(WP) Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than resear

Have a look to this chart, impressive

Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research

Prescription drugs are a massive market: Americans spent $329.2 billion on prescription drugs in 2013. That works out to about $1,000 per person in the U.S., as John Oliver pointed out in his show on Sunday night.
Oliver also mentioned that nine out of 10 big pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than on research. León Markovitz of Dadaviz found and graphed those figures from healthcare research firm GlobalData in the graphic below. The amounts spent on sales and marketing are shown in orange, while the amounts spent on research and development are in blue.


The biggest spender, Johnson & Johnson, shelled out $17.5 billion on sales and marketing in 2013, compared with $8.2 billion for R&D. In the top 10, only Roche spent more on R&D than on sales and marketing.
Most of this marketing money is directed at the physicians who do the prescribing, rather than consumers. As Oliver pointed out, drug companies spent more than $3 billion a year marketing to consumers in the U.S. in 2012, but an estimated $24 billion marketing directly to health care professionals.
Oliver closed his segment with a hilarious spoof commercial that urges patients to ask their doctors how pharmaceutical marketing might be influencing them.
"Ask your doctor today if he's taking pharmaceutical company money. Then ask your doctor what the money is for," the narrator says. "Ask your doctor if he's taken any money from the companies who make the drugs he just prescribed for you. Then ask yourself if you're satisfied with that answer."

(ING) Altice - No fear Alti(ce)tude, Raised TP to €127

We raise our TP to €127 and keep Altice on our ING Benelux favourites list as we believe: 
(1) synergies from NUM-SFR will beat expectations; 
(2) Altice shares offer a potential 14% upside pa over 2015-18F at current scope; 
(3) Altice has the financial headroom to make more value-added acquisitions.

SOTP raised to €127. We raise our SOTP-based TP to €127, mainly driven by: 
(1) a higher valuation for France, as we have gained confidence that NUM-SFR will expand EBITDA margins towards 46% by 2021F (previously 42%). Note that our SOTP no longer includes a 55% probability that NUM-SFR will acquire Bouygues Telecom; and 
(2) a higher valuation for Portugal, as Portugal Telecom’s (PT) FY14 results beat our expectations, allowing us to
raise our 2015F EBITDA by c.6%.

...Full note attached

(Le Figaro) JP Morgan et les frères Zaoui à la manoeuvre dans le dossier Alcatel

JP Morgan et les frères Zaoui à la manoeuvre dans le dossier Alcatel Lucent/Nokia

Nokia et Alcatel Lucent ont confirmé ce mardi être en discussions en vue d'un rapprochement qui devrait prendre la forme d'une offre publique d'échange du finlandais sur les actions du groupe franco-américain.
Une opération pour laquelle les deux entreprises ont déjà des banques conseils. Selon nos informations, c'est un géant mondial, l'américain JP Morgan, qui conseille Nokia. Tout l'inverse côté Alcatel Lucent, qui a pris les services de la «boutique» des frères Zaoui, Yoel et Michaël. Logique, puisque Yoel Zaoui a longtemps travaillé chez Goldman Sachs avec Jean Raby, aujourd'hui directeur financier d'Alcatel. D'autres banques pourraient venir renforcer les équipes de négociation et de montage de cette opération dans les heures ou les jours qui viennent.

(BFW) Nokia Is Being Advised by JP Morgan, Le Figaro Says

BFW 04/14 11:25 *ALCATEL IS BEING ADVISED BY ZAOUI BROTHERS, LE FIGARO SAYS
BFW 04/14 11:24 *NOKIA IS BEING ADVISED BY JP MORGAN, LE FIGARO SAYS
Nokia Is Being Advised by JP Morgan, Le Figaro Says
2015-04-14 11:31:00.328 GMT


By David Whitehouse
(Bloomberg) -- Alcatel is being advised by the Zaoui
brothers, Le Figaro reports, without saying where it got the
information.
Story: {http://bit.ly/1JGoZhp}
* NOTE: Nokia in Talks to Acquire Network-Equipment Rival
Alcatel {NMSJLM6TTDS2 <GO>}



Link to Company News:{ALU FP <Equity> CN <GO>}
Link to Company News:{JPM US <Equity> CN <GO>}
Link to Company News:{NOK1V FH <Equity> CN <GO>}

For Related News and Information:
First Word scrolling panel: {FIRST<GO>}
First Word newswire: {NH BFW<GO>}

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
David Whitehouse at +33-1-5365-5059 or
dwhitehouse1@bloomberg.net

>>> US Early premarket gappers

Early premarket gappers

Gapping up: BLDR +14%, TPLM +7.6%, GWPH +6.1%, ALU +5.1%, MDR +3.5%, RIO +3.2%, LC +2.5%, Z +2.3%, GRPN +2.1%, BHP +2%, OZRK +2%, STO +1.8%, YNDX +1.5%, PBR +1.3%, TEDU +1.2%, ALTR +1.1%, JPM +1%, QCOM +0.8%, RDS.A +0.7%, NFLX +0.7%

Gapping down: CHOP -7.8%, NOK -5.7%, NSG -5.6%, NBG -4%, IDTI -3.8%, HZNP -3.4%, MDXG -3.2%, UNP -2.3%, GDX -1.3%, SLV -1.1%, ING -1.1%, ABX -1%, SHPG -0.9%, DB -0.9%, GLD -0.9%, RGLD -0.9%, NEM -0.8%, GG -0.8%

>>> JPMorgan Chase beats by $0.05, misses on revs --> +1.18% / 65k traded

JPMorgan Chase beats by $0.05, misses on revs

Reports Q1 (Mar) earnings of $1.45 per share, excluding non-recurring items, $0.05 better than the Capital IQ Consensus Estimate of $1.40; revenues rose 4.8% year/year to $24.1 bln vs the $24.4 bln consensus. Revenues were predominantly driven by strong performance in the Corporate & Investment Bank, both in Markets and Investment Banking. In addition, there was an increase in fee revenue in Asset Management and Mortgage Banking, partially offset by lower gains in Private Equity.
  • Tangible book value per share of $45.45, up 9% YoY
  • Basel III common equity Tier 1 of $167 billion, or ratio of 10.6%
  • SLR of 5.7% and Bank SLR of 6.0%
  • Core loans up 10% compared with the prior year
  • Return on Tier 1 Common Equity 14%
  • Overhead Ratio 60%
  • Net Payout Ratio 53%
Consumer and Community Banking
  • Net income was $2.2 billion, an increase of $238 million compared with the prior year, driven by both improved net revenue and lower noninterest expense. Net revenue was $10.7 billion, an increase of $170 million compared with the prior year, driven by higher noninterest revenue across businesses, up $302 million.
  • Net interest income was $7.0 billion, down $132 million, driven by spread compression, largely offset by higher deposit balances in Consumer & Business Banking and higher credit card loans.
  • Mortgage Banking net income was $326 million, an increase of $194 million from the prior year. Net revenue was $1.7 billion, an increase of $151 million compared with the prior year, driven by lower MSR risk management losses, partially offset by lower servicing revenue....
Corporate & Investment Banking
  • Net income was $2.5 billion, up $412 million, compared with $2.1 billion in the prior year, driven by higher net revenue. Banking revenue was $3.1 billion, up 12% from the prior year, on strong performance in investment banking fees across products.
  • Treasury Services revenue was $1.0 billion, down 2% compared with the prior year, driven by lower net interest income and lower trade finance revenue. Lending revenue was $353 million, up 9% from the prior year, largely reflecting higher gains on securities received from restructurings.
  • Markets & Investor Services revenue was $6.5 billion, up 7% from the prior year, despite the impact of business simplification, driven by higher Markets revenue.
    • Excluding the revenue decline related to business simplification, Total Markets and Fixed Income Markets would each have been up 20%.
  • Equity Markets revenue was up 22%. Macro events drove robust client activity in Fixed Income Markets including in Currencies & Emerging Markets, and Rates, as well as in Equity Markets.
Commercial Banking
  • Net income was $598 million, relatively flat compared with the prior year. Net revenue was $1.7 billion, an increase of $64 million compared with the prior year, driven by higher noninterest revenue on record gross investment banking revenue. Net interest income was $1.1 billion, down slightly compared with the prior year, reflecting spread compression on loan and liability products, largely offset by higher balances.

>>> Auto Sector : New player : I have been talking of that to some of you

>>> Auto Sector : New player : I have been talking of that to some of you on the last few weeks, I think this report is quiete interesting and will give a bit more material to the call I was making, happy to discuss anytime.
I would rather play the auto component (FR, CON,...) names or the potential target (FCA & UG)

Laurent

(Bernstein) AAPL: 5 Reasons Why We Believe Apple May Indeed Be Looking to Build a Car

In recent months, press reports have suggested that Apple is looking to potentially produce an automobile. On March 26th, we (Toni Sacconaghi, US IT Hardware and Max Warburton, Global Autos) jointly held a conference call to discuss the issue and associated implications for the automotive industry.1 Today's note provides the five reasons why we believe that Apple may indeed be looking to build a car going forward.

Reason 1: The auto sector offers a uniquely large, addressable market for Apple, with over $1 Trillion in annual sales. Given that the vast majority of Apple's growth in recent years has been driven by the iPhone, and that the high-end of the smartphone market is projected to have a tepid growth outlook, the auto market provides a huge, incremental market opportunity that could move the needle for Apple going forward.

Reason 2: Apple is a product company and has historically been undaunted by entering established markets. Apple's focus has been on making premium, differentiated products and has taken on established competitors, many with deep R&D pockets.

Reason 3: Tesla has upended the auto industry on a relatively shoestring budget. Apple has nearly limitless financial resources

Reason 4: Although auto industry margins are middling, Apple's premium-priced products have historically enabled it to command a disproportionate share of industry profits.

Reason 5: Significant car manufacturing capacity is likely to develop in China over the next few years, which we believe Apple may be able to leverage to subcontract manufacturing/assembly of a car.

--> So are we convinced Apple is making a car? No, in part because Apple is typically very patient in bringing a product to market, and will ultimately only do so if it believes it has an offering that is truly distinctive. A lot needs to be occur for anyone (including Apple) to know whether that will indeed transpire, particularly since Apple's historical "feature absolutism" points to an Apple car that would very likely be all-electric and likely autonomous, both of which require significant technology and regulatory hurdles to be scaled.