Le grandi case farmaceutiche negli Usa sostengono che gli alti profitti ottenuti con prezzi alti dei farmaci servono a finanziare le ricerche innovative volte a salvare vite umane. In realtà quei proventi vengono utilizzati per comprare azioni delle stesse società, mentre viene ristretto l’accesso ai farmaci e si pongono freni all’innovazione. La multinazionale Big Pharma giustifica questo nell’investimento in innovazione per produrre medicine per migliorare la qualità della nostra vita, ma è solo teoria. Stamani al Festival dell’Economia di Trento, l’economista William Lazonick, ha affrontato questo tema spiegando il settore farmaceutico statunitense e presentando la sua teoria basata sull’impresa innovativa che torna ad essere comunità, dove capitale e lavoro si mescolano per produrre beni e servizi.
Domenica, 04 Giugno 2017 – il Trentino
His intellectual journey is based on the idea of the innovative enterprise that returns to being a community, with a community function, which mixes capital and labor to produce goods and services.
William Lazonick oggi si è concentrato sul settore farmaceutico statunitense nel quale è viva una discussione su come vengono utilizzati i profitti dei farmaci. In tutti settori può accadere che i profitti ottenuti da alcune industrie servano ad acquistare azioni delle società stesse, ma a questo modello si sono adeguate anche le case farmaceutiche: anche se sostengono che gli alti profitti ottenuti con prezzi alti dei farmaci servono a finanziare le ricerche innovative volte a salvare vite umane, in realtà quei proventi vengono utilizzati per comprare azioni delle stesse società, mentre viene ristretto l’accesso ai farmaci e si pongono freni all’innovazione.
Medicines cost twice as much in the United States. Big Pharma justifies this in investing in innovation to produce medicines to improve our quality of life. In reality, in the United States, multinationals such as Big Pharma no longer develop new drugs but acquire other pharmaceutical companies that patent drugs; then there are the companies of the New Economy, which present a more speculative approach, i.e. they have developed drugs that are more widespread, at low cost, and playing on quantity and thanks to public funding for start-ups, not 
It is Médecins Sans Frontières who is sounding the alarm, stating that the necessary medicines are not produced because companies focus on those that make the most money. Some companies even produce harmful drugs, with rapacious and murderous greed to satisfy the absurd salaries of top managers (unimaginable figures) instead of investing to produce drugs dedicated to global health. This predatory attitude is therefore based on an action that focuses on the equity effects rather than on the beneficial ones, contrary to the virtuous objective of having a quality product at a lower price.
Professor Lazonick spoke of his theory hinged on the innovative process defining it as collective and cumulative uncertainty, or rather with an unpredictable future, which involves a plurality of subjects and which requires time. It is useless to deny that companies that embrace this project often find themselves in difficulty due to the high cost of innovation, but when a quality product is achieved, the horizon is to amortize fixed costs. When we talk about innovation in this sense, it should be specified that we don't just mean investments in equipment but above all in human resources. This has a positive effect for all stakeholders, including consumers.
Website: http://2017.festivaleconomia.eu
Twitter: @economicsfest
Related news: Italian research that challenges Big Pharma "There are better treatments"
Note
The buyback of treasury shares
There are different ways in which a company can remunerate its shareholders: the most common are the distribution of dividends and the appreciation of shares. However, there is another way, less striking, but which is becoming increasingly popular and is particularly appreciated, especially by small shareholders: the buyback (or "repurchase of treasury shares").Buyback
The buyback is the repurchase by the company that issued them of its shares, with the aim of reducing the number of shares on the market. The buyback can therefore be seen as the company's decision to reduce the free float on the market: since a company cannot be "its own shareholder", the repurchased shares are absorbed, canceling them. It is clear that when this happens, the value of the outstanding shares increases, since there being fewer on the market, each title gives the right to own a larger piece of the company and with it the right to a larger share of the profit.
For the same amount, in theory, the investor should be indifferent to remuneration in terms of higher dividends or stock appreciation. In reality, however, there is a fundamental difference from a tax point of view. In many legislations dividends and capital gains annuities are taxed differently, so savers may have a preference for one form of profit over another.
Il buy-back è utilizzato per attuare piani di stock option: l’attribuzione di azioni ai dipendenti e/o agli amministratori, reca con sé l’implicazione che l’azienda debba dotarsi di tali pacchetti azionari. Il salario è composto di una parte fissa (salario base) e di una parte variabile, della quale le stock option sono una componente prevalente nei salari dei dirigenti. Senza alcun intervento dell’azienda né contabilità, il dipendente può rivendere in Borsa la stessa opzione senza esercitarla. Questa è una possibilità di un aumento retributivo a costo zero per l’impresa. Le stock option possono essere utilizzate anche perché consentono un incremento reale dei salari senza formalmente diminuire gli utili.
Giving executives shares in the company means aligning their personal interest with that of the shareholders, i.e. maximizing economic value.
For example Ian C. Read, CEO Pfizer, percepisce nel 2016 uno stipendio di “soli” $1,905,250, ma percepisce un compenso annuo di $17,321,470 [source Forbes]
Annual Compensation Ian C. Read
| Salary | $1,905,250 |
| Total Annual Compensation | $1,905,250 |
Stock Options*
| Restricted Stock Awards | $3,984,592 |
| All Other Compensation | $471,510 |
| Exercised Options | 734,685 |
| Exercised Options Value | $11,477,732 |
| Exercisable Options | 3,550,203 |
| Exercisable Options Value | $34,195,606 |
| Unexercisable Options | 2,932,935 |
| Unexercisable Options Value | $2,252,018 |
| Total Value of Options | $47,925,356 |
| Total number of options | 7,217,823 |
Total Compensation*
| Total Annual Cash Compensation | $6,376,760 |
| Total Short Term Compensation | $1,905,250 |
| Other Long Term Compensation | $4,456,102 |
| Total Calculated Compensation | $17,321,470 |
These are the data relating to the buyback carried out by the major companies American pharmaceutical companies between 2006 and 2015:
