Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper

The Spokesman-Review Newspaper The Spokesman-Review

Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883
Cloudy 51° Cloudy

Motley Fool: Pharma perks – and more

With improving growth prospects, a fat dividend and a bargain valuation, AbbVie deserves consideration.  (Courtesy AbbVie)
With improving growth prospects, a fat dividend and a bargain valuation, AbbVie deserves consideration. (Courtesy AbbVie)

AbbVie (NYSE: ABBV) is one of the least expensive big pharmaceutical stocks on the market, with promising growth prospects.

It has grown rapidly in recent years thanks largely to Humira, its key immunosuppressive drug – which is facing the expiration of its patent protection beginning in 2023. Not surprisingly, emerging competition from biosimilar products has made investors jittery, but AbbVie is prepping for a life beyond Humira. To start, its Rinvoq and Skyrizi drugs are in late-stage regulatory review and on track for faster launches than previously planned. AbbVie projects the two drugs could bring in revenue of more than $15 billion by 2025. The company has several other growth drivers as well, including blood cancer drugs Imbruvica and Venclexta, plus antipsychotic drug Vraylar.

AbbVie’s recent acquisition of Allergan, which added Botox and neurological drugs to its portfolio, should also drive growth. Allergan generated $16.1 billion in revenue in 2019. For the full year 2020, AbbVie projects Allergan to add 12% to its adjusted earnings per share.

Meanwhile, management is targeting a reduction in debt of between $15 billion and $18 billion by the end of 2021. That should help AbbVie keep increasing dividends, which recently yielded 4.7%.

With improving growth prospects, a fat dividend and a bargain valuation, AbbVie deserves consideration.

Ask the Fool

Q: If a company has a lot of sales, might it still be a bad investment? – H.A., Glendale, California

A: It’s very possible. Sales (also known as revenue) are what a company takes in for its products and services. But if the company spends more than it takes in, it ends up with losses instead of profits. This all shows up on a company’s income statement (sometimes referred to as a “statement of earnings” or “statement of operations,” among other things). It starts with sales at the top, and then subtracts costs such as raw materials, payroll, marketing and taxes, eventually arriving at net income, which can be positive (profits) or negative (losses).

Ideally, a company will have growing revenue and growing profits. But even good companies can have a year or two in the red – perhaps because they’re spending heavily on advertising or on growth, or because they’re facing a temporary setback. And younger, smaller companies may run many losses in their early years. So unprofitability isn’t necessarily a deal-breaker, but it’s best to focus your dollars on companies that are reliably profitable.

With any possible investment, study its financial reports: Check whether it’s gaining or losing market share, how strong its competitive advantages are, and whether its future seems promising.

Q: Can you recommend any investing guides for beginners? – J.S., Bixby, Oklahoma

A: Sure. Check out “The Motley Fool Investment Guide” by David and Tom Gardner (Simon & Schuster, $22).

Other good introductions include “Idiot’s Guides: Beginning Investing” by Danielle L. Schultz (Alpha, $20), Kathy Kristof’s “Investing 101” (Bloomberg Press, $19), and John C. Bogle’s “The Little Book of Common Sense Investing: The Only Way To Guarantee Your Fair Share of Stock Market Returns” (Wiley, $25).

My dumbest investment

My dumbest investment was buying $150 of stock in Vodafone and paying $18 in fees to buy and sell it. It’s hard to beat that as a dumb investment, surely. – D., online

The Fool responds: You’ve pointed out a common investing mistake that many investors have made, usually unaware. If you pay $18 to buy $150 worth of stock, you’re forking over about 12% of the value of the investment just in the trading commission. That’s problematic, because you’d have to see your investment increase in value by 12% just to get back to even. The costly error is repeated if you spend another 12% of the investment to sell your shares.

The Motley Fool long ago suggested that investors spend no more than about 2% of any investment on commission fees. Back when trading commissions cost $25 or more, that required trades worth about $1,250 or more. But commissions have fallen sharply over the years, and not too long ago, $7 commissions were common. Those would require a trade valued at just $350 or more in order to stay at 2% or below. But today, many big, respected brokerages feature $0 trades. With that kind of charge, you could go ahead and place a $150 order for free.

Commission fees matter most if you trade frequently, which isn’t an ideal way to invest. Learn more about good, low-fee brokerages at our TheAscent.com site.

The Spokesman-Review Newspaper

Local journalism is essential.

Give directly to The Spokesman-Review's Northwest Passages community forums series -- which helps to offset the costs of several reporter and editor positions at the newspaper -- by using the easy options below. Gifts processed in this system are not tax deductible, but are predominately used to help meet the local financial requirements needed to receive national matching-grant funds.

Active Person

Subscribe now to get breaking news alerts in your email inbox

Get breaking news delivered to your inbox as it happens.