Alcon has become an assembly line

thoughts on the type of work climate this would create?

would everyone be trying to out-perform each other just to maintain their jobs rather than focusing on what's right for the patient?

1-year would be a bit too short-term imo.
3-years would be better.

 

Good question.
My thoughts:

The primary advantage will be that executive management will not be able to 're-align priorities' on an ad-hoc basis but will actually have to have a vision and plan strategically (or be forced to accept a decline in revenue for a period of 1-3 years). This is a shift from the stockholder/investment banker derived hire-and-fire paradigm that has become a frequent recourse of number-beautifying CEOs without regard to fundamentals.

Looking at it from another point of view, the term contracts reinforce a longer term strategic view and de-emphasize short term market (read investment bankers/stockholders) expectations.

Hiring and firing will become more serious endeavours (not left up to imbeciles in HR) because once hired, the company is 'stuck' with the employee for 1-3 years. Bad hiring and firing decisions will lead to a much faster downward trajectory in the fortunes of the organization.

Employees have 1-3 years to show what value added enterprise they bring to the company, this makes for less complacency. There will probably be more inter-employee competition as you suggest.

More thoughts anyone? This makes for interesting discussion.

 

It will be better for the patient because - instead of rapidly producing a range of xyz permutations and combinations of existing single entity products or me-too drugs; a company will actually be in a position for 1-3 years to invent medicines that provide meaningful (rather then merely statistical) patient benefit and clinical outcomes.
If the stock price tanks during those 1-3 years, then the company has hired the wrong people.

 

Good discussion. How about a suggestion that stock can only be traded on the open market once every year as well? This will tie in nicely with the term limits for employees. This will ensure that only people who are long on the stock will actually buy and hold. How about option contracts ? How will this affect bond yields and rates?
In general, a cool-down in activity may be better for everyone, except for the investment bankers, loan sharks, and money chasers who cite insane 'analyst expectations' year upon year. This is in keeping with the better funds (Vanguard) rules for investment where they penalize you if you trade too often.

 

People always leave after a management change. However, the sheer magnitude and quality of the people who are leaving suggests that this is more than ephemeral; it has assumed endemic proportions. No knowledge based organization can survive such an exodus.
Alcon = Radioshack in the near future.

 

I would think that this whole Alcon debacle would be more than ample material for any stand-up comedian. If this is the potential of people with MBA's, then either there is a problem with accreditation of schools offering management degrees or the "no manager left behind" paradigm has reached endemic proportions.

 

Alcon is expendable; Novartis is not.

 

I think we will see JnJ emerge as the leader in ophthalmology. We all now know Alcon is going the same path as the CIBA acquisition by Novartis, Pharma absorbed, and one oddball piece left.

 

The original title of this thread is "Alcon has become an assembly line". Most big pharma companies have. As the content of this thread painfully demonstrates; big pharma has the capital to buy intellect from outside (because they cannot cultivate it on the inside). The army of ho-hum, so-called 'scientists' that populate big pharma (including the likes of those that still work at Alcon), are responsible in part for driving up the cost of healthcare.

IMHO, tell it like it is - big pharma are actually investment companies with no R&D to speak of. At least the CEO of Valeant speaks the truth!

 

When exactly were these 'good old days'? Back in the economic perfection of the 50s, it seems like damn near every other housewife was on anti-depressants and sedatives. "Mommy's little helper" indeed. Before that we were all going to soda bars to get our regular dose of cocain.

 

I think it's more likely that this will just result in even more retention problems than companies are already having. If I can potentially get laid off every year on a set schedule, I guarentee you I will jump ship as soon at an extra $1000 a year is made available somewhere else. Can't afford the possibility that I will be out of employment for a few months.

 

Spot on for the post pointing out that Big Pharma is really just a specialized branch of the investment banking sector. Strip the useless 'scientists' that 'work' there of the 'scientist' label; they are really good-for-nothing idiots who create slide-decks for a living!
Big pharma only finances clinical trials from molecules acquired from the innovators. With the advent of investment companies who are ready to take on this risk; it is a matter of time for the extinction of big pharma.

 

this.

 

cannabis clubs will change the game entirely.

 

Excellent way to operate. To all: spend a few hous per day looking for a better job. This should be your number one priority since a bunch of no nothing morons in Basel are spending their time on how to eliminate your job. Furthermore they will be very pleased to have u on a plan. This saves them lots of money and it fools some into thinking they have no leverage. It is time to band together and apply the same policy to the puppet masters. Don't be a puppet.

 

which is why "the no nothing morons in Basel" require an "elite" consultancy to plan out our great restructuring.

a vicious, virtuous circle of closeted interests if i've ever seen one.

 

Investment banking seeks return on capital - pure and simple. The so called 'scientists' out of the 96000 odd employees only serve to promulgate the myth of 'cutting edge' 'research and development' so that (successful lobbying can then ensure) that me-too medication can be sold at insanely high prices.

That is why 'scientific' tasks that border on irrelevant minutiae such as QbD (which is really an exercise in 7th grade empiricism), regulatory writing and validation - which are really assembly line activities - need to be performed. This convinces the impressionable laypeople of their 'importance' and 'value' to research and development. These tasks can be - and will be - exported to low wage countries.

The real action in big pharma is the buying of promising medicinal molecules from small start ups who do not have the capital necessary to pursue expensive clinical trials. Wells Fargo or Chase could do this job just as well.

 

what value do you put on life and ease of suffering?
is it inhuman, unethical or immoral to put a $ on that?

 

Well, lets be realistic. Incentive for financial gain is a powerful motivating force. If it can be harnessed in the right direction - such as to discover curative medicine - there is no harm in the endeavor. IMHO, it is fine to profit from a noble or socially responsible venture - but - not at the expense of the patient.

There is a difference between 'market beating' increase in shareholder value versus settling for a modest profit from a blockbuster drug. There is a difference between 'squeezing' dying patients versus providing them with lifesaving drugs at a modest profit. There is a difference between outright rapacious financial speculation on a block-buster drug at the expense of suppressing news and research on its side effects. There is a difference between selling the illusion of 'only' having x years to recoup the money spent on 'research' before the patent runs out versus the truth of not having spent close to that money because the drug was bought from small start up pharma.

In a free market - there is nothing to prevent excessive levels of leverage. Big pharma is - and has been - a large bubble that is prevented from bursting because it plays into the 'socially responsible' theme. In any other industry, these useless good-for-nothing, so called 'scientists' would not exist.

I have nothing against the free market. However, I do resent it when it is used to advantage under the guise of social responsibility.