Pfizer Inc/Warmer-Lambert Co. Essay

Pfizer is sensation of the petabiting pharmaceutical companies in United States. Its headquarters are in New York City and it is the proprietor of the drug Lipitar, an atorvastatin which is exampled to lower cholesterol in the blood. The union produces a big range of otherwise precuts. Pfizer acquired Warmer-Lambert in 2000. The devil had been the kick ining companies in the seek based pharmaceuticals. In 1999 Pfizer had been named the quickest growing pharmaceutical community in its industry. Warmer-Lambert had been the Second (http//www.pfizer.com/home/).Warner-Lambert as well as deals with pharmaceuticals. The fellowship has grown through science which started in 1962 when it acquired Ameri net Chide Company which produced gums and mints. American Chide Company was the owner of the Adams brand which was well known around the humans.The union between Pfizer and Warmer-Lambert was as a result of observation of the market placeplace trends in the industry and in the g lobal economy. The global market has been characterized by slow growth. The market was not expanding at the same rate as it has before. It seemed as if it was experiencing a slack in growth. Thus for the companies to continue operating profitability there was need to capture a bigger share of the market and reduce competition. Because the market was not expanding at a good rate expansion of the companies operations could only be practicable through taking over a bigger share of the existing market. This cal lead for greater and more effective efforts in competition (Mercola J. 2000).One way to develop competitive reward is through cost cutting and concerted efforts. Merging the cardinal fastest growing companies in the industry could effectively achieve this. two companies were strong players in the market and have power gave them a force that could enable them acquires additional share of the market from the other competitors. Merging also could enable the companies make conc erted efforts in marketing and other ventures hence saving on cost. Cost reducing leave serve up the companies gain competitive advantage in the market (http//www.secinfo.com/dsVsj.599.htm1stPage).Expiration of a number of key patents was another study trend in the market. Both of the companies are question based and had been guardianship patents which had been key to their operations. Expiry of these patents meant the companies were loosing their hold in the market. Many other competitors were due to come in the market. Entry of additional competitors could inflate be and m ay lead to reduction of profits. Merging could overhaul the companies to cut on this cost increase and compete more effectively in the market. look for and ripening costs were increase at a higher rate. The significance of research and development was gaining smart heights in the modern business environment. Because of the high competition and the rapidly changing business conditions the need for vir gin initiations in operations and products has increase. More efforts and investment in research and development have been necessitated. These together with other brokers have led to significance increase in Research and development costs. Both Pfizer and Warmer-Lambert are research based and merging them lead enable them collaborate in Research and hence reduce cost effectively. Through their combined efforts the companies will be able to do more effective research.The role of e- work in business is changing significantly with many more business transactions existence carried out though e-commerce. thither is increased used of technology both in research and in doing business. The way business is conducted have greatly been affected by e-commerce. Thus, the companies had to change so as to utilize the effects of e-commerce for their benefits in the long run. (http//www,secifo.com/dsvsj/599.htm) on that point are several factors that motivated Pfizer Inc. to merge with Warmer-La mbert Co. Each of the companies had its motivational factors by generally both companies need to stabilize them product portfolio and reduce the dependence on more or less few key products. (http//www.secifo.com/dsvsj.599.htm). Another motivating factor was the increased need of increase their rate of growth. other factors that motivated the amalgamation include increased in revenue, better research and development (R&D) and more cost cutting.Terms of transactionPfizer paid a premium of 34% to Warmer-Lambert in the jointure that resulted to Pfizer and Warmer-Lambert combining to act the largest pharmaceutical community in the world at that time. Shareholders of Warmer-Lambert got 2.75 shares of Pfizer common stock for each share of common stock held in Warmer-Lambert. The Warmer-Lambert shares were valued at $98.31 per one unit by the closing prices of October 1999 against $ 35.75 per one unit of Pfizer shares by the closing price of February 4, 2000. This represented a premium of 34% (http//www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105& allegory=/www/story/06-19-2000/0001246843)The social club expected to have combined annual revenue of approximately $28 billion. The company expects a 13% growth on compounded annual revenue and 25% growth in payment (The Birmingham Post). The expected market capitalization is more than $230 billions. later the merger 61% of the new company will be held by the Pfizer shareholders while the tarrying 39% will be held by the Warmer-Lambert shareholders (http//www.pfizer.ca/english/newsroom/press%20releases/default.asp?s=1& melodic line=2000&releaseID=29).The paygrade of the target firm can be done as calculation of the future value of the companyFV = PV (1+2)nFrom this we can be able to weigh the valuation of the target company usingDPV = FY / (1+a) nWhere FV = Future valueDV = Present valueI = opportunity costN = no of geezerhoodFV = $ 90 billion x (1+0.01) 190 x 1.01$ 90.9 billions.After getting the future value, the discounted present value can be calculated as90.9 billions / (1+14%) 114% is got by adding the growth rate representing the opportunity cost and the risk factor which we assume to be 1%90.9 / (1.0 + 0.14)1(90.9 / 1.14)79.74 billions.In the valuation there are several presumptuousness made.One of the assumptions is that the risk factor is kindred to one percent. The other assumption is that the opportunity cost is Warmer-Lambert merging with Pfizer is equivalent to the growth rate expected. Thus the assumed discount rate is expected to be 14% that is, combining the opportunity cost and the risk factor. Another assumption made I s that the future value is calculated afterwards only one grade therefore making the period n to be equal to 1.There are several risks that come with making the above assumptions. If the actual risk factor of the market is different from the assumed risk factor of one percent then the outcome of the valuation will not be accurate. This is risk as it whitethorn give a wrong ideal of the effect of a decision, for example the decision of Warmer-Lambert to merge with Pfizer Another risk is inherent because of the assumption that the opportunity cost is equal to the growth rate expected. In the real business environment this may results that are not accurate. This may lead to making a decision based on wrong information. This may consequently lead to difficulties in the company or loss to the owners of the company.Pfizer mission have been to emerge as the leader in the pharmaceutical industry by the stunt of the new millennium. The company had aimed at becoming the to the highest degree valued company to all its stakeholders who included patients, doctors, insurers, investors and business partners. To achieve this, the company is committed to fling services of value to the stakeholders (Huff, A. Huff J. and Barr P 2000).To ensure that Pfizer remained of value to the stakeholder the company was committed to innovation so as to prov ide products of value to its customers. The company agnise that innovation was what could enable tit to continue being relevant to needs of its customers in the long run. As the customer needs were changing the company had to mention innovating to enable it to satisfy the needs of these customers.Pfizer in this regard was committed to continued Research and development productivity. Much effort and finances were invested in research and development so as to produce more relevant products in the market.Pfizer strategy of success in the market was takeing growth of existing products and expanding the range of products through innovations. This innovation was facilitated by increasing productivity of research and development (http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Feb_1/ai_53672006 ).Pfizers acquisition of Warmer-Lambert was a study and useful step in the Companys strategy toward attainment of its mission (http//goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5212317/Pfizer-Driving-Pe rformance-Through-Growth.html)..Acquisition of Warmer-Lambert by Pfizer was aimed at back up Business development. There are many benefits that this merger could help Pfizer to achieve. These benefits all worked for Pfizer in its quest to create the most valued pharmaceutical company to all its stakeholders.Acquisition of Warmer-Lambert helped Pfizer to get entrance fee to patent that Warmer-Lambert held. Warmer-Lambert held some(prenominal) patents and so upon the merge the two companies could benefit from the patents. Considering that the market condition was characterized by expiry of key patents meaning each of the companys advantage of holding patents was slowly decreasing. Thus, combining gave the two companies a great advantage as the new company could hold more patents (http//www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/M-R/McKinnell-Henry-A-Jr-1943.html).Pfizer acquisition could also lead to the company getting access to new and racial technologies in the other firm. Each of t he company was developed in its own way and had technological capabilities that were unique to its operations. This technology was in the form of processes and platforms which facilitated production and innovation. Combining these unique capabilities from two companies gave the resultants much power and benefits which could be denied from utilization of these technologies. Access to both technologies by one company gave it synergy thus compounding the benefits to be derived from the technologies. This synergetic combination of technology could help Pfizer advance its strategy of producing new lines of products through innovation. This technology could also help the company to sustain growth of its existing products (Aitkin M. and Baskaran S. 2000)As technology is a major component to research and development, access to new technology could boost Pfizers efforts in research and development. This boost in research and development could help the company to significantly reduce the cost of innovation. Consequently, reduction in cost of innovation could lead to reduction of the overall cost and so boost profits of the company. Reduction in costs could also help the company reduce the prices it charged for the product. Reduction in the prices could lead to increase in gross revenue as well as increasing the access of the products by greater number of customers. An increased access of the precuts by many more customers will help to serve their need by the company and thus meeting the main aim of the company that is making it the most valued company to various stakeholders.The acquisition by Pfizer helped the company to expand its products line. Acquiring Warner-Lambert made Pfizer the company with the broadest portfolio in the industry. The company had products in various categories which included women health, central nervous system disorders as well as in many other categories. This was in line with the companys aim of achieving a broad range of product instead of relying on a narrow range of products.The acquisition of Warmer-Lambert also gave Pfizer a big number of new products. I had eight products in the year of acquisition which brought in more than $1 billion in sales in that year. This was a great achievement for Pfizer, a company that was committed to increasing the contribution of innovation and research and development productivity. The achievement gave the company a boost toward attaining its overall aim.Combining the research operations of Pfizer and those of Warmer-Lambert produced the largest Research and development budget in the pharmaceutical industry. The new company had a budget of $4.78 billion set aside for research and development. The scientific rung of the company was more than twelve thousand. This showed the commitment to innovation and increased Research and development productivity (http//www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/23/ap4565943.html).Acquisition of Warmer-Lambert gives Pfizer much regard in the world and mak es it the most productive in sales and marketing in the industry. This increases the re pullation of the company among the stakeholders. The company also acquires some of brands which are highly regarded in the world. These brands take Schick and Zaritac 75 http//hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/ibd.morningstar.com/quicktake/standard/client/shell/AP707.html?ticker=PFE&valid=NO&MP=FP&pageidx=1&pageitemidx=2 Combination of Pfizer and Warner-Lambert the two fastest growing companies in the world in the pharmaceutical industry produces a large organizational with great might. This enables the new company to have strong mien in major international market. Because of its power, the organization will be able to conquer new markets and compete effectively (http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/633782.stm). canvass of merger surgical operation.a) The target, Warner-Lambert Company had a market capitalization of $60 billions in 1999. The acquirer, Pfizer had a market capitalization of $148.074 billions in that year (Financial Times 1999)After the merger between Pfizer and Warner-Lambert the new company had a market capitalization of $263,996 millions in 2001 (Financial times 10th May 2001). Before the merger Pfizer and Warner-Lambert had a nitty-gritty market of capitalization of $208.074 billions in 1999. After Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert their total market capitalization was 263.99 billions in May 2001. This was a major increase in only one year after the merger. The increase in the market capitalization after the acquisition signifies that it was beneficial. The merger was value enhancing in the short run for the investors who held shares in the company (Pryor F. 2001)b) After the merger of Pfizer Inc with Warner-Lambert Company the market reacted favorably to the new company. The combined market share increased from 7.8 percent to 8.2 percent after the merger (Http//www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/M-R/McKinnel-Henry-A-Jr-1943.htm/). The total Revenue of the company in the subsequent year increased by 11 percent to $29 billion and the income rose by 10.9 percent to $7.8 billions as compared to year 2000 performance. On February 1 the market price for Pfizer stock was $32.12 by closing. After the acquisition of Warner-Lambert the share prices rose steadily to a close of $48.00 in 1st June 2000. This indicates that in the short run the market was favoring the merger between the two companies (Http//investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/historical.asp?symbol=DFE) Generally the market reacted favorably to the merger in the short run. The market prices rose, the revenue and income rose as well as market capitalization.c) Performance of the merger by return to shareholders. The merger between Pfizer and Warner-Lambert indicated good performance in the short run. The two giant companies merged to form one truly powerful company. The good performance was reflected in the market prices of the new company shares as well as in the m arket share revenue and earnings. The returns to shareholders also increased in the year that followed the merger. In 2001 a year after the merger the earnings of Pfizer grew considerably to reach 1-22 per share (http//www.thestreet.com/tech/adamfeuerstein/10005524.html) In 2002 the earnings per share was $1.46 Revenue was $32.29413. This indicated a positive growth. It showed that the merger between the two giants was paying off for the heartbeat year consequently. In 2003 the earnings fell to 0.54 indicating a negative growth. Revenue was $44.73614. This showed a slump in the benefit that had been derived from the merger in the previous year. though the performance of Pfizer modify the years that followed the performance of 2003 were so discouraging and brought fear that the merger may not bring as much benefits as it had been expected earlier. In general the performance of the merger was positive to returns to the shareholders. It worked to improve the wealth of the shareholder s by increasing the earnings per share and market capitalization. This was possible as the company was able to cut on cost, increase market share and consequently increase Revenue. http//www.pfizer.com/files/annualreport/2004/financial/financial2004.pdf.) rating and prognosis of merger between Pfizer and Warner-Lambert.a) M&A effects on Pfizers long term position in its product market areas.There had been both positive and negative effects experienced as a result of the merger between Pfizer and Warner-Lambert. The short run was characterized by very encouraging positive results. These results showed that the company was achieving its goal of becoming the most valued pharmaceutical company to all its stakeholders. The positive effects were evident in the performance of the company. right off after the merger with Warner-Lambert, the stock prices shot up, the revenue soared and earnings increased. The market capitalization increased significantly. All the indicators showed that the c ompany was headed for excellence in all aspects in the industry. It was able to increase its market share to a bigger percentage than the combined market share of the companies before the merger. However, in the long run Pfizer performance does not reflect the earlier exhibited positive growth. There had been a slack in the trend of growth that had been observed in the short run after the merger with Warner-Lambert. The merger between the two giant companies which had been declared the first and second fastest growing companies in the pharmaceutical industry was aimed at creating one giant company with great power to foster increase growth and development. The goal was to establish strong international presence in all major markets in the industry. Merging with Warner-Lambert made the new company the biggest in the industry with a huge budget of Research and development (Knack R. 2000). Glaxo merged with Smith Kline to form GlaxoSmithkline a company that was bigger than Pfizer after acquiring Warner-Lambert. Thus the leadership role that Pfizer wanted to have was overtaken. The competitive advantage that had accrued to Pfizer as the largest company in the industry with ability to carry out costly researches and conquer new markets as well as release many new markets, diminished. Though Pfizer tried to fight further by putting more efforts through other acquisition it never gave much impact. Pfizer acquired Pharmacia but the impact was not as big as when it acquired Warner-Lambert (Ramrattan L. and Szenberg M. 2006). The performance of Pfizer has not been as was expected considering its performance in the short run shortly after the merger. The stock prices had risen to $46 but this is not the case now. The stock prices have been decreasing steadily from $46 in June 2000 to $22.33 as of Friday February 2008. This shows that, instead of improving the company is facing some difficulties in operation (http//investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshort/hist orical/asp?symbol=PFE).The companys performance has been below the industrys performance since 2005 to present. The performance is also below the S&P 500 index or performance of the pharmaceutical industry. (http//www.thestreet.com/tech/adamfeuerstein/10005524.html). Homer Pfizer has struggled to restructure its operations and remain relevant in the market. This restructure was in various operations of the company and even in the leadership. The chief executive officer was changed (http//www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/M-R/McKinnell-Henry-A-Jr-1943.html). The declining performance of Pfizer had been characterized by loss of some share of the market thus reducing the size of the market it had captured in 2000 after the merger.Pfizer, after much restructuring and leadership of a new CEO, have managed to remain one of the biggest in the industry with a market capitalization of $152,510 millions. The leading company in this industry is Johnson & Johnson which have a market capita lization of $180,004 millions. Pfizer is the second and Glaxo Smithkline PLC is the third with a market capitalization of $132,384 million (http//hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/ibd.morningstar.com/quicktake/standard/client/shell/AP707.html?ticker=PFE&valid=NO&MP=FP&pageidx=1&pageitemidx=2). Generally, the merger of Pfizer and Warner-Lambert helped Pfizer to gain some crucial benefits that helped the company to establish itself better in the market place. The population, Research and development muscle and acquisition of significant patents were major boosts for Pfizer. By acquiring Warner-Lambert, Pfizer got 100% ownership of the Lipitar patent which was one of the major products that have contributed to Pfizer good performance. However this have been in the short run and for the company to establish a firm long lasting position in its product market will require adoption of another strategy which will produce more long term benefits (Cerami C. 2000).b) Major changes to strategic de cisions and directions to improve performance and prospects.There are some various changes that the Pfizer Inc can undertake so as to improve its performance in the short run and in the long run.Technology use.Pfizer can adopt a more purposeful use of technology to improve its performance. Technology is a powerful business tool which can be very useful in turning performance of a company round. Technology can be used in research, production of products, management and administration and in marketing (Du Boff R. 2000). In the modern world online commerce is rife and the companies utilize this opportunity for marketing its products to more areas of the world.The company should adapt a technology strategy which should be aimed at establishing new products, managing operations, establishing new markets and increasing competitive advantage ion the already established markets. Technology can improve operations of the company by better using the technology to manage information and communi cation in the company as well as establishing controls in the work. These are the aspects of the company that will help it to cut on administration costs as well as achieve more efficiency and hence increasing customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction will in turn lead to improved sales and profitability of the company (Beltran L. 2000).Technology can also achieve a lot in production. Adapting high technology may be expensive at cost but the benefit derived will be major and long lasting. Besides that, good technology will lead to improved efficiency in production which will consequently lead to reduction in cost and improvement in quality of the products (Carey D and Ogden D. 2004).Explore new marketInstead of depending on the already established market, Pfizer should put more effort in market research so as to determine other effectiveness markets for its products. Earlier entry will give the company an upper hand than its competitors in the new market. Technology can be used to help in assessing the potential of these markets and also in identifying their specific needs so as to develop the products required for that market. This will enable the company to continue being relevant to more people of the world and thus further its effort of being the most valued pharmaceutical company to all the people of the world. Other efforts should be put to explore all potential markets so as to ensure all feasible opportunities available are utilized for the benefit of the company. The company should keep on evaluating its market and the industry. The market conditions in the modern world are characterized by rapid and more unpredictable changes and thus for a company to survive the instability that comes with unpredictable markets a lot of efforts have to be put in market scanning and evaluation of the industry.Consequently if a company want to be the leader in its industry a lot more have to be done. The company besides scanning the market has to put up a strategy that will help it to manage change effectively as well as project the market with a bigger degree of certainty and accuracy. The company should always be ahead of others and so should apply proactive measures instead of waiting to react to issues.Product range.The company should not rely on a few main products for its success in business. The company has a big range of products which should be marketed well so as to establish themselves better in the market and thus earn the company much revenue. Most of the products of the company can do better if more efforts can be used to market the products. The company should make up a marketing strategy aimed at conducting intensive marketing of all products. This will help the company to increase revenue got form all products instead of relying on revenue from a few products.Marketing can be done by utilizing emerging aspects of the market conditions. An example of such aspects includes electronic commerce. Pfizer can put up a strategy of c onducting intensive online marketing and then conduct sales through electronic commerce.Pfizer should also try to market its image to European and American authorities as this will give it more easier job when it comes to lobbying for credential of new products. These measures will help the company avert problems that it had faced in the past due to delay in approval of some of its new products (Dubois W. 2003). agile approval of products will help the company to start benefiting from its investment in the product as early as possible. Early approval of a prod7uct will also help to reduce the opportunity cost that comes up with such delaysAcquisitionPfizer should reconsider its strategy of acquisition so as to gain bureau in the market. Though acquisition brings a lot of benefits, there are equally big costs involved from experience the benefits are not very long term so Pfizer should examine new strategies instead of being invested through acquisition can be invested in research of a potential market.ReferenceAitkin M Baskaran S. Lamarre E. Silber M. Waters S. A License to Cure. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2000.Associated press. Market performance. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/ibd.morningstar.com/quicktake/standard/client/shell/AP707.html?ticker=PFE&valid=NO&MP=FP&pageidx=1&pageitemidx=2BBC. Drug giants merge. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/633782.stmBeltran L. (2000). Earnings Growth Redefined. Black Enterprise, Vol. 30, July 2000Business wire. Warner-Lambert announces Goodes to retire. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_Feb_1/ai_53672006Businessweek. Earnings. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/earnings/earnings.asp?symbol=PFECarey D. Ogden D. (2004). The Human Side of M & A How CEOs Leverage the Most Important Asset in Deal Making. Oxford University Press.Cerami C. Is Bigger truly Better? Insight on the News, Vol. 16, March 6, 2000.Du Boff R.(2000) Herman E. Mergers, Concentration, and the Erosion of Democracy Monthly Review, Vol. 53, May 2000.Dubois W. (2003). Drug Research, the Extraterritorial Application of FDA Regulations, and the Need for International Cooperation. Vanderbilt Journal of transnational Law, Vol. 36, 2003.Financial times May 10, 2001. Special reports. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 fromForbes.com. Pfizer 4Q profit falls but beat view. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/01/23/ap4565943.htmlFTC Grants Final Clearance for Pfizer/Warner-Lambert Merger, Transaction realized Today. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=105&STORY=/www/story/06-19-2000/0001246843Goliath. Driving performance through growth. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5212317/Pfizer-Driving-Performance-Through-Growth.htmlhttp//specials.ft.com/ft 500/may2001/FT36H8Z8KMC.htmlhttp//www.pfizer.com/files/annualreport/2004/financial/financial2004.pdfhttp//www.pfizer.com/home/http//www.referenceforbusiness.com/biography/M-R/McKinnell-Henry-A-Jr-1943.htmlHuff, A. Huff J. and Barr P (2000). When Firms careen Direction. Oxford University Press, 2000.Knack R. Pfizer Fords a River. Planning, Vol. 66, June 2000Mercola J. (2000). Pfizer to buy Warner-Lambert for $90 billion. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//www.mercola.com/2000/feb/13/pfizer_warner_lambert.htmPfizer. Annual reports 2004. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 fromPfizer. Pfizer and Warner agree to merger. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//www.pfizer.ca/english/newsroom/press%20releases/default.asp?s=1&year=2000&releaseID=29Pfizer. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 fromPryor F. (2001). Dimensions of the Worldwide Merger Boom. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 35, 2001.Ramrattan L. Szenberg M. (2006) Global Competition and the United States Pharmaceutical Industry. A merican Economist, Vol. 50.Referenceforbusiness.com. McKinnell-Henry. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 fromSecurities and Exchange Council. Facing our future together. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//www.secinfo.com/dsVsj.599.htm1stPageThe Birmingham Post (England). Pfizer Looks to Global Leadership after Pounds 57bn Takeover of Warner-Lambert. February 8, 2000The street.com. Pfizer keeps its outlook on positive side. Retrieved on February 15, 2008 from http//www.thestreet.com/tech/adamfeuerstein/10005524.html