The Box is a great book that I read after Bill Gates recommended it a couple years ago. It is the story of how container shipping took over the world.
One of the lessons I learned from the book is that it takes far longer for a disruptive technology to take over than people think. The more capital intensive the industry, the longer it will take.
The shipping industry is extremely capital intensive. Although the huge cost savings of container shipping were pretty much evident right from the start, it took a really long time, decades, for container shipping to completely take over. New ships, ports, and containers all had to be built to meet the rising demand.
An industry starting to see some disruption is the car industry with ride-sharing apps, self-driving cars, and the shift away from internal combustion engines to alternative power sources like all electric vehicles.
The car industry is another capital intensive industry. The disruption of the car industry will take far longer than we’re expecting. Matthew Lewis in the following “tweetstorm” about car use and the climate hits on a couple of reasons why EV adoption rates will be lower than some expectations.
We, people as a whole, are really good at creating expectations that far exceed precedents. If the past disruption of other capital intensive industries provides any lessons, it’s we’re grossly overestimating how quickly the car industry will be disrupted. Especially when it comes to replacing the internal combustion engine with alternatively powered cars like Electric Vehicles.
In 2015, the average equity fund investor lost 2.3%, lagging the S&P by 3.7 percentage points. While that sounds awful, it’s actually a slight improvement in form. Over the past 20 years the lag was 3.52 percentage points, Dalbar reckons.
So who is to blame? As tempting as it is to point the finger at the financial services industry, the damage is self-inflicted. While it is well known that the majority of actively managed mutual funds lag the market, people keep using them in the hope that they have identified a winner. Then they pick another one and another.
One of the biggest ways we can improve as investors is to gain control over some of our irrational biases. It could be a system of checks and balances to slow our thinking down and prevent reactional trading. It might be as simple as employing a friend or family member to play devil’s advocate to run through a series of questions in order for us to engage our rational thinking system.
Overriding our short-term reactionary thinking system has clear measurable benefits.
Ever since AbbVie (ABBV) was spun off from Abbot Labs (ABT) the major concern was the upcoming loss of patent protection for Humira. Humira is one of the most successful drugs ever and it provides over 60% of AbbVie’s revenue. Losing Humira would be a huge blow to AbbVie’s business.
Humira is not a small molecule drug, it is a large molecule biologic. Biologics use microorganisms to produce a protein, the drug, that is then isolated and processed for human use. The entire process is the drug. One change in the production can have large consequences. It is because of this that biosimilars have to undergo safety and efficacy tests just like the name-brand biologic.
A small molecule generic just has to prove that it is the exact same chemical composition and structure as its name-brand counterpart.
This makes biosimilars very costly to make. The companies that make the biosimilar can’t offer too big of a discount to the name-brand biologic as The Wall Street Journal reports.
Biotech drugs are more difficult and expensive to make than traditional chemical-based pills. That is true of their knockoff versions, as well, making biosimilar makers unwilling to sharply undercut prices of the original versions.
“I really don’t expect big relief from biosimilars,” says Steven Marciniak, vice president of pharmacy programs at Priority Health, an insurer based in Grand Rapids, Mich.
The first biosimilar on the U.S. market, a knockoff of Amgen Inc.’s cancer-care drug Neupogen, was priced just 15% below the branded drug late last year. During the three years before, Amgen had raised the list price of a vial of Neupogen by 15.7%, according to data firm Truven Health Analytics.
If I’m a Doctor or a patient knowing that a biosimilar may work as well or it may not as the name-brand biologic will I choose the biosimilar for a 15% discount? Some will, but will it be at the same rate as people switching to generic small molecules? No.
The loss of Humira’s patent is not as ominous as it looks.
From The Blog of HORAN Capital Advisors. The year to date and trailing twelve-month returns for stocks in the S&P 500 that pay a dividend have outpaced the returns of the S&P 500 stocks that do not pay a dividend.