Skip to main content

Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s new bet on the U.S. pharmaceutical industry signals hope for shares of large drug companies, which have lagged a broad market rally amid concern about efforts to rein in prescription drug prices.

Drug stocks largely outperformed on Tuesday, a day after Warren Buffett’s conglomerate, long underweight in the health care sector, revealed US$5.7-billion of new investments in AbbVie Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Merck & Co. and Pfizer Inc., whose vaccine has demonstrated effectiveness in late-stage studies against COVID-19.

“It’s a recognition of, ‘Hey, there’s some value there,’” said Walter Todd, chief investment officer at Greenwood Capital, whose funds hold shares of Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly and Co.

Story continues below advertisement

Pharma stocks also received a boost after the Nov. 3 U.S. elections made clear there would be no overwhelming Democratic sweep, an outcome some investors feared could prompt a major overhaul of drug pricing.

Still, many are reluctant to sound an all-clear on the industry, which is trading close to its biggest-ever valuation gap against the S&P 500 based on forward price-to-earnings ratios, according to Refinitiv Datastream.

Among the issues on investors' minds is whether Democrats can secure a slim margin in the U.S. Senate if their candidates win runoff races in Georgia scheduled for January, a result that could spark volatility throughout the health care sector.

Beyond that, pharmaceutical stocks continue to face pressure from concerns over lawmakers' efforts to bring down high drug prices, investors said.

“That is an area where you can quickly get to some sort of bipartisan agreement,” said Les Funtleyder, a health care portfolio manager at E Squared Capital.

So far in 2020, the S&P 500 pharmaceutical industry index has gained 0.6 per cent, versus an 11.7-per-cent gain for the overall S&P 500, and an 8.8-per-cent gain for the S&P 500 health care sector.

Shares of the two biggest pure-play pharma companies by market value, Merck and Pfizer, have fallen 10 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively, this year.

Story continues below advertisement

“Big pharma names have underperformed, and look cheap relative to historical valuations and the market overall,” said Jim Shanahan, an Edward Jones analyst who covers Berkshire. “These are large, dominant companies in an industry that has demonstrated strong, long-term growth.”

Investors say pharma stocks have also lagged because many top-selling products are slated to lose patent protection in the coming years, including AbbVie’s blockbuster Humira.

“As you get within five years of patent expirations, people start to look and get more nervous about growth prospects,” said Marshall Gordon, senior health care analyst at ClearBridge Investments.

Another factor hurting pharma’s performance, said Jared Holz, health care equity strategist at Jefferies, is that the stock market currently is dominated on a given day by either a trade favouring big tech, stay-at-home stocks, or a trade favouring economically cyclical stocks.

Pharma does not fall into either of those categories, Mr. Holz said, so “they seem to underperform irrespective of what the broader markets are doing.”

At the same time, he said, the stocks “are trading at such a meaningful discount on an absolute and relative basis that they are intriguing almost solely due to that.”

Story continues below advertisement

Be smart with your money. Get the latest investing insights delivered right to your inbox three times a week, with the Globe Investor newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies