Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Why Pfizer's numbers don't add up to 20% of anything

 

Jim Armitage
Thursday 15 May 2014 08:46 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Outlook Mike Ingram, a market strategist at the City brokers BGC Partners, confesses he's no expert in pharmaceuticals. But he does know a thing or two about grinding down financial numbers. Which is why when he says Pfizer isn't talking straight when it comes to its planned job cuts for AstraZeneca, we should take heed.

I'll keep his workings-out to a minimum, but essentially, he calculates that to justify Pfizer's likely next bid price of £55 per Astra share – a $37bn premium on Astra's original stock market value – Pfizer must cut Astra's R&D spend by a third. That's even if it manages to save $1.2bn of US taxes a year by using London as its tax haven base. Mr Ingram actually thinks it will have to be well over a third (which represents 3,000 scientists' jobs), because he uses generous assumptions about Pfizer's growth potential.

Pfizer may stick to its supposedly legally binding pledge of retaining 20 per cent of global R&D jobs in the UK, but, if Mr Ingram is right, we should ask the question: 20 per cent of what?

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in