Reuters, 2011) (Thomson Reuters, 2011) (Thomson Reuters, 2011) (Thomson Reuters, 2011) (Thomson Reuters, 2011) Read More