Pfizer Wyeth Merger - Collective Analysis of What Comes Next in Pharma Biotech

[Arik Johnson]

The announcement today that Pfizer and Wyeth will, at long last, combine to redraw the boundaries of the pharma/biotech universe have prompted me to suggest a collaboration experiment: since we have so many clever minds here on the CI forum, why not analyze and interpret the "what's next" perspective of the deal, whether it'll go forward at all (in lieu of the capital raising and regulatory hurdles it might face) and the eventual consequences for the players within (and beyond) the healthcare/life-sciences sector?

Knowing there are a great many very knowledgeable and experienced observers and interpreters of change in this sector both paying attention the deal as well as to this forum might make this a good deal easier so I'm hoping people will speak up and opine on what the future holds for this important source of innovation and progress in our modern world.

Looking forward to the discussion, I'm clipping in the intro to today's The Big Money (an offshoot of Slate.com) rundown on it:

It's a done deal. Pfizer will be taking over its smaller rival Wyeth in a deal valued at $68 billion, the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and New York Times all report this morning. It is the largest acquisition in the pharma sector since Glaxo Wellcome acquired SmithKline Beecham for $76 billion in 2000, the WSJ writes. Meanwhile, the NYT puts the megadeal into today's perspective, saying it "would not only create a pharmaceutical behemoth but would be a rarity in the current financial tumult: a big acquisition that is not a desperate merger of two banks orchestrated by the government." On Sunday night, Pfizer's board agreed to the Wyeth deal, the NYT reports, citing people in the know. The acquisition calls for the drugmaker to raise $22.5 billion in loans, no small feat in this frozen credit market. According to the FT, Wyeth's strong lineup of vaccines and its biotech businesses were the draws for Pfizer. "And the two companies could save billions of dollars in costs by combining," the newspaper adds.

[Alan S. Michaels]

Michael, it's great that you joined the discussion. If we ever form teams to have debates, I want to be on your team.

[Michael Goodman]

Thanks, Allan. Good to meet you.

[Arik Johnson]

Well said Michael - bravo - that's precisely the sort of interpretation I was hoping for - I'm going to have to think that over a bit before crafting a suitable reply. ;-)

Arik