Gewinnerbranchen der Jahre 2006 bis 2040 (Seite 6523)

[Pontiuspilatus]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.880.945 von clearasil am 30.03.09 16:39:30

dienstag standen wir bei 7600 und am donnerstag bei 79xx

donnerstag war passender

ich denke es ist die nächsten tage entscheidend was die spinner auf dem g20 gipfel fertigbringen.

rechnet mal mit dem schlimmsten

[clearasil]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.880.694 von Pontiuspilatus am 30.03.09 16:17:32

tjx hatten wir schon, da warst du gerade im Urlaub, glaube ich, mal von simon genannt und von bakri als schöner chart vorgestellt, dann kam der Zusammenbruch, wofür aber bakri nichts kann. Sieht jetzt sehr interessant aus, wenn man sich einen US- Einzelhäntler geben will. Ich fand die Bilanz o.k. , aber nicht investivaluesiert

diamond müßte von der kommenden Ölsuche profitieren.

Exelon betreibt ganzz pöse Atomkraftwerke, was dich aber sicher nicht stören wird.

[clearasil]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.880.638 von Pontiuspilatus am 30.03.09 16:12:48

haben bakri und ich schon am ca. Dienstag prophezeit , das war der Frau Hollespruch, als du dich nach dem Gesundheitszustand des bakri erkundigt hast.

[Pontiuspilatus]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 36.880.045 von clearasil am 30.03.09 15:17:42

vielen dank herr klarbär da lernt sogar ein pontius noch das eine oder andere unternehmen kennen

exelon, diamond offshire, tjx

[Pontiuspilatus]

na da kam ja mein verkaufsalarm am donnerstag gerade zur rechten zeit

hab ich gefickt eingeschädelt

[clearasil]

[clearasil]

Morphosys: A Biotech Rule Breaker (Part 1)

by: Ohad Hammer March 30, 2009

Morphosys (MPHSF.PK) is one of the most unusual biotech companies, as it breaks three basic rules that apply to drug development companies:

Rule No. 1: Development-stage companies burn cash and therefore must constantly raise capital and dilute existing shareholders.

Rule No. 2: Development-stage companies are risky and volatile because they rely on a limited number of binary events.

Rule No. 3: Investing in cutting edge, growing segments of the pharmaceutical industry is associated with a high level of risk.

Morphosys is the only company I am familiar with that systematically breaks each and every one of these rules. It does not have any drugs on the market and is not expected to have any in the foreseeable future, yet it is profitable. It is involved in drug discovery which is associated with a high attrition rate, yet statistically, there is a very high chance that it will have commercial revenues at some point in the future. It is involved in one of the fastest growing segments in the industry, but can be regarded as a conservative holding since it will never be dependent on a limited number of binary events. And finally, it has no need to raise cash in the coming decade in order to support its activities, as its costs are covered by other companies.

Morphosys has developed a unique technology for discovering and producing monoclonal antibodies. The technology, called HuCAL (Human Combinatorial Antibody Library) basically mimics the immune system, as it scans a vast repertoire of antibodies and identifies the ideal ones for a given target. This approach represents a shift from the traditional approach of developing antibodies, because it does not involve animal immunization.

The classic way of developing antibodies involves immunizing an animal (typically a mouse) with the target of choice and utilizing the animal’s capability to produce antibodies against the specific target. Morphosys’ solution bypasses the need of immunization, as the entire process of screening and selecting the antibodies takes place on the scientist’s bench. Although most of the antibodies on the market were developed through animal immunization, the “artificial” approach is well accepted and going forward, the industry will probably see plenty of drugs based on both approaches. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the ability to generate an antibody and get it approved, which can be achieved by both avenues, and in some cases, screening technologies have a clear advantage over the immunization. Morphosys’ technology is not the only screening technology out there, but it is certainly considered one of the best, if not the industry’s leading screening system, as underscored by this long list of collaborators.


Morphosys’ platform is the basis for three business segments, each representing a different risk profile and market potential: (i) Research and diagnostics, (ii) partnered pipeline and (iii) Proprietary Pipeline. It is the combination of these segments which makes Morphosys such a unique investment opportunity.

Research and diagnostics


The research and diagnostics division was built primarily by acquisitions and is currently serving research labs and diagnostic companies around the world. Of the three divisions, this one can be seen as the most “traditional”, as it has a relatively low growth rate and commercial potential. On the other hand, the research and diagnostics division is considered very safe, as it is independent of clinical results. In 2008, after several years of losses, the division finally became profitable, despite a sequential decrease in revenues, down 7% to $18.2M. The company expects the unit to grow 10% in 2009 and to maintain a modest level of profitability in the near future.


Morphosys is trying to reshape this division by focusing more on antibodies for diagnostics. The market of diagnostics, albeit much smaller than that of drugs, is expected to experience strong growth in the coming decades as part of the trend towards personalized medicine. Antibodies have an important role in the field and are well entrenched in the market, due to their high specificity and ease of use. Morphosys is addressing the market for antibodies for diagnostics, estimated at several billions of dollars annually, by licensing its platform to diagnostic companies. It is currently involved in over 20 projects, some of which are expected to mature into commercial products. Last year, Morphosys announced that Sweden based Phadia would use an antibody developed by Morphosys in one of its tests for auto-immune diseases. The financial potential of such projects is relatively small, but unlike therapeutics, diagnostic products represent a fast route to market and limited regulatory risk. Without a doubt, the big potential for Morphosys lies in its partnered therapeutic pipeline.


Partnered Pipeline

The partnered pipeline segment is Morphosys’ cash cow, responsible for the vast majority of revenue and profit. The capability to discover and screen antibodies is now very common in the industry and in research labs, but only a small number of companies mastered this technique and created an efficient platform that can feed a vast number of projects. Morphosys is considered one of the four horsemen of antibody discovery, along with Medarex (MEDX), Cambridge Antibody Technology, now part of AstraZeneca (AZN), and Abgenix, which is now part of Amgen (AMGN). Medarex and Abgenix have developed immunization-based platforms whereas CAT and Morphosys have developed screening platforms that do not require animal immunization.

The universal and highly adaptable nature of the HuCAL platform enables Morphosys to be actively involved in tens of projects every year. Typically, Morphosys licenses its technology to pharmaceutical companies and develops anywhere between several to tens of development programs, each program revolves around a single target. The typical deal structure entails an initial licensing fee, full cost reimbursement by the partner, milestone payments of $12-16 million per program and mid single digit royalties on sales. Each program by itself may be modest in size, but considering the fact that Morphosys currently has 55 partnered programs, three of which already in clinical testing, the overall value is obvious.


Morphosys has agreements with a large number of partners, including some of the largest pharma companies, but in 2007, the company decided to focus most of its research activity on one collaboration by inking a transformative deal with Novartis (NVS). The deal, one of largest ever deals in the pharmaceutical industry was a ten year collaboration which includes more than a hundred new programs. In return to full, but not exclusive access to Morphosys’ technology, Novartis committed to pay $600 million over the course of ten years on top of the standard milestone and royalties on future sales.


Although Morphosys is not limited with respect to partnering with other companies, Morphosys does not intend to sign additional broad discovery deals. Therefore, going forward, the Novartis collaboration will account for the vast majority of Morphosys’ activity, and will unofficially turn it into Novartis’ antibody division.

In 2009, the company expects 20 new programs to commence, primarily with Novartis, as well as the advancement of 4 antibodies to clinical testing by its partners. Looking ahead to the coming decade, Morphosys believes it will be involved in a “triple digit number” of programs. Based on present collaborations, Morphosys could cumulatively be involved in as much as 180 programs, an exceptional number by any standard. Most of the programs will not be financed by Morphosys, which will carry the cost only for programs it pursues independently or co-develops with partners.

Suffice it to say, the vast majority of these programs will fail to reach the market. In drug development only a minority of drugs prove both effective and safe, with approval rates traditionally in the single digit range, depending on the indication. Luckily for Morphosys, antibodies are thought to have better success rates due to their excellent safety profile and the ability to identify patients who would derive benefit from the treatment. According to several retrospective analyses, antibodies have a ~3 fold higher approval rates in indications such as oncology and autoimmune diseases, making Morphosys’ prospects even better.


The company tried to illustrate this in one of its presentations last year (see figure), by applying its internal statistics and historical approval rates for antibodies in order to predict the number of programs that will get approved. According to its analysis, which should be regarded as an extreme form of forward looking statement, the company will eventually see more than 17 (!) drug approvals. Investors would gladly settle for half of that number. Assuming average peak sales of $500 million per antibody per year, ten years of peak sales and a royalty rate of 5%, the cumulative value of Morphosys partnered pipeline could reach $4.25B, spread over fifteen years. This figure excludes any revenues from Morphosys’ wholly owned pipeline.



Three partnered antibodies that were developed by Morphosys are currently in clinical trials, in the hands of Roche (RHHBY.PK), Novartis and Centocor. To date, none of them generated proof of concept data, however, that might change during 2009.

Gantenerumab (Roche)

Roche is developing gantenerumab, an antibody for the treatment Alzheimer’s disease. The antibody is similar, in concept, to Elan’s (ELN) and Wyeth’s (WYE) bapineuzumab (bapi) as both antibodies target Amyloid beta, a protein which is one of the hallmarks of the disease. Roche advanced gantenerumab to phase I in 2006 and since then completed the accrual of 30 patients. This trial is somewhat atypical for a phase I study because it is a randomized, double blind comparative trial, so there could be signs of efficacy in the data. The market potential for Alzheimer disease is estimated at over $10 billion, however, to date, no drug proved successful in changing the course of the disease. Until recently, antibodies against Amyloid beta were considered a very promising target, however, following disappointing data for bapi, investors’ excitement towards this approach waned. Roche is expected to publish data from the phase I trial during the course of 2009.

BHQ880 (Novartis)

Novartis is developing BHQ880, an antibody against DKK-1, a protein that inhibits bone growth and has been shown to be involved in bone related conditions. By neutralizing DKK-1 with an antibody, it may be possible to stimulate bone formation. The potential market for BHQ880, providing it proves effective, is very large, spanning from osteoporosis to multiple types of cancer.

The concept of preventing breakdown of bones with an antibody has already been validated by Amgen’s denosumab (Dmab), currently evaluated in a battery of phase III studies. Last year, Amgen published very positive results from a study in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis, in which the antibody led to a meaningful improvement in fracture incidence and bone density. Additional trials showed that Dmab decreases bone loss in breast and prostate cancer patients who received hormonal therapy. A third potential use might be prevention or shrinkage of bone metastases in cancer patients, with data expected in the 2009-2010 timeframe. Dmab is expected to hit the market next year, and instantly become a blockbuster, due to the large addressable market (~5 million people in the US are receiving treatment for osteoporosis) and the substantial cost to society as a result of osteoporosis complications, such as fractures.

Novartis will probably pursue BHQ880 in the same indications Amgen’s Dmab is being evaluated, but the two antibodies should not necessarily be considered as competitors. Not only does each of the two antibodies binds a different target, they are involved in distinct biological signals. Dmab is thought to inhibit bone destruction whereas BHQ880 is expected to stimulate bone formation, so the two may even be synergistic. But first, Novartis will have to show BHQ880 is effective on its own and bring it to market. In order to do so, it picked a relatively small indication – multiple myeloma.

In February of 2009, Novartis started a phase I/II study in multiple myeloma, a blood cancer in which tumors colonize in the bone and degrade it. The vast majority of patients will develop bone lesions at some stage of their disease, resulting in bone loss, pain and increased likelihood of fractures. By stimulating bone formation, BHQ880 may decrease or even prevent bone loss that seems essential for the creation of bone lesions. This, in turn, may lead to not only better quality of life but also reduced tumor burden.

The concept of targeting DKK-1 is based on a growing body of evidence which shows that DKK-1 has an important role in multiple myeloma. For example, a study published in 2003 showed that multiple myeloma cells can create bone lesions by secreting proteins which lead to bone loss, and that one of the proteins they secrete is DKK-1. In addition, the investigators examined cancer cells from patients and found that cancer cells in bone lesions secrete high levels of DKK-1 whereas cancer cells from the blood of patients without bone lesions do not produce the protein.

The decision to start from a small indication like multiple myeloma as opposed to larger indications such as osteoporosis or even prostate cancer has its merits. Despite the significant progress with drugs such as Celgene’s (CELG) Revlimid and Takeda’s Velcade, no drug has been able to cure multiple myeloma, so new treatments are in high demand. In addition, multiple myeloma is not nearly as prevalent as osteoporosis, making it an ideal fast track indication, with a short time to market and a relatively low cost. A typical registration study in multiple myeloma requires less than a thousand patients, while in order to file for approval in osteoporosis, Amgen had to accrue 7800 patients.

Novartis is evaluating BHQ880 in a fairly large study (267 patients) with a placebo arm, which could make potential positive results more credible and serve as a proof of concept for the drug’s activity. This demonstrates again the advantage of having a large partner behind the wheel, as a company like Morphosys would never start such a large and costly trial at such an early stage. Novartis will probably initiate clinical trials with BHQ880 in additional indications in the near future


Undisclosed antibody (Centocor)

Centocor, a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), signed a licensing deal with Morphosys (MPHSF.PK) in late 2000. In the summer of 2007, Centocor promoted one of its programs to phase I trial in solid tumors. Five months ago, it started another trial in an autoimmune indication, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with the same antibody. Although Centocor did not disclose the identity of the antibody and its target, it seems that the mysterious antibody is CNTO-888, an antibody targeting a protein called MCP-1. Similarly to the two other partnered programs, CNTO-888’s trials are relatively large with 54 and 120 patients planned for accrual in the cancer phase I and IPF phase II, respectively. The phase II is a placebo controlled study.

MCP-1 plays a role in recruiting cells of the immune system by mobilizing them to specific sites, and is therefore believed to be involved in processes such as immune response and wound healing but also in autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis and even metabolic diseases such as type II diabetes. Although MCP-1 has never been validated as a target, many studies suggest that molecules that block the actions of MCP-1 may be useful in treating a range of diseases. According to Centocor, MCP-1 is also involved in blood vessel formation, so targeting it may be useful in solid tumors, which must build new blood vessels in order to grow and invade distant organs. By binding MCP-1, Centocor hopes that CNTO-888 will starve tumors, similarly to the mechanism of action of Genentech’s Avastin.


Centocor is the only company actively developing an antibody against MCP-1 in the clinic, but it is not the first one to try, and prior experience does not leave a lot of room for optimism. Novartis was developing its own anti-MCP-1 antibody several years ago but decided to discontinue the program shortly after it got into the clinic. In a phase I trial in RA, Novartis’ antibody did not only fail to show benefit, but also led to a worsening of disease symptoms in some patients. This casts serious doubts over the prospects of anti-MCP-1 antibodies in autoimmune diseases, but one still cannot reject the entire concept based on one antibody.

Other companies are trying to inhibit MCP-1’s activity by targeting its receptor (CCR2) with a small molecule rather than an antibody. ChemoCentryx is evaluating its compound in a phase I trial in vascular restenosis, a condition caused by blood vessel blockade following a stent procedure. Incyte (INCY) also has a CCR2 inhibitor, but at the moment, the development program is on hold, due to financial constraints. BMS is currently enrolling patients in a phase II study in diabetes for BMS-741672, another small molecule inhibitor of the receptor. The most advanced antibody in the field was Millennium’s (now part of Takeda) MLN-1202, an antibody against the CCR2 receptor, but the company decided to discontinue its development after disappointing phase II results in RA.

To my knowledge, Centocor is the only one who is evaluating inhibition of the MCP-1 pathway in oncology. This could help to differentiate CNTO-888 from other drugs, but only based upon concrete data from the phase I trial, which is still ongoing. The decision to do a phase II in an autoimmune disease can be interpreted as turning way from cancer indication, but perhaps this is part of the planned development program Centocor had originally laid out. The initiation of a phase II trial implies that Centocor already reached the maximum tolerated dose, so if investigators see signs of activity in the phase I, the data should be available this year.

Proprietary Pipeline

Morphosys’ proprietary pipeline is the third and most recent initiative of the company. The basic idea is simple: Using the tens of millions that flow into Morphosys’ bank account every year to build a small, early stage clinical pipeline. Therefore, Morphosys does not expect to burn cash in the foreseeable future, even as it anticipates having a handful of antibodies in clinical testing. These wholly owned programs are the only chance the company has to generate additional meaningful revenues in the near term future through licensing deals.

Morphosys does not intend to independently commercialize its wholly owned products, but to out license them after proof of concept data. This strategy is similar to Isis’ (ISIS) strategy, which, alongside Morphosys, is one of the few companies that is developing drugs without burning cash. There is, however, one critical difference between the two companies – the fields in which they operate. Isis‘ antisense platform has the potential of revolutionizing the pharmaceutical industry by creating a completely new class of drugs, but to date, antisense drugs have not been fully validated. In contrast, monoclonal antibodies are a highly validated class of drugs, with over 20 approved agents to date, some of which have achieved blockbuster sales. Isis will have its first opportunity to prove that antisense drugs work with its high profile agent, mipomersen, a lipid lowering drug currently in several phase III studies.

Morphosys’ decision to build its own pipeline raises two principle issues. The first issue is the availability of good targets, as identifying the right target is the first and probably most important step of developing antibody-based drugs. Morphosys technology licensing deals usually revolve around specific targets, where the partner gets exclusivity for the target. In other words, Morphosys cannot license the same target twice or independently develop antibodies against an already licensed target. With more than 50 partnered programs ongoing and over a hundred future programs, the pool from which Morphosys can choose is rather limited. When I asked Morphosys’ CEO, Simon Moroney, how he views this issue, he admitted that a lot of targets are indeed taken, but claimed that on top of the substantial amount of available targets, there is a constant increase in the form of new targets every year. In addition, he added, the knowledge and experience gained through so many partnered programs compensates for the loss of potential targets.

The second issue is Morphosys’ ability to create and develop a clinical program from scratch, as this task requires a different set of skills on top the scientific know how. It is still too early to evaluate the company’s performance in this area, however, judging by the first clinical program, Morphosys’ management team know a thing or two about picking the right candidates.

Morphosys has several wholly owned development programs, only one of which, MOR103, is in the clinic. The company expects to promote a second antibody, MOR202, to the clinic in 2010. In addition, Morphosys expects to have several co-development programs in the clinic going forward, as part of the Novartis deal.

MOR103
MOR103 is an antibody targeted at GM-CSF, a protein traditionally known for its ability to stimulate the production of certain blood cells in the bone marrow. GM-CSF is used as a drug to stimulate the generation of new blood cells in cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy and following bone marrow transplantation. Although it was discovered over 30 years ago, GM-CSF’s role in inflammatory diseases is still being elucidated.

The past years saw the accumulation of data that implicate GM-CSF in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. High levels of GM-CSF were found in joints of rheumatoid arthritis patients, and in animal models, targeting GM-CSF with an antibody led to a decrease in symptoms in several disease models. But perhaps the most convincing evidence comes from anecdotal cases in a 1990 clinical trial. In the trial, ovarian cancer patients were treated with chemotherapy followed by GM-CSF. Some of the patients on the trial also had rheumatoid arthritis and investigators noticed that the administration of GM-CSF led to deterioration of the disease in these patients. This finding implies that GM-CSF has a causative effect in RA and that disease control might be achieved by neutralizing it.

MOR103 entered a phase I study in the first quarter of 2008 in healthy volunteers. The study was expanded to evaluate higher doses than originally planned after no safety issues were observed in the original cohorts. During the second quarter of 2009, the company expects to publish data that will include both safety results as well as biomarker data, but obviously, no efficacy data can be generated in healthy patients. MOR103 will probably enter phase Ib/IIa in RA patients later in 2009, with potential proof of concept towards the end of 2010.


As part of the development program, last year Morphosys acquired exclusive rights to a patent which covers the use of antibodies against GM-CSF for therapeutic use. The patent, which is valid only in the US, may block other companies from selling anti-GM-CSF antibodies in the American market, but it still remains to be seen how this patent holds up in court. If MOR103 becomes approved, this step may turn out to be brilliant, considering the fact that the US accounts for more than half of the worldwide RA market. Of note, there are additional companies that are developing antibodies against GM-CSF, including Nycomed with its partner Micromet (MITI). The two companies plan to start a phase I study with their antibody this year and do not seem too excited about Morphosys’ patent. Furthermore, Morphosys’ patent does not cover antibodies against GM-CSF receptor, such as Medimmune’s CAM-3001, which could compete with MOR103 if both get approved.

MOR202

MOR202 is an antibody against CD38, a protein expressed by multiply myeloma cells. According to the company, it will start a phase I trial in 2010. By that time, two more anti-CD38 antibodies are expected to be in the clinic. The first is Genmab’s HUMAX-CD38 which entered the clinic early last year. In addition, Sanofi-Aventis (SNY) is expected to advance its antibody to the clinic in 2009. Antibodies for multiple myeloma are one of the most active areas in the industry, following Rituxan’s (another antibody) success in various forms of blood cancers. Unfortunately, Rituxan is not effective in multiple myeloma, so developers are looking for the “Rituxan of multiple myeloma” by targeting additional targets such as CD38. Companies developing antibodies for multiple myeloma also include Genentech and Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY), but to date, no antibody has demonstrated clinical proof of concept in the disease. The value of MOR202 as a preclinical agent is low, but if Genmab or Sanofi validate CD38 as a target, Morphosys might be able to license its antibody without any clinical data. At that point, the company may still choose to wait until MOR202 generates clinical data, probably in late 2011.

Summary

Earlier this month, Morphosys celebrated a decade as a publicly traded company, a decade which was mostly comprised of research and pre-clinical activities. The next decade will be characterized by intensive clinical activity for Morphosys’ proprietary pipeline as well as for its partnered pipeline. While the company expects dozens of programs to reach the clinic in the course of the next decade, the biggest value creating events for the partnered pipeline will arrive only in 7-10 years time, with the potential approval of some of the antibodies.


Although the company is not involved in any late stage clinical programs, Morphosys still looks like it has plenty of upside potential for the coming years. First and foremost, Morphosys is looking at several inflection points with respect to its proprietary pipeline, the first of which is expected next year. According to the company’s CEO, they are actively looking at acquiring products from other companies, which could instantly enhance the company’s pipeline. In addition, Morphosys’ value will definitely be derived from the size and quality of its partnered pipeline, which is expected to grow by several candidates every year. Even a single agent that demonstrates good activity in phase II can be translated into substantial stock price appreciation.

Immunogen, for example, derives most of its valuation from a single drug with good phase II results: T-DM1. Similarly to Morphosys’ licensing agreements, Immunogen is eligible for royalties of ~5% on T-DM1 future sales, but due to the impressive phase II data and the clear blockbuster potential, Immunogen’s market cap is now $357M, slightly higher than that of Morphosys. Lastly, from a financial standpoint, Morphosys is a solid investment with positive cash flow and almost half of its market cap in cash, so it will remain independent of the capital markets in the coming years.

The main disadvantage stemming from the company’s business model is its dependence on Novartis. Morphosys decided not to start new broad collaborations, so in several years time, projects with Novartis will capture most of the company’s bandwidth, turning it into an unlikely acquisition target for anyone but the Swiss giant. Therefore, Morphosys is not a likely acquisition target, despite its valuable assets, and even if Novartis decides to buy it down the road, most chances that it would not encounter competition from other big pharmas, who would not want to have such a commitment to one of their competitors. Some may view this situation as an advantage because it will allow Morphosys to stay independent in the coming years and build value for its shareholders.

In summary, Morphosys can be viewed as a blend of pharma and biotech. On the one hand it has the innovation and upside potential of a small biotech, and on the other, it enjoys the diversification and risk mitigation of a large pharma. Morphosys still operates in the drug development field, where failures vastly outnumber successes, but unlike most of its peers Morphosys has statistics on its side. Does it mean that Morphosys is a risk free investment? Absolutely not, but for investors who would like to get exposure to the growing biotech field but with limited risk, Morphosys is as good as it gets.


Portfolio update


Since its inception almost 6 months ago, the biotech portfolio, co managed by Ran Nussbaum and myself, generated a return of 21.6%, versus a decline of 6.1% and 10.3% for the NASDAQ and S&P, respectively. In addition, the portfolio outperformed the leading Life Sciences indices and ETFs, including the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (^NBI), represented in the figure below by the iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology (IBB) ETF.




We decided to sell one of our two positions in Immunogen for a gain of 104% following the sharp climb the stock had experienced, as well as our position in Allergan (AGN) for a modest gain of 17%. On a less positive note, we are also selling our position in Synta (SNTA) at a loss of 70%, after its lead drug failed in a phase III in metastatic melanoma, one of the toughest indications in the industry.

On our buying list this time are Morphosys, which, unfortunately is not traded in the US, Cephalon (CEPH) and Array Biopharma (ARRY). In addition, we are also buying more of Morphosys’ neighbor in Munich, Micromet. Micromet has been suffering from negative sentiment following Medimmune’s decision to cease development collaboration for Micromet’s leading product, blinatumumab (MT-103). When a large company decides to abandon a drug, its decision is usually regarded as a red flag to investors. In this case, however, Medimmune’s decision seems to be based more on strategic issues rather than the quality of blinatumumab. After a long call with Christian Itin, Micromet’s CEO, we believe that the Micromet story remains intact and there is no change in the potential (as well as risk) of the company’s platform. More on Micromet in the next article.


der ganze Artikel mit Grafiken hier


http://seekingalpha.com/article/128461-morphosys-a-biotech-r…

[clearasil]

Seeking Alpha Home The Macro View Stocks & Sectors Global Markets ETFs Investing Ideas Breaking News Transcripts Register | Login Email: Password: Forgot Your Password?
<script type="text/javascript">GA_googleFillSlot_sa("Search_195x45_Dropdown");</script>
Loading...Authors:
<script type="text/javascript">GA_googleFillSlot_sa("Search_195x45_Quote_Dropdown");</script>
Loading...Symbols:

Home » Retail Stocks » Dividends, Food & Restaurants McDonald’s: Dividend Stock Analysis 6 comments
by: Dividend Growth Investor March 27, 2009 | about stocks: MCD
Dividend Growth Investor
Add to Your WatchlistAbout this author:

Profile & More Articles
Visit: Dividend Growth Investor
Become a Contributor
Submit an Article Font Size: PrintEmail TweetThis McDonald’s Corporation (MCD), together with its subsidiaries, franchises and operates McDonald’s restaurants in the food service industry worldwide. The company's share of the US fast food market is several times larger than its closest competitors, Burger King (BKC) and Wendy's (WEN).

McDonald’s is a major component of the S&P 500 and Dow Industrials indexes. The company is also a dividend aristocrat, which has been consistently increasing its dividends for 32 consecutive years. From the end of 1998 up until December 2008 this dividend growth stock has delivered a negative annual average total return of 6.70% to its shareholders.

At the same time company has managed to deliver an impressive 11.70% average annual increase in its EPS since 1999. Analysts are expecting MCD to grow EPS to $4.20 by 2010. The economic slowdown is forcing consumers to trade down and dine out at fast food places like the ones owned by the Golden Arches. McDonald’s has been focusing more on expanding the sales of existing restaurants since 2003 versus relying on new stores to be the driver for growth. Same store sales and profits have been driven by product innovation, and comparable-store sales growth, and are part of the company’s recent success. The constant innovations in the menu are indeed fueling strong same store sales volumes.


International operations, which accounted for almost half of operating profits in 2008, have been a major growth factor over the past two decades. This however exposes the company to fluctuations in exchange rates, which could add or detract from EPS performance.

The ROE has remained largely between 14% and 21% with the exception of lows in 2002 and recent highs for this indicator in 2008.

Annual dividends have increased by an average of 29.20% annually since 1999, which is almost three times higher than the growth in EPS.

A 29 % growth in dividends translates into the dividend payment doubling almost every two and a half years. Since 1978 McDonald’s has actually managed to double its dividend payment on average almost every four years.

The dividend payout has steadily increased over the past decade, due to the fact the dividend growth was much faster than earnings growth. Currently the payout is a little over 50%, which good. A lower payout is always a plus, since it leaves room for consistent dividend growth minimizing the impact of short-term fluctuations in earnings. The slow growth in earnings could put future dividend increases at risk.

McDonald’s is currently attractively valued. The stock trades at a P/E of 15, yields 3.70% and has an adequately covered dividend payment. The company has proven to be somewhat recession resistant. I would be a buyer of MCD at current prices, as long as it does not increase above $66.

[clearasil]

hier ein paar Firmen von mir herausgegriffen, z.T. hier auch schon vorgestellt


TJX
No. 47

Industry: Apparel Retail
Sales: $19 billion
Net Income: $915 million

Only a few lucky retailers are growing amid the recession, and TJX (TJX) is one of them. The parent company of T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods is benefiting from shoppers' new price-consciousness. TJX boosted earnings by nearly 17% in 2008, to $914.9 million. CEO Carol Meyrowitz is known for paying vendors within about 30 days, in contrast to the typical 60- to 90-day pay period for department stores. As a result, vendors were more willing to sell their fashions to TJX than to department stores when the credit crunch hit. But the Framingham (Mass.) discount retailer has seen its sales slow, and Meyrowitz anticipates 2009 will be a tough year. She plans to trim $150 million in costs by freezing headcount, eliminating most merit pay increases, and restructuring certain areas of the company to improve efficiency.




Autodesk
No. 45

Industry: Application Software
Sales: $2.3 billion
Net Income: $184 million

Led by CEO Carl Bass, Autodesk (ADSK) moved swiftly to take advantage of the recent wave of eco-friendly construction: In the past year the San Rafael (Calif.) company acquired three software makers whose products let architects design environmentally friendly buildings. And its 3D design software helps them pick materials that will make a building most energy-efficient. But the company's exposure to the manufacturing and building sectors has led to declining sales. Autodesk reported a net loss of $105.3 million for its fourth quarter ended Jan. 31, and its shares are down about 23% in 2009. In January, Autodesk announced a 10% layoff, and it has hit the brakes on acquisitions to preserve cash. Still, Bass says he is determined to fight the argument that "sustainable design is a fad."




Intuitive Surgical
No. 41

Industry: Health Care
Sales: $875 million
Net Income: $204 million

Sure medical costs are under a microscope. But Intuitive Surgical (ISRG), headed by CEO Lonnie Smith, has built its fortune on one of the most expensive devices around. Its da Vinci surgical robots, which sell for $1.5 million and up, are used by doctors to perform complex surgeries such as coronary artery bypasses. Hospitals are willing to absorb these prices because using the robots can cut down on recovery time and complications for patients. The machines have sold well enough to boost Intuitive's revenues by 57% a year on average for five years, though sales are expected to be flat in 2009 due to the recession.


Google
No. 35

Industry: Internet Software & Services
Sales: $21.8 billion
Net Income: $4.2 billion

Buoyed by continued growth in the advertising it places next to its search results, Google (GOOG) has escaped the worst of the economic crisis. The key reason: Google's share of Internet searches has risen to 72%, leaving rivals Yahoo! (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT) in the dust. As a result, advertisers keep coming, attracted by the uniquely measurable results they get from targeting ads to people's search queries. Still, CEO Eric Schmidt hasn't entirely escaped the recession. Google's revenue growth slowed to 18% in the fourth quarter, from a 54% annual average the past three years. The stock is down 23% over the past 12 months.


Waters
No. 33

Industry: Life Sciences Tools & Services
Sales: $1.6 billion
Net Income: $322.5 million

If a city in the U.S. wants to test its drinking water for impurities or toxins, it's likely to turn to an analytic instrument company called Waters, based in Milford, Mass. Waters (WAT) has some of the world's most advanced machines for performing mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography, used by dozens of industries, as well as the Food & Drug Administration, to keep an eye on product quality and safety. With Douglas Berthiaume at the helm, Waters' sales last year rose 7%, to $1.58 billion. Among other things, it benefited from increased testing after last year's rash of food- and product-safety scandals


Cognizant Technology Solutions
No. 31

Industry: IT Services
Sales: $2.8 billion
Net Income: $431 million

Cognizant Technology Solutions (CTSH) seems to defy gravity. Nearly half of this Teaneck (N.J.) IT outsourcing specialist's sales are to the hard-hammered financial- services industry, yet it has managed to outperform many of its rivals. How does the company pull this off? One part is luck: JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Key Corp. (KEY)—two of its big banking customers—are faring better than many competitors. Another element is strategy: CEO Francisco D'Souza has appointed 700 relationship managers to work closely with the company's 500 clients, enabling Cognizant to track their needs and respond quickly to shifts in demand. As a result, 90% of the company's revenues come from repeat business, which keeps selling costs low. A new set of technologies called Cognizant 2.0 is improving collaboration among Cognizant's global staff of 60,000.


Expeditors International of Washington
No. 28

Industry: Transportation
Sales: $5.6 billion
Net Income: $301 million

Thirty years ago, Peter Rose and a partner scraped together $300,000 to launch Expeditors International (EXPD). Today the Seattle-based company boasts 250 locations across six continents and arranges for the transport of goods between importers and exporters via air, sea, and ground. New offerings, such as a sea-air route from Asia through Dubai to Western ports, have caught on among shippers. To keep his staff focused, Rose last year forbade the use of the word "recession" among Expeditors' 12,700 employees. They also enjoy performance incentives: Each branch office keeps 20% of its pretax profits.


Apollo Group
No. 27

Industry: Education Services
Sales: $3.3 billion
Net Income: $517 million

With its chain of for-profit universities, Apollo Group (APOL) has been benefiting from the economic downturn as people have moved to fill gaps in their education. In the fiscal first quarter ended in November, Apollo's total enrollment jumped 18%, to 384,000 students. Apollo, known for its University of Phoenix brand, was criticized by the U.S. Education Dept. in a 2004 report for its aggressive recruitment practices. CEO Charles Edelstein, a former investment banker who joined Apollo last August, must contend with a whistle-blower lawsuit filed against Phoenix by two former admissions officers.


Express Scripts
No. 22

Industry: Health Care
Sales: $22 billion
Net Income: $779.6 million

When companies rein in their spending, as they're doing today, that's good news for Express Scripts (ESRX), a pharmacy benefit manager that administers prescription drug programs for health plans, government, and big corporations. The St. Louis company is benefiting from increased generic drug usage (a higher-margin business than administering branded drugs). And President Obama's call to expand coverage for the uninsured will likely add to the company's rolls, says CEO George Paz. Relying on behavioral economics, the company has introduced special programs to motivate patients to switch to generics.


Fastenal
No. 19

Industry: Industrial Parts
Sales: $2.3 billion
Net Income: $280 million

Those who say you can't cut your way to prosperity never met the executives at Fastenal (FAST). The Winona (Minn.) distributor of nuts, bolts, and 49,000 other industrial parts and tools has cemented its reputation as an inexpensive supplier by obsessing over costs. CEO Willard Oberton and other executives don't have secretaries, often double up on out-of-town hotel stays, and don't receive per diems on the road. (The savings flow back to employees via profit-sharing.) The company also works with its customers to optimize their warehouses and supply chains—a free service that has fostered goodwill with clients and enabled Fastenal to boost profits 68% since 2005. Although the downturn is making 2009 a year to forget, analysts think Fastenal could benefit from President Obama's push to fund infrastructure projects.


Apple
No. 15

Industry: Personal Electronics
Sales: $33 billion
Net Income: $4.9 billion

Few companies went into this economic downturn with as much of a cushion as Apple (AAPL). CEO Steve Jobs was criticized for piling up $27 billion in the company's cash coffers, but now Apple can stick to selling profitable, higher-end gear to discriminating shoppers, rather than having to slash spending to stay alive. The company enjoyed 27% average annual sales growth over the past three years. On the nascent mobile Web, one of the most promising megatrends in tech, Apple has opened up a huge early lead with the iPhone and its more than 25,000 applications. But worries remain over Jobs' health and its impact on Apple's future.


Varian Medical Systems
No. 12

Industry: Health Care
Sales: $2.1 billion
Net Income: $307 million

Varian Medical (VAR), headed by Tim Guertin, is nicely positioned to do well by doing good. Since it was spun out of a technology conglomerate in 1999, the Palo Alto (Calif.) company has thrived in the market for equipment that delivers tumor-killing radiation doses to cancer patients. In 2008 it regained market share it had lost in recent years to rivals TomoTherapy (TOMO) and CyberKnife (ARAY)—thanks, in large part, to a new technology called RapidArc that reduces the time it takes to irradiate a tumor from around 15 minutes to less than two. This is better for patients, and hospitals profit because they perform more sessions each day.


MasterCard
No. 10

Industry: Credit-Card Services
Sales: $5 billion
Net Income: -$253.9 million

A credit-card company that's weathering the recession: priceless. Card issuers are getting slammed as borrowers fall behind on their payments or default altogether. But MasterCard (MA), which only processes transactions, doesn't have the same credit risk as its rivals. With less exposure, MasterCard saw revenues jump 23%, to $5 billion, in 2008. CEO Robert Selander helped offset a sharp slowdown in consumer spending by cutting costs. Even so, profits got whacked last year after MasterCard agreed to pay $862 million to settle an antitrust suit brought by Discover Financial Services (DFS) and American Express (AXP).


Microsoft
No. 8

Industry: Software & Services
Sales: $62 billion
Net Income: $17.2 billion

Microsoft (MSFT) grew 6.1% in 2008, but the Redmond (Wash.) software giant is facing the most serious competitive threats in its history. With PC demand plummeting and sub-$500 netbooks gaining ground, its Windows business suddenly looks vulner able. And many corporations are looking to cut IT costs by renting "cloud computing" applications doled out over the Net. Microsoft will begin rolling out software in 2009 that lets companies meld their existing computers with Microsoft's own cloud offering. But CEO Steve Ballmer is bracing for hard times and recently announced the company's first broad layoffs.

Exelon
No. 7

Industry: Utilities
Sales: $18.9 billion
Net Income: $2.7 billion

The Chicago utility's earnings per share dipped only slightly in 2008. Exelon "was not severely damaged" by the market tumult, says CEO John Rowe. Earnings held because of rate hikes at its Philadelphia and Chicago utilities and high output at its 17 nuclear plants. Rowe sees flat earnings for 2009 but is confident about long-term growth, especially if Washington puts a price on carbon emissions. Exelon (EXC) would get a boost from its emission-free nuclear plants and its aggressive emission-cutting program. Uncertainty remains about pension costs and its bid to acquire Prince ton (N.J.)'s NRG Energy (NRG).


C.H. Robinson Worldwide
No. 6

Industry: Transportation
Sales: $8.6 billion
Net Income: $359.2 million

Transportation is tanking because of the recession, but C.H. Robinson Worldwide (CHRW) isn't suffering as much as its industry peers thanks to its role as a third-party broker between truckers and shippers. Founded in 1905 as a produce hauler, the Eden Prairie (Minn.) company doesn't own trucks but instead relies on a global network of more than 50,000 carriers. CEO John Wiehoff says Robinson is coping with declining freight activity by persuading clients, which include PepsiCo (PEP) and Wal-Mart (WMT), to give C.H. Robinson more of their shipping budget. And he's negotiating cheaper rates from struggling truckers to boost profit margins. One growth area: fee-based transportation-management services.


Colgate-Palmolive
No. 5

Industry: Consumer Staples
Sales: $15.3 billion
Net Income: $1.96 billion

Colgate-Palmolive (CL) has become a model for growth in turbulent times. Through a disciplined strategy of price hikes and cost-cutting, the oral-care and pet-food giant has increased organic sales (which excludes the impact of foreign currency and acquisitions) by 9% for three quarters in a row and expects similar growth in 2009, besting rivals such as Procter & Gamble (PG). Thanks to Colgate's continued strong performance in emerging markets, CEO Ian Cook says its global toothpaste market share is at an all-time high of 44.8%. Still, analysts say Cook needs to ramp up development of new products


Diamond Offshore Drilling
No. 3

Industry: Energy Equipment & Services
Sales: $3.5 billion
Net Income: $1.3 billion

Houston-based Diamond Offshore (DO) has a storied history in offshore drilling. Entrepreneur Alden Laborde launched Ocean Drilling and Exploration to sell the industry's first deepwater rigs in 1953, and after several changes in ownership, Loews (L) stepped in during the oil slump of 1992 and bought the company's assets for just $372 million. Loews still controls 50% of Diamond. It benefited greatly from the oil boom: Profits leapt 55% last year, to $1.3 billion. Earnings could be crimped due to falling commodity prices, but CEO Lawrence Dickerson says he's entering the downturn with $10 billion worth of long-term contracts.

[clearasil]

The BusinessWeek 50
As our 13th annual ranking of the BW 50 shows, innovation is still alive and well—vital, even—among America's largest companies By Dean Foust

BW Magazine
The BusinessWeek 50: The Best Performers


Nestled in the rolling hills just north of San Francisco, Autodesk is no Silicon Valley mover and shaker. The company is known mostly among engineers as the maker of the 3D software programs used by everyone from Hollywood animators to the architects designing the newest Manhattan skyscrapers. But Autodesk's bigger contribution to the U.S. economy may not be its role in such movies as Kung Fu Panda or the latest Indiana Jones epic. Rather, it's in helping manufacturers scattered across the Rust Belt compete against foreign rivals.

Consider the experience of Hardinge (HDNG), a machine tool maker in Elmira, N.Y. After watching many of its U.S. rivals go bankrupt—their equipment unbolted and shipped abroad for use by companies in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea—Hardinge employed Autodesk as part of its survival plan. The software maker's engineers developed a customized set of 3D programs that enabled Hardinge to design and build a highly sophisticated lathe with 5,000 parts in as little as five months, roughly a third of what it took a decade earlier. That helped the $345 million company survive, turning a profit in four of the past five years. Autodesk's software "allows us to go from concept to finished machine much faster, and that's helped us stay competitive," says Richard L. Simons, Hardinge's president and chief executive.

Autodesk exemplifies many of the companies in this year's BusinessWeek 50, our 13th annual ranking of the best-performing companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index. While each list invariably includes companies that rode the wave of powerful industry cycles—such as this year's four energy companies—many more, like Autodesk, earned their spot in the BW 50 as innovators. They created products or services dramatically better and cheaper than anything offered by rivals. "These companies are what I call the 'disrupters' of the economy," says Harvard Business School professor Clayton H. Christensen, an innovation expert. Autodesk and its cutting-edge design software, for example, have helped the makers of everything from appliances to cars to prosthetic limbs take on entrenched rivals with greater resources.

This year's BusinessWeek 50 is chock-full of companies that changed the rules of engagement in their industries. At Nucor (NUE) (No. 20), experimental technologies and cutting-edge compensation revolutionized steel manufacturing—and may help explain why the company is holding up despite tough times. IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) (No. 17) and its electronic futures market brought greater price transparency to energy trading, and the company is now blazing a new trail by launching one of the first clearinghouses for complex credit default swaps. Occidental Petroleum (OXY) (No. 43) has relied on advanced technology to wring more production out of its oil fields in Texas and is now doing the same in Libya. Laparoscopic tools from Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) (No. 41) have shortened the recovery period for many surgery patients and could in time dramatically reduce the number of beds the nation's surgical hospitals need. "This technology has potentially profound implications for the health-care system," says Intuitive Chairman and CEO Lonnie M. Smith.
And then there's this year's No. 1, Gilead Sciences (GILD). The Northern California biopharmaceutical company scored a huge success earlier this decade when it sensed an opening for HIV drugs that were simpler and cheaper than standard treatments, which required patients to pop dozens of different pills throughout the day. Gilead's researchers responded with a new manufacturing process allowing them to produce compounds of several drugs to be released into the bloodstream at different times. The result was a daily-dose pill that replaced the old drug cocktails for a fraction of the cost. Now the company is going after another big market: patient-friendly treatments for hepatitis C, a chronic liver disease that affects 170 million people worldwide.

Disruptive technologies and strategies may be a key tool for companies in periods of economic and industrial stress, like the current one. That's because recessions are historically times when companies make the biggest competitive strides—or fall behind. A 2002 survey by McKinsey of the performance of 1,000 companies during an 18-year period found that those that made the biggest leaps in profitability were often the ones that increased their spending on acquisitions and innovation the most amid recessions. It was during the 2001 recession, for example, that Apple began marketing its first iPod and IntercontinentalExchange expanded its energy trading platform with a key acquisition.

OLD AND STILL INNOVATIVE
Given the carnage on Wall Street and in the economy, you might expect considerable turnover in the BusinessWeek 50. While some notable companies dropped off this year—for instance, UnitedHealth Group (UHH), No. 14 in 2008—the 2009 list includes a surprising number of return performers. Among the Class of 2009, 33 companies were repeats from last year's ranking, the largest number in the history of the BW 50.

The Class of 2009 also demonstrates that companies don't have to be startups to be innovative. Colgate-Palmolive (CL) (No. 5), Coca-Cola (KO) (No. 26), and Northern Trust (NTRS) (No. 49) stand out for their innovative spirit, even though their roots extend as far back as the 1800s. In most instances, these companies overcame difficult times by refreshing the values that made them great in the first place. In the case of Coca-Cola, that meant finally embracing the change in consumer tastes—and marketing niche brands, such as vitaminwater and its Dasani water, with the same commitment as it does its flagship cola. "Coke refutes the theory that all successful companies grow old and then disappear at some point," says management consultant Jim Collins. "They took their brand image—wholesomeness and friends and family—and applied it to new categories."

If there's another trait common among this year's BW 50 companies, it's that a good number have developed pay-for-performance cultures. At Nucor, IntercontinentalExchange, Fastenal (FAST) (No. 19), and Expeditors International of Washington (EXPD) (No. 28), employee salaries are nothing special—and in some instances they are below average for their sectors. But each of those companies supplements miserly salaries with generous incentives based on such metrics as profits and customer satisfaction.

Consider Fastenal, a distributor of nuts, bolts, and 49,000 other tools and parts used by industrial customers. Given the commodity nature of its products, Fastenal works hard to guarantee its costs are the industry's lowest. To encourage employees to act like owners and shave every penny possible out of its cost structure, Fastenal pours 10% of all profits above a preset level each year into bonuses and 401(k) contributions. That ensures managers don't grumble about the companywide ban on secretaries. Employees willingly share hotel rooms and forgo meal reimbursement on business trips because they know that part of the savings will flow back into their paychecks. "The benefit of this frugality is that it forces everyone to always look for ways to change, to improve every single thing you do," says Fastenal CEO Willard D. Oberton.

All these companies know there's no guarantee of success. Look through this year's rankings, and you'll see a number of current high achievers at risk of seeing their franchises disrupted by upstart rivals. For Starbucks (SBUX) (No. 32), the threat is coming from McDonald's (MCD) and Dunkin' Donuts, which are undercutting the coffee giant on price. For Microsoft (No. 8) (MSFT), the spread of cheap—or even free—Internet applications offered by Google (GOOG) (No. 35) is threatening its hegemony over the desktop computer. And Best Buy (No. 9) is seeing its CD and video franchise threatened by the digital downloading services run by the likes of Amazon and Apple. But these challenged companies have a history of rising to the occasion and may prove that they can be innovative—and disruptive—players once again.


BW 50 Scoreboard


Special Report: The BusinessWeek 50

Slide Show: BusinessWeek's Top 50 Companies

Video: The BusinessWeek 50

Methodology: Picking the Year's Best Performers

Play It: The Best Performers
Here's our annual list of the 50 best corporate performers. To arrive at the BusinessWeek 50, we run data screens on all of the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, focusing on sales growth rate and return on invested capital. All the companies are measured over time, to reward sustained performance, and compared against other companies in the same sector, to enable us to identify the best performers within their peer group. A board of BusinessWeek editors reviews the list, bringing the judgment that purely financial measures alone can't provide. You can sift through the interactive ranking below, to see how the BusinessWeek 50 companies stack up on any number of financial or qualitative measures.


Click column heading once to reorder from highest to lowest. Click twice to reorder from lowest to highest.
2009
Rank
2008
Rank
Company Name
Profitability
%
Sales
Growth
Rate %
Market Value
($bil)
12-mo.
Sales
($bil)
12-mo.
Net Income
($bil)
One-yr.
Total Return
(%)
Three-yr.
Total Return
(%)
Sector


1 2 GILEAD SCIENCES 48.6 38.2 40.8 5.3 2.0 -5.3 43.9 Health Care
2 NR CF INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS 47.2 28.0 3.1 3.9 0.7 -47.0 269.4 Materials
3 NR DIAMOND OFFSHORE DRILLING 40.4 40.8 8.7 3.5 1.3 -44.1 -5.1 Energy
4 NR WINDSTREAM 19.5 3.1 3.3 3.2 0.4 -30.6 N/A Telecommunication Services
5 7 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE 58.8 10.6 30.2 15.3 2.0 -19.0 17.8 Consumer Staples
6 12 ROBINSON (C.H.) WORLDWIDE 49.7 14.4 7.0 8.6 0.4 -17.1 -3.6 Industrials
7 22 EXELON 21.4 8.3 31.1 18.9 2.7 -34.8 -10.1 Utilities
8 41 MICROSOFT 59.3 15.5 143.6 62.0 17.2 -39.3 -36.8 Information Technology
9 36 BEST BUY 35.3 14.4 11.9 43.7 1.2 -31.9 -44.7 Consumer Discretionary
10 NR MASTERCARD 49.9 19.6 20.4 5.0 -0.3 -16.6 N/A Information Technology
11 42 PRECISION CASTPARTS 32.5 28.5 7.8 7.0 1.0 -49.7 5.0 Industrials
12 26 VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS 40.6 14.0 3.8 2.1 0.3 -41.8 -47.3 Health Care
13 18 AVON PRODUCTS 52.8 9.9 7.5 10.7 0.9 -52.3 -34.4 Consumer Staples
14 35 SCHLUMBERGER 35.4 23.5 45.4 27.2 5.4 -55.3 -31.7 Energy
15 6 APPLE 32.7 27.0 79.5 33.0 4.9 -28.6 30.4 Information Technology
16 1 COACH 67.2 20.4 4.5 3.2 0.7 -53.9 -60.9 Consumer Discretionary
17 13 INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE 37.7 298.5 4.1 0.8 0.3 -56.4 3.7 Financials
18 5 QUESTAR 24.4 7.1 5.0 3.5 0.7 -47.2 -18.6 Utilities
19 NR FASTENAL 39.0 15.2 4.5 2.3 0.3 -24.1 -28.1 Industrials
20 25 NUCOR 39.8 21.9 10.6 23.7 1.8 -46.0 -12.2 Materials
21 4 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS 14.6 11.3 81.0 97.4 6.4 -16.7 1.5 Telecommunication Services
22 NR EXPRESS SCRIPTS 43.5 11.8 12.5 22.0 0.8 -14.9 15.3 Health Care
23 23 AMAZON.COM 29.2 31.9 27.7 19.2 0.6 0.5 73.1 Consumer Discretionary
24 10 MEMC ELECTRONIC MATERIALS 48.3 22.2 3.4 2.0 0.4 -80.3 -55.2 Information Technology
25 11 CB RICHARD ELLIS GROUP 37.2 24.9 0.8 5.1 -1.0 -85.6 -87.4 Financials
26 45 COCA-COLA 35.1 12.2 94.4 31.9 5.8 -28.1 5.6 Consumer Staples
27 NR APOLLO GROUP 100.8 12.5 11.6 3.3 0.5 18.1 46.8 Consumer Discretionary
28 32 EXPEDITORS INTL. OF WASHINGTON 35.8 13.0 5.8 5.6 0.3 -29.4 -27.8 Industrials
29 NR NOBLE 30.5 36.3 6.4 3.4 1.6 -49.1 -31.9 Energy
30 NR NASDAQ OMX GROUP 25.2 69.1 4.2 3.6 0.3 -49.7 -48.4 Financials
31 19 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS 28.3 47.3 5.4 2.8 0.4 -39.1 -36.1 Information Technology
32 16 STARBUCKS 30.4 15.5 6.8 10.2 0.2 -49.1 -74.8 Consumer Discretionary
33 NR WATERS 36.4 11.2 3.5 1.6 0.3 -40.9 -17.6 Health Care
34 NR EQT 19.5 7.9 4.0 1.6 0.3 -49.0 -10.2 Utilities
35 34 GOOGLE 25.5 52.9 106.5 21.8 4.2 -28.3 -6.8 Information Technology
36 15 CME GROUP 24.3 146.9 12.2 2.6 0.7 -63.5 -55.5 Financials
37 NR MANITOWOC 30.1 25.9 0.5 4.5 0.1 -89.9 -78.5 Industrials
38 27 AT&T 11.9 45.6 140.1 124.0 12.9 -27.9 -1.5 Telecommunication Services
39 3 ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES 43.3 14.1 1.9 5.3 0.6 -74.2 -60.0 Materials
40 31 PEPSICO 36.4 10.2 74.8 43.3 5.1 -29.0 -13.1 Consumer Staples
41 NR INTUITIVE SURGICAL 25.1 57.2 3.6 0.9 0.2 -67.7 0.8 Health Care
42 NR NIKE 29.9 11.0 20.1 19.7 1.9 -29.9 0.0 Consumer Discretionary
43 NR OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM 37.1 17.4 42.0 24.2 6.8 -31.8 19.0 Energy
44 38 PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP 20.8 45.8 12.1 9.5 0.9 -53.3 -56.4 Financials
45 28 AUTODESK 38.9 15.0 2.9 2.3 0.2 -59.2 -66.3 Information Technology
46 17 ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL 43.9 11.7 2.3 4.6 0.3 -41.7 -55.3 Industrials
47 47 TJX 47.7 5.7 9.3 19.0 0.9 -29.3 -5.5 Consumer Discretionary
48 NR AES 14.2 16.0 4.2 16.1 1.2 -65.0 -63.6 Utilities
49 NR NORTHERN TRUST 25.2 15.0 12.4 5.7 0.8 -16.4 10.7 Financials
50 9 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH 43.2 8.8 1.9 3.5 0.3 -71.0 -65.9 Consumer Discretionary


hier die Seite, da ist es übersichtlicher zum angucken

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/bw50_2009/?…