Jump to content

VRX - Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc.


giofranchi
[[Template core/global/global/poll is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

Once again, as I have often repeated, the only sensible bear case for VRX would be to tell me why its acquisitions are bad businesses, and/or why Mr. Pearson has overpaid for them. Period.

 

Gio

 

Well, I would reply that you have to know where to place the burden of proof.  It's too early to tell if VRX's acquisitions have been good ones, as the company has kept growing by making acquisitions using easy credit and there has not been any time for the dust to settle.  You can't yet tell if the prior acquisitions have been gone ones, and you probably won't be able to tell until the tide goes out.  I think all that anyone really cares about is the stock price over the past couple years, and so they say that the acquisitions must have been good. 

 

And so the question is: is VRX a good investment unless the acquisitions can be proven to be bad?  Or is VRX a bad investment unless the acquisitions can be proven to be good?

 

One of those questions is silly IMO, and the other one is sensible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dazel

 

Ackman has $4b or half of his hedge fund in VRX? And is announcing a take over before it has made a bid? What the hell is going on?

 

Dazel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dazel

 

 

Gio et all congrats on the bump in price!

Looks like we are going to get some "wild" speculation in Pharma.

 

Dazel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what limited information we have...looks like another shrewd deal from Mr. Pearson. He is leveraging the activist section of the investment field to do bigger deals on his behalf.

 

Does anyone expect anything other than cost-cutting here? I expect a lot of costs to be "synergized": R&D accounts for 16% of Allergan's revenue. Expect that to go down once Valeant reigns that in. Same with SG&A, which accounts for 41% of sales.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I would reply that you have to know where to place the burden of proof.  It's too early to tell if VRX's acquisitions have been good ones, as the company has kept growing by making acquisitions using easy credit and there has not been any time for the dust to settle.  You can't yet tell if the prior acquisitions have been gone ones, and you probably won't be able to tell until the tide goes out.  I think all that anyone really cares about is the stock price over the past couple years, and so they say that the acquisitions must have been good. 

 

And so the question is: is VRX a good investment unless the acquisitions can be proven to be bad?  Or is VRX a bad investment unless the acquisitions can be proven to be good?

 

One of those questions is silly IMO, and the other one is sensible.

 

lu_hawk,

there is only one reason why an investment is a bad one: too high a price.

But, today you are paying too high a price for VRX only if results from acquired businesses materially disappoint going forward. That’s why I said: show me the reasons those investments are bad ones!

You say it is too early to judge? Well, how could you be bearish then? And, moreover, as investors we try to recognize the value and/or the pitfalls of any investment well in advance they have become obvious to everyone else! That’s what we do. Why, then, not to analyze each single acquisition VRX has made during the last 5 years, and try to judge if it has been wise to purchase that business, or vice versa it has been a foolish move?

That’s what I am asking short sellers: analyze each acquisition and show me why most probably it will turn out to be a bad one in the future.

 

Gio

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interview with perhaps one of the least promotional CEOs in business today. He looked bored silly...

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/valeant-eyeing-dermatology-dentistry-for-m-a-ceo-ebYeh1VBSvS7hjsMlmx6RQ.html

 

Thank you for posting this!

And I agree… though, I guess he should get in shape a little bit… Come on, Mr. Pearson, after all you are only 54! ;)

 

Gio

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dazel

 

 

I think that Brian Dalton at Altius will look a lot more like Mr. Pearson in the future as far as acquiring assets along with building them...but you likely already knew that.

keep up the good work!

 

Dazel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think that Brian Dalton at Altius will look a lot more like Mr. Pearson in the future as far as acquiring assets along with building them...but you likely already knew that.

keep up the good work!

 

Dazel.

 

Yeah! I am sort of a monotonous guy… all the companies I invest in look alike! ;)

 

Cheers,

 

Gio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooooooooooooo

 

Allergan:

 

Mcap: 42.4 bn

Shares: 299 mn

EBITDA: 2.08 bn

NI: 1.27 bn

FCF: 1.52 bn

 

VRX is offering 48.3 per share = 14.44 bn

+ 248 mn shares of VRX = 31.5 bn

 

= 46 bn

 

They claim 2.7 cost synergies so improved EBITDA would come in at 4.78 bn, which gives a 9.61x multiple.  FCF improves to 4.2 bn which gives a 10.88x multiple.

 

They also indicate that going forward R&D will be "at least" (which I read as "maximum") 300 mn, which is a decline of 70% as Allergan currently spends around 1 bn...  Is this already included in their 2.7 figure?

 

Otherwise you are looking at 8.38x and 9.33x.. Which is not that expensive I would say..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soooooooooooooo

 

Allergan:

 

Mcap: 42.4 bn

Shares: 299 mn

EBITDA: 2.08 bn

NI: 1.27 bn

FCF: 1.52 bn

 

VRX is offering 48.3 per share = 14.44 bn

+ 248 mn shares of VRX = 31.5 bn

 

= 46 bn

 

They claim 2.7 cost synergies so improved EBITDA would come in at 4.78 bn, which gives a 9.61x multiple.  FCF improves to 4.2 bn which gives a 10.88x multiple.

 

They also indicate that going forward R&D will be "at least" (which I read as "maximum") 300 mn, which is a decline of 70% as Allergan currently spends around 1 bn...  Is this already included in their 2.7 figure?

 

Otherwise you are looking at 8.38x and 9.33x.. Which is not that expensive I would say..

 

They don't include the lower tax rate in those synergies ("High single-digit tax rate for combined company in addition to cost synergies"), and I wouldn't be surprised if they kept finding more cost synergies (they always have in the past).

 

I like how it would delever them significantly. Looks quite good to me so far.

 

It's a pretty strong vote of confidence from Ackman too. He does his homework (was probably the only guy apart form Michael Burry who read 10s of thousands of pages of MBS documentation), so making it his biggest investment ever, saying "The combination of Valeant and Allergan represents the most strategic and value-creating transaction I have ever analyzed.", and saying that he intends to take all stock on the deal and "remain a long-term holder of the combined company" is not nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't include the lower tax rate in those synergies ("High single-digit tax rate for combined company in addition to cost synergies"), and I wouldn't be surprised if they kept finding more cost synergies (they always have in the past).

 

I like how it would delever them significantly. Looks quite good to me so far.

 

It's a pretty strong vote of confidence from Ackman too. He does his homework (was probably the only guy apart form Michael Burry who read 10s of thousands of pages of MBS documentation), so making it his biggest investment ever, saying "The combination of Valeant and Allergan represents the most strategic and value-creating transaction I have ever analyzed.", and saying that he intends to take all stock on the deal and "remain a long-term holder of the combined company" is not nothing.

 

Yes I wanted to mention the tax part but forgot it... Regarding Ackman, well, everybody talks for their own book so yeah I am not attributing a lot of importance to that...

 

Ballpark EBITDA will be just short of 8 bn I suppose, + debt  of 17.3 (existing) + 15.5 (new) - 1.5 (cash from Allergan) - 600 (own cash) = +/- 30.5

 

= 3.8x EBITDA which is deleveraging of around 36%.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...