kirlandwater

kirlandwater t1_j03eiq8 wrote

I added this as an edit on my previous comment but I’ll paste it here as well

Even if in process R&D is included, their 10-K shows only $802m attributed to “restructuring and acsquisition related costs” for 2021. This was already included in my quoted figure netting $21.98b in net revenue for last year. And Im not seeing it anywhere else on the income statement/balance sheet/or statement of cash flows.

For Q3, as you’ll see in OP’s infographic, in-process R&D adds another $502m for a total of $3.2b in R&D. Way below their net income of $8.6b.

1

kirlandwater t1_j03b13u wrote

Right, but that in-process R&D is just that, in process. PFE doesn’t deserve credit for this as it was already in the works prior to the acquisition. The acquired company had already spent/allocated the money.

And while it could be argued otherwise, these acquisitions continue to consolidate IP and influence upwards to a smaller number of massive companies. Which long term will not benefit consumers

Edit: even if in process R&D is included, their 10-K shows only $802m attributed to “restructuring and acsquisition related costs” for 2021. And Im not seeing it anywhere else on the income statement/balance sheet/or statement of cash flows.

For Q3, as you’ll see in OP’s infographic, in-process R&D adds another $502m for a total of $3.2b in R&D. Way below their net income of $8.6b.

1

kirlandwater t1_j02k894 wrote

Acquisitions definitely aren’t R&D. They’ll expand they’re product line, yes, but those products already existed or were researched and developed without Pfizer’s M&A.

One could argue acquisitions allow for more efficient R&D as synergies between newly acquired research teams eliminate redundancies, but you’d need to look into what research PFE was doing prior to the acquisition and if they’re buying something they already were working on, and additionally you’d walk into an even stronger case against consolidating the drug makers into an oligopoly, which isn’t good for consumers.

1

kirlandwater t1_j00p1jn wrote

> in a completely free market the price of life saving insulin is just very high

But that’s not entirely true. Yes it’s needed to live, but so is water. And water isn’t exorbitantly expensive. Insulin is VERY cheap to make and because lawmakers aren’t willing to combat evergreen-ing patents, competition simply all but isn’t allowed. If they’d allow generics to come to market, the price would plummet.

In a completely free market we’d have a race to the bottom.

1

kirlandwater t1_j00jqs6 wrote

That’s great and all, but that $8.6b in net profit is my biggest concern. Drug makers blame high R&D costs to develop new meds on exorbitant drug costs, but it’s all just going right back to shareholders, whether directly through dividends, retained earnings, or share buybacks.

And that $8.6b in net profit is just the last 3 months. These figures are just Q3 2022. FY2021 they brought in a whopping $21.98b in net profit from $81.3b in revenue. And spending $13.8b in R&D. 59% more in net profit attributed to shareholders than R&D.

source: page 51

1

kirlandwater t1_iyf2ve0 wrote

Ukraine is not a part of the EU so the EU would have no authority to freeze/seize assets there. This appears to just be funds that are owned by the Russian Central bank, housed within EU borders.

They’ve also seized/frozen ~$15b of Russian oligarch money but this money isn’t currently being reinvested.

0