Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
  • Like
Risks Overview In Pharma Sector
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Now you can save presentations on your phone or tablet

Available for both IPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Risks Overview In Pharma Sector

  • 246 views
Published

An Overview of Risk and Disclosure in the Global Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Industry provides our analysis of recent filings by 34 companies in a streamlined and timely report.

An Overview of Risk and Disclosure in the Global Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Industry provides our analysis of recent filings by 34 companies in a streamlined and timely report.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
246
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure in theGlobal Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Industry April 2012 kpmg.com KPMG INTERNATIONAL
  • 2. © 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 3. Contents Executive summary 2 Reported risk factors 4 Financial statement disclosures 13 Legal proceedings analysis 19 About KPMG’s Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences Practice 25© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 4. 2 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure An overview of risk and disclosure Executive summary This is a summary report of risk • US healthcare reform, European staff qualified for employment in the and disclosure by the major economic risk, and emerging market life sciences industry. We do not see pharmaceutical and life sciences risk are new risks disclosed by more the issue of scientific risk yet being companies. The pharmaceutical than 15 percent of filers for the embraced: companies’ disclosure industry is now experiencing the long- first time. is, in general, limited, and the expected and much-discussed patent governance of R&D merits a higher • Six companies with more than cliff. During the 2011-14 period, patent profile. 30 percent of sales from the protection covering US$120 billion European Union (EU) did not The pharmaceutical companies’ in sales is expected to be lost1. This disclose specific EU risk. behaviors that have created the is impacting individual company and perception that they put their market growth rates, exacerbated by • Emerging market risk was disclosed commercial goals above the interests economic crises, European austerity by less than a quarter of the of governments, payors, prescribers measures, pricing pressures and companies. and patients are at the heart of the continuing healthcare reform in the • Disclosure of R&D pipelines remains loss of trust of these stakeholders. US. Emerging markets that have relatively limited, influenced by We sense that the beginning of the been engines of both growth and the problems and lack of success cultural change that is essential to shifts in global market dynamics have of recent years, and competitive rebuilding trust is underway. However, not been immune to some negative pressures. Only one company comparison of the profile given to trends, particularly price reductions, estimates its return on R&D corporate social responsibility in the although the extraordinary volume spending. annual reports of US and European growth opportunity acts as a strong companies, which is modest at counterbalance. To a greater or lesser • We observed no meaningful trend in best, with that of their Japanese extent, these factors are disclosed as disclosure related to M&A activity. counterparts, which is expansive, risks by the industry, together with • Contingent legal liabilities are is interesting to note. many other well-known and some dominated by product liabilities ahead newly emerging factors. The industry is faced with some of sales and marketing and patent real opportunities to counterbalance Key findings are: litigation liabilities. these risks. The most important of • US companies and foreign companies In our recent report on the industry,2 these is innovation. True innovation filing with the US Securities and we identified rising legal, political, is still valued highly, particularly in Exchange Commission (SEC) disclose personnel and scientific risk, the US and in Japan. Delivery of broadly twice as many risks as combined with a loss of trust as one innovative products is rewarded by non-US filers. of five key challenges for the industry. commensurate returns even in the We see companies taking steps to face of the multiple reforms in both • Overall, there was a 13 percent reduce legal risk. It is perhaps too these markets, although it is harder increase in the aggregate total early to see a decline but the absence to say the same is true, in general, number of risks disclosed by the of significant increase in contingent of Europe. Many of the opportunities sample of companies we reviewed. legal liabilities relating to sales and for innovation are in more specialist • Pricing, patent-related risks and marketing practice is a positive markets. generic competition dominate sign. Political risk is understood and In-house research and development disclosure tables. disclosed, at least partially, for US and may not be capable of delivering EU markets. For emerging markets it • Political instability, natural disasters the requisite innovation that should is much less well-disclosed. Emerging and the risk posed by use of result in more collaboration and markets also carry significant information technology show the also more mergers and acquisitions personnel risk driven by a shortage of greatest increase in disclosure. (M&A), especially involving small 1 IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics: The Global Use of Medicines: Outlook Through 2015, May 2011 2 Future Pharma: Five Strategies to Accelerate the Transformation of the Pharmaceutical Industry by 2020, KPMG 2011, p.16© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 5. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 3 and medium-sized companies. More collaboration will mean more royalty payments and a potential long-term increase in the cost of sales. It is also possible that collaborating companies will focus more on selling, marketing and branding and other activities characteristic of consumer markets. Large-scale M&A is expected to be more challenging as most of the large companies are already the product of a significant acquisition and are working toward rationalizing excess capacity and resources. In any case, M&A and alliances should involve careful examination of the risks of fully developing the compound and bringing it to market as part of effective due diligence on behalf of the acquirer. We observed no meaningful trend in disclosure related to M&A, although two of the smaller companies noted that provisions in agreements with third- parties might discourage a third party from acquiring them. This is a good illustration of the growing risks associated with alliances, and also, in these cases, that there is a risk of M&A not occurring. At the same time, the negative impact of product profit sharing and royalties on margins means greater efficiency must be driven through the industry, particularly the manufacturing and We do not see the issue of scientific R&D processes. This is underway risk yet being embraced: companies’ at most major companies, but the speed of implementation could be disclosure is, in general, limited and questioned. the governance of R&D merits a higher profile.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 6. 4 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Reported risk factors T his report highlights the significant business risk factors disclosed by leading pharmaceutical and other life sciences companies in their 2011 annual reports and financial statements. These risk factors serve to alert shareholders or potential shareholders to those factors that could materially alter a company’s performance and financial circumstances. We have reviewed the most recent relevant filing of the 34 largest pharmaceutical and other life sciences companies and considered their quantitative and qualitative disclosures.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 7. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 5 Pharmaceutical and life sciences companies Foreign US filers’ We reviewed 34 companies as illustrated below: disclosures seem to be • US filers – publicly traded US companies that file Form 10-K with the SEC more comprehensive • Foreign US filers – non-US public companies that file Form 20-F with the SEC than US filers but the • Non-US filers – public and private foreign companies that do not file with the SEC. approach to disclosure in Form 20-F seems Composition of company universe more free-form than traditional risk factor disclosure as Item 1A in a 10-K filing. 38% US Filers (15) 44% Foreign US Filers (6) Non-US Filers (13) 18% Source: KPMG analysis of company findings, April 2012. Average number of disclosures Broadly, US filers and foreign US filers disclose more risks than non-US filers, whether assessed on risks disclosed by more than 15 percent of all companies or on total number of risks disclosed. Foreign US filers’ disclosures seem to be more comprehensive than US filers but the approach to disclosure in Form 20-F seems more free-form than traditional risk factor disclosure as Item 1A in a 10-K filing. US filers disclosed on average 28 risks, foreign US filers on average 31 risks and non-US filers on average 15 risks. Average total number of disclosures* 35 31 30 28 25 20 15 15 10 5 18% 0 US Filers Foreign US Filers Non-US Filers *Including all disclosures Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 8. 6 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Risk frequency 2011 marked the beginning of a four-year period during which patent protection for products with US$120bn in sales is being lost.3 Risks related to intellectual Risks related to property protection and generic competition appear most frequently. Patent life intellectual property also drives the need for R&D organizations to deliver sufficient products with potential to replace the revenue being lost to generic competition in the face of protection and increasingly stringent regulatory requirements, which may result in failure. The generic competition worldwide pressure on pharmaceutical pricing in the face of tough economic appear most conditions features frequently. frequently. 3 IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics: The Global Use of Medicines: Outlook Through 2015 May 2011© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 9. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 7 Frequency of risk disclosure Industry/generic competition 100% Protection and expiration of intellectual property rights 94% Pharmaceutical pricing: Competition, price controls and 91% reimbursement reductions Regulatory requirements 91% R&D efforts may not be successful 91% Interest rates/currency exposure/inflation 88% Legal proceedings including adverse outcome of litigation and 88% government investigations Patent litigation 82% Manufacturing processes/product supply/raw materials 79% Global, political and economic conditions 79% Unsuccessful strategic alliances/business combinations 74% Product liability 71% Environmental/health and safety liabilities 68% Taxation 68% Reliance on IT 65% Reliance on third party manufacturing/providers or 62% marketing suppliers Disruption from natural disasters 62% Delay in product launches 53% US healthcare reform legislation 53% Political instability 50% Human resources/key personnel 44% European economic exposure 44% Reliance on key products 38% Impairments/credit risk and bad debts 35% Product safety issues 29% Concentration of sales to key customers, e.g. wholesalers 26% Failure or adverse impact of productivity initiatives/failure 24% to implement business strategy New or revised accounting standards 24% Emerging market risk 24% Business restrictions due to high debt ratios 21% Liquidity risks/insufficient cash 21% International business risks 18% Anti-bribery and corruption legislation 15% Counterfeit products 15% Competition from biosimilars 15% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% New risks reported by more than15 percent of companies Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 10. 8 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Changes in risk frequency Overall there was a 13 percent increase in the aggregate total number of risks disclosed by the companies we reviewed in the 2011 filings vs. the 2010 filings The rapid growth in (573 vs. 506). the use and reliance Against a background of political unrest in North Africa and the Middle East on information over the past year, it is perhaps not surprising that the largest increase in risk technology raises frequency was for political instability. Similarly, the East Japan earthquake was no doubt a factor in a more than 100 percent increase in disclosure of risk from a number of new exposure to natural disaster. risks. The rapid growth in the use of and reliance on information technology raises a number of new risks. One company disclosed that social media/mobile technologies could result in liabilities or security breaches. Overall there was a more than 50 percent increase in disclosure of IT-related risk. Social media risk “While social media adoption provides the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry great opportunities, there are also clear risks for companies that use these channels, including threats to the control of confidential information or intellectual property, increased levels of reputational risk (that develop at viral speed), and the potential for regulatory infractions. If a social media solution provider updates or changes its functionality policies, for instance, companies can be left with less control over community commentary, resulting in a reduced ability to maintain compliance in this rapidly expanding marketing area. In many cases, the success or failure of a social media program lies in its ability to create a dialogue with the audience being addressed through any selected channel, whether it be a product informational page on Facebook, a Twitter stream dedicated to product launch, or instructional training materials released through YouTube. In all of these examples, the sponsoring organization must remain vigilant about the content and tone of the messaging being generated by the audience in response to the organization’s intended message. Consumers are more frequently turning to these channels to comment on the effectiveness of a product, and this could very likely develop into a mechanism for reporting adverse events. Therefore, the sponsoring organization must remain involved in the ongoing dialogue through carefully developed monitoring programs and moderation of comments being publicly captured in these social media applications. ” Source: David Blumberg and John Hair, KPMG LLP-US. Reproduced with permission from Life Sciences Law & Industry Report, 5LSLR 981, 10/07/2011. Copyright© 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 11. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 9 There was a 30 percent increase in the disclosure of legal proceedings including adverse outcome of litigation and government investigations. The greatest reduction in risk frequency was 27 percent reduction in the failure of productivity initiatives. Most companies have been restructuring for several years and may well have a better perspective on delivery than in the past. Change in risk frequency Political instability 240% Disruption from natural disasters 133% Reliance on IT 57% Human resources/key personnel 50% Taxation 35% Legal proceedings including adverse outcome of 30% litigation and government investigations Patent litigation 27% Reliance on third party manufacturing/providers or 24% marketing suppliers New or revised accounting standards 14% Industry/generic competition 13% Environmental/health and safety liabilities 10% Unsuccessful strategic alliances/business 9% combinations Reliance on key products 8% Manufacturing processes/product supply/raw 8% materials Protection and expiration of 7% intellectual property rights Regulatory requirements 6% R&D efforts may not be successful 3% Pharmaceutical pricing: 3% competition, price controls and reimbursement Concentration of sales to key customers, 0% e.g. wholesalers Liquidity risks – insufficient cash 0% Interest rates/currency exposure/inflation 0% Product liability -3% Global, political and economic conditions -4% Impairments/credit risk and bad debts -10% Business restrictions due to high debt ratios -13% Failure or adverse impact of productivity -27% initiatives/failure to implement business strategy -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 12. 10 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Analysis of newly disclosed risks The Eurozone crisis We identified eight risks reported by more than 15 percent of companies for may also influence the first time: exchange rates • US healthcare reform legislation, i.e. the Patient Protection and Affordable and the translation Care Act of 2010 of overseas sales • European economic risk into the reporting • Emerging market risk currency. • Product safety • International business risk • Anti-bribery and corruption legislation • Counterfeit products • Competition from biosimilars US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 Eighty-seven percent of US filers and 83 percent of Foreign US Filers specifically identified the impact of the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as a risk to their businesses, although the language varied from the exact wording of the Act to “US healthcare reform in 2010” “increased rebates, “mandated , ” contribution taxes, and “other contributions to close the Medicare Part D coverage ” gap” were all cited. European economic risk The Eurozone crisis and severe economic difficulties experienced in some Southern European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece in the past year, have raised the profile of potential financial impact on many companies. This includes the extended time taken to collect trade receivables, sovereign debt issues that could increase collection risk given the high proportion of sales in these countries to publicly-owned customers, and the impact of austerity measures introduced to reduce government spending on pharmaceutical reimbursement prices. The Eurozone crisis may also influence exchange rates and the translation of overseas sales into the reporting currency. Wholesalers and third-party manufacturers based in the EU may also be affected by the economic downturn with particular impact on the larger pharmaceutical and life sciences companies. The effects of the EU economic crisis extend to its influence on consumer spending. While self-evident for those life science companies with diversified business models including over-the-counter (OTC) medicines or other consumer products, the increasing use of patient co-pays by governments means a cut in consumer spending has an impact on pharmaceutical sales and is a growing risk. Three companies specifically identified consumer spending as a risk to their business.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 13. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 11 Given that fewer than 50 percent of filers disclosed European economic risk, We were surprised we investigated the relationship between percentage of sales from the EU and disclosure. We were surprised that six companies with more than 30 percent of that six companies revenue from the EU chose not to highlight this risk in an explicit manner.4 Passing with more than reference to tough economic conditions in a business description section was deemed a retrospective comment and not a risk factor disclosure for shareholders 30 percent of or potential shareholders. Some companies with approximately 20 percent of revenues from the revenue from the EU chose to disclose the risk: this seems prudent to us give the continuing uncertainty in these markets. EU chose not to highlight this risk in an explicit manner. Disclosure of European economic risk vs. percentage of sales in the EU 50% 49% 40% 40% 40% 37% 37% 34% 33% 32% 32% 32% Percentage of sales from EU 31% 31% 30% 30% 29% 29% 29% 27% 26% 25% 25% 22% 22% 20% 20% 20% 17% 12% 10% 9% 6% 2% 0% Companies that disclose EU risk Companies that do not disclose EU risk Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012. 4 We have had to make judgments about where non-US filers disclose risks; we concluded that if these were not included with other risks to the business or under risk factors in management’s review of the year, then this was not an explicit disclosure.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 14. 12 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Emerging market risk Many companies do Slightly less than a quarter of filing companies disclosed risks associated with not explicitly disclose strong growth from emerging markets. These risks included: emerging market • The strong, often double-digit growth rates experienced in recent years may not sales and, when they continue. do, the definition of • Some developing countries have reduced (or threatened to reduce) the duration of patent protection to facilitate early generic competition. emerging markets • Companies may not be able to realize the expected benefits of significant can vary from investments in emerging growth markets. company to company. • There may be a relatively limited number of people with the skills and training suitable for employment in life science enterprises. • Companies may be required to rely on third-party agents, which may put them at risk of liability. • Many emerging countries have currencies that fluctuate substantially and should these currencies devalue without it being possible to offset the devaluations with price increases, products may become less profitable. Many companies do not explicitly disclose emerging market sales and, when they do, the definition of emerging markets can vary from company to company. We compared the number of companies that disclose emerging market risk with the percentage of sales from non-US and non-European sources. This includes Japan, but again, not all companies disclose Japanese sales (where it is disclosed, the range of sales from Japan is 6 to 19 percent). As illustrated below, there is a substantial proportion of companies with significant sales outside the traditional Western markets and Japan that do not disclose emerging market risk. We see this as a potentially important area for review. Disclosure of emerging market risk vs. percentage of ex-US, ex-EU sales 50% 43% 42% 40% 36% 33% 31% 30% 30% 27% 26% 26% 25% 24% 23% 22% 21% 21% 20% 18% 26% 12% 11% 11% 11% 10% 10% 10% 9% 9% 8% 8% 6% 6% 4% 5% 3% 3% 0% 0% Companies that disclose Emerging Market risk Companies that do not disclose Emerging Market risk Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 15. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 13 Financial statement disclosures T he top five critical accounting policies are the same as we reported in 2010, when we reviewed 12 major US and European pharmaceutical companies. This year the order has changed, reflecting a broader population of companies reviewed. Critical accounting policies and frequency of disclosure are shown below. Only six policies were disclosed as critical by more than 50 percent of the companies. Critical accounting policies – percentage reported Income/deferred/contingent taxes 91% Revenue recognition 76% Intangible assets/impairment 76% Pension/retirement benefits 61% Contingent liabilities and litigation 61% Property, plant and equipment/impairments 61% Inventory valuation 47% Goodwill 44% R&D costs 44% Consolidation 38% Acquisitions/business combinations 35% Financial instruments 35% Foreign currency translation 35% Cash, cash equivalents and investments 32% Share-based compensation 29% Leases 29% New accounting standards 18% Use of estimates 15% Earnings per share 15% Allowance for doubtful accounts 12% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Risks reported by more than 15 percent of companies for the first time Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 16. 14 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Taxes were the most-disclosed critical accounting policy, disclosed by 90 percent of these companies. This is consistent with their global supply chains and movements Assessing of intellectual property across borders. Additionally, many of the companies have impairment in effective tax rates below or well below expected statutory rates. Recently, tax developmental authorities have been very focused on the amount of profit recorded in and outside of their country. These factors clearly highlight the critical nature of the judgments technology can be utilized to record the appropriate tax provision and reserves. extremely subjective The next most-disclosed critical policies were revenue recognition and intangible especially for early asset impairments. Gross revenue for most pharmaceutical companies is not very subjective. The critical nature of revenue recognition is judgment regarding technology that may gross to net adjustments for rebates, governmental fees and returns (particularly be several years away as patent expiration nears). We believe gross revenue recognition will become from an approval more challenging in the future as pricing moves away from a fixed price to more outcomes-based pricing that we are starting to see in Europe and in a more limited date. way with US managed care organizations. Intangible asset impairment is critical particularly with respect to in-process research and development (IPRD) which results from acquisitions and is recorded on the balance sheet and not subject to amortization until approved, meaning it is subject to annual impairment testing. Assessing impairment in developmental technology can be extremely subjective especially for early technology that may be several years away from an approval date.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 17. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 15 Given the highly regulated nature of the industry, contingent liabilities and litigation A high degree of have a high degree of uncertainty and are highly judgmental with respect to outcomes. A high degree of judgment is necessary in assessing when to accrue, judgment is necessary how much to accrue, and when and what should be disclosed. in assessing when We noted that less than 15 percent of the companies disclosed allowance for to accrue, how much doubtful receivables as critical. We found this surprising given the various European government debt issues for a number of European countries. to accrue, and when and what should be Topics discussed separately in Management’s Discussion and disclosed. Analysis (MD&A), Operating and Financial Review (OFR) or Equivalent There is a wide variation in how companies choose to disclose certain topics pertaining to their business. This is partly because non-US filers have a more free- form approach to business description within their annual reports. For example, strategy was only a specific MD&A/OFR topic in slightly more than half of the cases; this is perhaps surprisingly low given the seismic shift in the business environment combined with economic uncertainties. Topics discussed separately in Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A), Operating and Financial Review (OFR) or equivalent 100% 100% 82% 79% 80% 71% 71% 65% 60% 56% 53% 50% 47% 41% 40% 29% 20% 15% 0% Overall performance Performance by region Performance by key product Performance by business segment Business environment Product pipeline/R&D Strategy Finance risks Product portfolio Future perspectives, outlook Business risks Corporate social responsibility/ global citizenship Performance by therapeutic area Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 18. 16 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Surprisingly, given the challenging business climate only 70 percent of the Some companies have companies discussed the business environment and just 65 percent discussed product pipeline/R&D. With the complex business environment and patent cliff moved away from any pressures, greater disclosure here may aid an investor in understanding how a discussion of early stage company is responding to these challenges. We note even fewer companies (45 percent) discussed their future prospects and outlook. compounds, which makes sense given that R&D pipeline disclosures early stage R&D has The approach to disclosure on R&D pipelines varied widely. Some companies always had more failure have moved away from any discussion of early stage compounds, which makes sense given that early stage R&D has always had more failure than success, and than success. that in the wake of a relatively disappointing decade for pharmaceutical R&D, the external world has become skeptical of early promise turning into actual revenue dollars. It seems that some of the industry is dealing with the rising risk in R&D by choosing to disclose less detail about their pipelines. For instance the mechanism of action of pipeline compounds is not readily revealed by a number of major companies, including some US companies. Many investors would find this information useful in assessing the relative attractiveness and competitive positioning of a pipeline. This selective or restrictive approach to disclosure, driven by concerns about competitive information, should be seen in the context of R&D being the lifeblood of the industry and accounting for as much as a quarter of annual costs.5 More than 80 percent of companies disclose the most recent pipeline information in a formal link on their website. Those that do not disclose pipeline information are some generic companies and foreign US filers. 5 Based on estimated 16 percent R&D/sales and 32 percent operating margins: See Future Pharma, KPMG 2011, p8.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 19. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 17 Tabular disclosures R&D Pipeline on Stage of development Name/ Therapy Expected Discontinued review Indication Mechanism Formulation Partner website P1 P2 P3 Filed Code area filing date projects Abbott               Allergan               Amgen               Baxter               Biogen Idec               BMS1  N/A N/A N/A N/A          Celgene               Eli Lilly               Forest Lab               Gilead               J&J2               Merck & Co               Mylan               Pfizer 3               Watson               AstraZeneca               GSK               Novartis               Novo Nordisk               Sanofi               Teva               Astellas               Bayer               BI               Chugal               CSL               Daiichi Sankyo               Eisai               Merck KGaA               Mitsubishi Tanabe               Otsuka               Roche               Takeda               UCB SA               Count 32 23 26 28 26 28 30 28 18 7 7 9 11 28 Percentage 94% 68% 76% 82% 76% 82% 88% 82% 53% 21% 21% 26% 32% 82% 1 BMS disclosed the number of compounds in the respective development stages as defined by the company: “Exploratory Development;” “Full Development;” “Marketed Product Development” . 2 Johnson & Johnson did not provide detailed pipeline data in addition to the narrative in the annual report. Phase 3 compound/device and filed compounds/devices were sourced from the pharmaceutical/medical devices and diagnostics pipeline link on the company’s website. 3 Pfizer includes no specific compound discussion in its 10-K filing, giving only headline numbers of compounds. The pipeline on the company’s website does not include a discussion of the pipeline. Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 20. 18 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Disclosure of discontinued projects remains rare, with less than a quarter of companies making this explicit. In a very highly scrutinized industry, success and failure will be readily apparent to interested investors or shareholders; it should enhance the reputation of companies to disclose failures. Disclosure of the estimated return on R&D spending remains unique to GlaxoSmithKline. There is an opportunity for other companies to be more transparent with their R&D spend and help shareholders and potential investors understand why the strategies being pursued will improve returns. We have illustrated previously that returns on R&D have been falling steadily for the past two decades.6 As evident below, average industry returns on R&D have been falling since 1999 while R&D spend continues to grow. Returns on R&D compared to R&D spending 50,000 15% Illustrative post-tax return on R&D expenditure 40,000 Annual US industry R&D spend 12% 30,000 20,000 9% 10,000 0 6% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: Future Pharma, KPMG 2011. 6 Future Pharma KPMG 2011, p13 and 14© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 21. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 19 Legal proceedings analysis P harmaceutical companies are frequently involved in a number of legal proceedings and the disclosures regarding the resulting contingent liabilities vary from company to company. The majority of legal proceedings involve actions by US state or federal government, or US patent disputes. Disclosure by US filers and foreign filers is, therefore, typically substantially more lengthy than that of foreign filers. We include seven Japanese companies, which have much lower levels of exposure to the US market, in the foreign filers group. Categories of contingent legal liabilities 14% 42% 18% Product liability Sales and marketing 26% Other Patents Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012. There were two noteworthy agreements reached with the US government over sales and marketing practices in late 2011. In November 2011 GlaxoSmithKline agreed in principle to a US$3 billion settlement with the US government to conclude its most significant ongoing Federal investigations, two of which were related to sales and marketing practices: the investigation begun by the US Attorney’s office of Colorado in 2004 and the Department of Justice’s investigation of the development and marketing of Avandia. In December 2011 Merck agreed to pay US$950 million to settle criminal and civil charges with the US Department of Justice related to research, marketing and selling activities with respect to Vioxx.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 22. 20 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Rising legal risk The industry needs to In spite of extensive risk management input to board audit committees, there reverse these trends has been a rise in the number of settlements for violations of a variety of laws to begin to win back as exemplified by data from the US over the past 20 years with a very rapid rise since 2003. Since 2005, the annual value of the settlements has exceeded confidence and trust US$1billion reaching US$4.4 billion in 2009. from consumers and governments alike.This is no small task. Source: Future Pharma, KPMG 2011 Number of Pharmaceutical industry settlements with US state and federal governments 1991–2010 40 38 35 32 30 27 25 20 15 14 10 10 9 8 8 5 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 23. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 21 Summary of significant contingent legal liabilities from 2011 disclosures (or 2010 where 2011 was unavailable as of 31 March 2012) Company USD $m Status Brief description Abbott 1,845 Pending HUMIRA patent infringement with Centocor (part of Johnson & Johnson) Abbott 1,630 Pending Depakote marketing Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation Amgen 780 Pending Federal investigation of sales and marketing practices for erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESAs) AstraZeneca 135 Pending Seroquel product liability litigation and state attorney general investigation of sales and marketing practices Baxter 300 Pending Contaminated heparin Bayer 125 In Appeal GM contaminated rice Bayer 750 Pending GM contaminated rice Bayer 133 Pending GM contaminated rice Eli Lilly 245 Settled Zyprexa product liability ($230m 2009 $15m 2008) Forest 313 Settled Celexa®, Lexapro and Levothroid GSK 4,435 Pending Manufacturing, Paxil and Avandia product liability claims Johnson & Johnson 593 In Appeal CYPHER stent patent infringement Johnson & Johnson 330 In Appeal RISPERDAL promotion Johnson & Johnson N/A RISPERDAL promotion - criminal settlement - media suggest more than $1bn Merck 950 Pending DOJ investigation of Vioxx marketing Novartis 1,059 Pending Environment – landfill Novartis 66 Settled Average wholesaling pricing settlement Novartis 150 Settled Average wholesaling pricing settlement Novartis 53 Pending Average wholesaling pricing settlement Novartis 78 Pending Average wholesaling pricing settlement Novartis 30 Pending Average wholesaling pricing settlement Novartis 25 Pending Average wholesaling pricing settlement Novartis 99 Pending Wage and hour law violation for failure to pay overtime Novartis 422 Settled Trileptal marketing Otsuka 311 Pending Payment to Bristol-Myers Squibb if Abilify generics launched 2012-2015 Pfizer 790 Pending Hormone Replacement Therapy litigation Sanofi 985 Pending Product liability risks Sanofi 2,267 In Appeal Environmental liabilities Teva 270 Pending Design, manufacture and sales of large vials of propofol Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 24. 22 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure Risk factor raw data US Filers Risk Factor Bristol Johnson Amgen Biogen Eli Forest Merck Watson Astra Abbott Allergan Baxter Myers Celgene Gilead & Mylan Pfizer Inc. Idec Lilly Lab & Co. Pharma Zeneca Squibb Johnson Industry/Generic competition                 Protection and expiration of intellectual property rights                 Pharmaceutical pricing: Competition, price controls and                reimbursement reductions Regulatory requirements                 R&D efforts may not be successful                 Interest rates/Currency exposure/Inflation              Legal proceedings including adverse outcome of litigation               and government investigations Patent litigation               Manufacturing processes/Prod- uct supply/Raw materials                Global, political and economic conditions                Unsuccessful strategic alliances/Business              combinations Product liability                Environmental/Health and safety liabilities           Taxation                Reliance on IT            Reliance on third party manufacturing/Providers or               marketing suppliers Disruption from natural disasters              Delay in product launches           Political instability            Human resources/Key personnel         European economic exposure*           Reliance on key products         US healthcare reform legislations*            Impairements/Credit risk and bad debts        Product safety issues*    Concentration of sales to key customers, e.g. wholesalers       Initiatives/Failure to implement business strategy      New or revised accounting standards       Emerging market risk*     Business restrictions due to high debt ratios     Liquid risks/insufficient cash    International business risks*    Anti-bribery and corruption legislations*     Counterfeit products*     Competition from biosimilars*    Total number of risks 25 21 21 24 27 23 25 15 13 25 18 28 32 28 26 26 Source: KPMG analysis of 2011 company filings, April 2012.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 25. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 23 Foreign US Filers Non-US Filers Glaxo Teva Chugai Otsuka Takeda Count Novartis Novo Bayer Boehringer Merck UCB Astellas Daiichi MitsubishiSmithKline Sanofi Pharma- CSL Roche Pharma- Eisal Holding Pharma- AG Nordisk AG Ingelheim KGaA SA Pharma Sankyo Tanabe plc. ceuticals ceuticals Co. ceuticals                   34                 32                  31                31                  31                  30                 30               28             27             27             25          24              23         23            22        21          21         18       17        15      15      13   13      12        10    9    8  8     8    7     7    6  5  5   529 27 24 28 27 16 7 13 16 18 14 10 11 15 19 15 17 10 34© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 26. 24 | An Overview of Risk and Disclosure We would like to thank Kevin Wilson, Managing Director of Jovin Healthcare, for his invaluable contribution to this project, and we look forward to your feedback on this report. Ed Giniat Global Leader – Chris Stirling Norbert Meyring Pharmaceuticals European Leader – Asia Pacific Leader – US Leader – Healthcare Chemicals & Chemicals & & Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 27. An Overview of Risk and Disclosure | 25 About KPMG’s Pharmaceuticals & Life Sciences Practice KPMG offers a broad range of audit, tax and advisory services to pharmaceuticals Through its and other life sciences clients, ranging in size from biotechnology start-ups to multinational pharmaceutical companies. As a global leader in serving this evolving member firms, industry, KPMG is committed to helping our member firm clients stay abreast of KPMG has invested emerging market trends, regulatory and legislative changes, leading practices and effective approaches to managing their business. extensively in KPMG is a global network of professional firms providing audit, tax and advisory developing a services. We have 145,000 outstanding professionals working together to deliver highly experienced value in 153 countries worldwide. Through its member firms, KPMG has invested pharmaceuticals extensively in developing a highly experienced pharmaceuticals and other life sciences team. KPMG’s understanding of the industry is both current and forward and other life looking, thanks to member firms’ global experience, knowledge sharing, industry sciences team. training, and the involvement of professionals with direct experience in the pharmaceutical industry.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All rights reserved.
  • 28. For more information, contactEd Giniat Frank MatteiGlobal Leader – Pharmaceuticals Global and US Tax Leader –US Leader – Healthcare & Chemicals & PharmaceuticalsPharmaceuticals T: +1 267 256 1910T: +1 312 665 2073 E: fmattei@kpmg.comE: eginiat@kpmg.com Melissa StahlChris Stirling Global Executive & KnowledgeEuropean Leader – Chemicals & Manager – PharmaceuticalsPharmaceuticals T: +1 609 524 5608T: +44 20 731 81512 E: mstahl@kpmg.comE: christopher.stirling@kpmg.co.uk Adrienne RivlinNorbert Meyring European Executive – Chemicals &Asia Pacific Leader – Chemicals & PharmaceuticalsPharmaceuticals T: + 44 20 769 41992T: +8 621 221 22707 E: adrienne.rivlin@kpmg.co.ukE: norbert.meyring@kpmg.com.cn Candice ZhangDavid Blumberg Asia Pacific Executive – Chemicals &Global and US Advisory Sector PharmaceuticalsLeader – Pharmaceuticals T: + 8 621 221 24085T: +1 267 256 3270 E: candice.zhang@kpmg.comE: dblumberg@kpmg.comMark DrozdowskiUS Audit Sector Leader –PharmaceuticalsT: +1 973 912 6640E: mdrozdowski@kpmg.comkpmg.comThe information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individualor entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information isaccurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such informationwithout appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.© 2012 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independentfirms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority toobligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any suchauthority to obligate or bind any member firm. All rights reserved.The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.Designed by Evalueserve.Publication name: An Overview of Risk and Disclosure in the Global Pharmaceutical and Life Science IndustryPublication number: 120437Publication date: April 2012