Your Basket
Your Basket
There are no funds in your basket. To add funds to your basket use the Green Plus Icon wherever you see it next to a fund.
Fund name
Aberdeen American Growth  
Fidelity American  
Schroder UK Mid 250  
M&G Recovery  
Jupiter Merlin UK Growth  
Close Basket Open basket

Login

Login

Register

It's look like you're leaving us

What would you like us to do with the funds you've selected

Show me all my options Forget them Save them
Customise this table
 

Mundy: Why pharmaceuticals won’t hit tobacco’s heights

The Investec manager says the people drawing parallels between the sectors are simply being naïve and are trying to convince themselves they won’t miss out on the next big thing.

By Alastair Mundy , Investec
Saturday May 12, 2012


One of the interesting benefits of meeting clients is that they often provide insights into how our competitors view the world. It’s a particularly revealing exercise when we hear the same message repeatedly as it suggests a consensus view has formed; an event that naturally raises our contrarian antennae.

A common view we have heard recently is that despite concerns over patents, pricing, pipeline and regulation, the much-maligned pharmaceutical sector is attractive.

This argument is supported by drawing parallels with the tobacco sector of a decade or so ago: despite its pariah status at the time as a sector in structural decline and with ongoing legal expenses, tobacco stocks have performed phenomenally – up by more than 650 per cent in total return terms since the end of 1999. So why, say these bulls, shouldn’t pharmaceutical stocks pull off the same trick?

While considering this point I have been skipping through Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002 for the work he conducted on uncertainty and decision making, with his academic partner Amos Tversky. The book is semi-autobiographical and a great read.

Two biases that Kahneman revisits from his work with Tversky, and which seem highly relevant to the tobacco versus pharmaceuticals discussion, are those of availability and representativeness.

A pinch of regret should also be added to this emotional cocktail. The representativeness heuristic (short-cut) encourages the brain to search for historic events that are similar to the current experience.

As a large defensive stockmarket sector with earnings under pressure and a number of factors threatening its longer-term success, some investors find it tempting to pair up the pharmaceutical sector with the tobacco sector of a decade ago.

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that uses the ease with which examples come to mind to make judgements about the probability of events. The regularity with which BAT reaches all-time share price highs certainly makes it a very available example of how large blue chips can regain their mojo.

Regret is a tough emotion for us all to deal with: "Why didn’t I buy that stock/bet on that horse/use that great line?"-type questions remind us that the future may have been significantly better if only we had taken a slightly different course.

It must be galling for those technology investors busy using their price/eyeball ratios in the late 90s to assess the cheapness of stocks, when a simple old-fashioned low price/earnings ratio would have pointed them towards far superior investments.

It is too late to correct that oversight, but not too late to try and learn from it. And with tobacco stocks some of the biggest constituents of the FTSE 100 – BAT and Imperial Tobacco have a combined weighting of more than 6 per cent – regret just keeps prodding away.

Of course, over the years there have also been a number of stocks that exhibited elements of structural decline and then proceeded to generate extraordinary underperformance.

However, these stocks, as a result of their appalling performance, are not high profile and therefore are more easily forgotten. Availability bias focuses investors’ minds on the easy-to-remember winners while representativeness bias is dangerous as it encourages us to over-emphasize one or two reasonably small or irrelevant similarities while ignoring the many falling knives that don’t recover.

Certainly, there has been some significant cost-cutting among tobacco companies that may well be copied by the major pharmaceuticals, but this has not been the main driver for the extraordinary growth in profitability over the last decade. Price increases have been of far more significance.

These companies are very fortunate to have customers who are addicted to their products and are therefore relatively price insensitive. It is unlikely that the pharmaceuticals have similar pricing power, particularly as they are in the middle of a nasty multi-year period when a number of their drugs come off patent and a large percentage of their revenues worldwide are provided by cash-strapped governments.

I am certainly not arguing against the belief that pharmaceutical stocks are cheap – we are overweight the sector ourselves – but find it difficult to see too many parallels with the tobacco sector.

Alastair Mundy manages a number of funds at Investec, including Managed Distribution, Special SituationsCautious Managed. The views expressed here are his own. and



 
Add your comment
Step 1: Tell us what you think...
 

Step 2: Prove you're not a robot...
You don't have to do this every time you submit a comment.

Login or register free and you won't see it again.
Enter the words above:
Step 3: Submit your comment...
Submit
 
Westwinds3 May 14th, 2012 at 07:17 AM

There is another parallel with tobacco which is worth remembering. All drugs have side effects, and like tobacco, big pharma is always fighting off class actions. As it has merged to a handful of giant companies, I have always worried that one bad class action result could bring down the whole giant. Unlike the banks, big pharma is not too big to fail. However, in this instance tobacco may be a good example. Despite killing and injuring far more people than big pharma could ever contemplate, the tobacco companies continue to thrive.

Reply
andrew Buckley May 13th, 2012 at 06:15 PM

It would be interesting to know what Neil Woodford thinks of this assessment.

Reply
Theo May 12th, 2012 at 08:45 PM

Any one who finds much in common between the tobacco companies with their immense pricing power of addictive products and pharmaceutical companies struggling to keep inventing new products and protect margins, must surely have his head examined.

Had I bought BAT 10 years ago I would now be rich. But unfortunately I bought Zeneca and remained poor.

Reply
stephen laycock May 12th, 2012 at 10:39 AM

It strikes me that given the top ten prescripton medications include a large number of benzodiazepines, z drugs, SSRI and painkillers , which are either addictive or else have withdrawal syndromes, with year on year prescriptions continue to rise - the parallels with the tobacco sector are abundantly apparent.

Reply
 

Back to top of page

 

Follow FE Trustnet

Video Headlines

More Videos

Why you should ignore the "slowdown" in emerging markets

GMT 12:30 | 04-Jun-2013

Why income investors cannot afford to ignore emerging markets

GMT 17:00 | 01-Jun-2013

 
Poll

Would you invest in a fund managed by someone who is nearing retirement age?

Yes

No

Vote

 
 
  • Stay connected with FE trustnet
  • Authorised and Regulated by the
    Financial Conduct Authority
  • © Trustnet Limited 2013. All Rights Reserved.
  • Please read our Terms of Use / Disclaimer
    and Privacy and Cookie Policy.
  • Data supplied in conjunction with Thomson Financial Limited,
    London Stock Exchange Plc, StructuredRetailProducts.com
    and ManorPark.com