
This firm represents one of investing's toughest moral debates
While many big drug companies do amazing things for humanity, they're also often vilified for profiteering from their work. This month, New York-listed Gilead Sciences has, not for the first time, reminded investors of the conundrum.
On June 18, Gilead announced it had gained approval from the US regulator for a treatment that some view as having the potential to end the global 'HIV epidemic'. At the same time, it has drawn criticism in anticipation of US prices being set at more than $28,000 (£20,400) per patient, per year.
Lenacapavir, to be marketed by Gilead under the name Yeztugo, is a twice-yearly injection that prevents people from contracting HIV. This has the potential to disrupt the market for preventative HIV drugs, which is currently dominated by another Gilead treatment, a daily pill named Descovy.
Financially, Gilead hopes to gain from lenacapavir by expanding the market for preventative HIV treatments. It also could benefit from existing users of Descovy switching to the somewhat more expensive new treatment, and people switching from other long-lasting preventatives such as GSK's bi-monthly Apretude.
The breakthrough is important in strengthening Gilead's HIV franchise more broadly, too. HIV drugs accounted for almost 70pc of product sales last year, and year-on-year growth of HIV-related revenues came in at 8pc in the first quarter.
The group's single biggest-selling drug is Biktarvy, a treatment for people who are already HIV positive. The daily oral pill generates around $13.4bn of sales, or 47pc of the group total. Gilead is currently leveraging its research into lenacapavir by attempting to develop a twice-yearly treatment in this space, too.
Gilead's major drug breakthroughs have not always proved as rewarding for shareholders as they have for patients. Covid-19 sent the shares on a roller-coaster ride after one of Gilead's hepatitis C treatments, called Remdesivir, was originally found to also be very effective against the coronavirus. Sales of the drug, rebranded Veklury, hit $5.6bn in 2021 but rapidly fell as the pandemic eased, and revenues are expected to be just $1.3bn this year.
An earlier breakthrough in the treatment of hepatitis C in the 2010s, meanwhile, caused huge share price excitement, with revenues ballooning to nearly $14bn in 2015 before the drug became a victim of its own success. Because the drug, called Harvoni, found a way to cure the disease as opposed to managing it, it did away with much of its own market. Rising competition also contributed to a rapid decline in sales.
However, many top investors are more bullish on the lenacapavir breakthrough. Financial publisher Citywire, which tracks where the world's best fund managers are investing, has found 12 backing the shares – all among the best-performing 3pc of equity managers globally.
The level of these bets puts Gilead among the 74 stocks that make up Citywire's Global Elite Companies index, which represents the very best ideas from the roughly 6,000 stocks held across the portfolios of top fund managers.
Optimism about Gilead's prospects can be seen in its share price, too. The valuation against forecast earnings is within the top 5pc of the 10-year range. While in some circumstances this would be grounds to worry about the shares being expensive, the fact Gilead is only valued at 13 times forecast earnings makes it is more a reason to take heart than worry.
Indeed, the uninspiring valuations of previous years reflect the ups and downs associated with Veklury and Harvoni.
Today, the future looks much brighter. Sales of Veklury appear to be stabilising and now represent a relatively small proportion of the business. Meanwhile, as well as the strong HIV franchise, the company is experiencing solid growth in cancer and liver disease treatments.
The drug development pipeline also looks strong, and is supported by about a fifth of sales going into research and development (R&D) each year. The group also does not face any major loss of patents until 2033. Meanwhile, attempts to drive down operating costs are benefiting the bottom line.
The good progress has been reflected in analysts raising their earnings forecasts over the last 12 months. Expectations for the current year and next are both up by more than 10pc over the period, and while there is some downward pressure on revenue from US drug pricing policies, Gilead looks relatively well placed due to its focus on novel medicines. Its extensive US operations also reduce the threat from tariffs.
The shares offer an attractive 3pc forecast dividend yield, and the company has a strong track record for returning cash. British buyers of the shares, which are available through all the big broking platforms, need to fill out the current paperwork to minimise withholding tax and should also check for any extra dealing charges.
While walking the tightrope between profit and purpose is never easy, as an investment, Gilead looks better placed than it has for quite some time.
Questor says buy
Ticker: NYSE:GILD
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Vet issues urgent warning over social media trend - saying it could KILL your dog
A vet has spoken out against a vTikTok trend which he says could be very dangerous - if not fatal - to your dog. Taking to TikTok, where he has some 210,000 followers, the veterinarian - who uses the handle @ - shared the information in a short clip. Titled Ibuprofen is not safe for pets, it is among his many videos focusing on animal welfare topics. Ben's video was accompanied by a caption which outlined why people should only take advice from appropriately qualified professionals. It said: 'You should only take advice about medication to give your pet from a veterinary professional - not from someone on TikTok. 'Other vets [including] @Cat The Vet have already posted highlighting how dangerous this advice is, but the video is still online and the original poster of this video has blocked me (fortunately I had already downloaded the video so I can post this!).' The video started with a clip of an unnamed creator (whose face cannot be seen) saying: 'You can give pets medicine what you give for kids [sic]. Footage then cut to Ben the Vet, who explained why this advice could not only be highly dangerous to people's dogs, but potentially even kill them. 'The advice given in this video is not correct,' the trained professional explained. 'Ibuprofen is not a safe painkiller to give to pets, and it's concerning to see how many views this video has had and how many pets might be harmed by this advice.' Ben then explained that ibuprofen can be 'extremely toxic, particularly if given to small dogs or to cats'. He continued: 'It can cause kidney failure and stomach ulceration. 'It can be fatal. These effects can build up over time, so it may not instantly make them unwell, but over time, it can make them very poorly.' The veterinarian added: 'This lady [from the original video] says she was given this advice by a vet that she knows personally. 'But there must be some misunderstanding along the line, because ibuprofen is widely known to be harmful to give to pets.' He added that the confusion could have come about because there are 'some human painkillers that can be used in pets if they give them an appropriate dose'. But, he continued: 'There are some that are extremely toxic to cats. For instance, paracetamol should never be given to cats. 'It can be prescribed to dogs, but it is legally a prescription-only medication, although it is available over the counter for humans, because it can be very harmful if it's given at an inappropriate dose.' Concluding the video, Ben said: 'The poster of the [original] video says that she's posted it because she's hoping to save people money, and I completely understand that reasoning. 'But that video is not going to save people money if it puts people's animals in kidney failure and makes them very unwell.' A number of people took to the comments section to share their thoughts on the information shared in the video. One wrote: 'Never would give any of my dogs anything that isn't prescribed by the vet. But then I also don't post on social media if I think they are unwell they go to the vet.' Another added: 'Our dog had to be rushed to the vets after he managed to grab a tube of ibuprofen! So dangerous!' A number of people went to the comment section of the video to share their thoughts on the advice 'If your pet is in pain they need to see a vet anyway, don't go medicate them on your own,' another viewer advised. A further TikTok user told the vet they were grateful for his animal welfare advice. They wrote: 'Thank you for continuing to educate so many people, I always find your videos very useful and always learn something new. Really appreciate all you do!' Meanwhile, a commentator who said they were a pharmacist, shared their own perspective on the situation. They wrote: 'As a pharmacist it drives me up the wall when people come in to buy liquid human meds for animals. Legally speaking, we cannot knowingly sell them for use in animals and the amount of fuss the person trying to buy them usually kicks up is crazy.'


BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
India-US trade: Is the 'big, beautiful' deal in trouble?
Is the "big, beautiful" India-US trade deal slipping out of reach?With just days to go before a 9 July deadline set by US President Donald Trump's administration, hopes of clinching an interim trade pact between Delhi and Washington remain alive but increasingly entangled in hard White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt hinting that the deal was imminent, and Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman's upbeat assertion that Delhi would welcome "a big, good, beautiful" agreement - in response to Trump's claim that a trade deal with Delhi is coming and would "open up" the Indian market - negotiators remain locked in tough discussions. Key sticking points persist, particularly over agricultural access, auto components and tariffs on Indian trade officials have extended their stay in Washington for another round of talks, even as Delhi signals "very big red lines" on farm and dairy protections, and the US presses for wider market openings. The tone remains optimistic - but the window to strike a deal appears to be wants India to buy US corn - but here's why it probably won't"The next seven days could determine whether India and the US settle for a limited 'mini-deal' or walk away from the negotiating table - at least for now," says Ajay Srivastava, a former Indian trade official who runs Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), a Delhi-based think uncertainty hinges on a few key flashpoints - none more contentious than agriculture."There are two real challenges to concluding an initial agreement. First on the list is US access to the Indian market for basic agriculture products. India will need to protect its basic agriculture sector for economic and political reasons," Richard Rossow, who tracks India's economy at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the years, Washington has pushed for greater access to India's farm sector, seeing it as a major untapped market. But India has fiercely protected it, citing food security, livelihoods and interests of millions of small Rossow says the "second issue is India's non-tariff barriers. Issues like India's growing set of 'Quality Control Orders' (QCO) are significant obstacles to US market access and may prove tricky to meaningfully handle in a trade deal".The US has raised concerns over what it calls India's growing and burdensome import-quality rules. Over 700 QCOs - part of the "self-reliant India" push - aim to curb low-quality imports and promote domestic manufacturing. Suman Berry, a senior member of a government think tank Niti Aayog, has also called these rules a "malign intervention" that restrict imports and raise costs for domestic medium and small scale industries. The elephant in the room is farm exports. India-US farm trade remains modest at $8bn, with India exporting rice, shrimp and spices, and the US sending nuts, apples and lentils. But as trade talks progress, Washington is eyeing bigger farm exports - maize, soya bean, cotton and corn - to help narrow its $45bn trade deficit with fear tariff concessions could pressure India to weaken its minimum support prices (MSP) and public procurement - key protections that shield farmers from price crashes by guaranteeing fair prices and stable crop purchases."No tariff cuts are expected for dairy products or key food grains like rice and wheat, where farm livelihoods are at stake. These categories are politically and economically sensitive, affecting over 700 million people in India's rural economy," says Mr a recent Niti Aayog paper recommends tariff cuts on US farm imports - including rice, dairy, poultry, corn, apples, almonds and GM soya - under a proposed India-US trade pact. It's unclear, however, whether the proposal reflects official government thinking or remains a policy suggestion on paper."If the US were to say 'no deal' if India does not include access on basic agriculture, then clearly American expectations were not set correctly. Any democratically-elected government will have political limits to commercial policy choices," says Mr what could happen with the deal now?Experts like Mr Srivastava believe that the "more likely outcome is a limited trade pact" - styled after the US-UK mini trade deal announced on 8 the proposed deal, India may cut tariffs on a range of industrial goods - including automobiles, a long-standing US demand - and offer limited agricultural access via tariff cuts and quotas on select products like ethanol, almonds, walnuts, apples, raisins, avocados, olive oil, spirits and tariff cuts, the US is likely to push India for large-scale commercial buys - from oil and LNG to Boeing aircraft, helicopters and nuclear reactors. Washington may also seek FDI easing in multi-brand retail, benefiting firms like Amazon and Walmart, and relaxed rules on re-manufactured goods."This 'mini-deal', if concluded, would therefore focus on tariff reductions and strategic commitments, leaving broader FTA issues - including services trade, intellectual property (IP) rights and digital regulations - for a future negotiation," says Mr the start, the India-US trade talks appeared to be grounded in a clear and fair vision."The two leaders [Trump and Modi] laid out a simple concept in their first summit this year. The US would focus on manufactured goods that are capital-intensive, while India would focus on items that are labour-intensive," says Mr Rossow. But things appear to have changed talks fail, Trump is unlikely to reinstate the 26% tariffs on India, experts believe. While 57 countries faced these levies in April, only the UK has secured a deal so far. Targeting India specifically could seem unfair. "Still, with Trump, surprises can't be ruled out," says Mr Srivastava.


Reuters
44 minutes ago
- Reuters
US power pollution climbs on higher coal use
LITTLETON, Colorado, July 1 (Reuters) - U.S. power sector emissions are already at their highest levels in three years, but will likely climb further during the peak summer months as greater use of air conditioning systems drives higher generation from coal and natural gas plants. Over the first five months of 2025, U.S. power sector emissions from the burning of fossil fuels were up 5% to around 640 million metric tons, according to data from Ember. The roughly 32 million ton rise in emissions from the same months a year ago stems mainly from higher use of coal within the U.S. generation mix, as power firms have so far cut back on natural gas use from a year ago after gas prices rallied. However, power firms are starting to dial up generation from both coal and gas in order to meet higher electricity demand from homes and businesses tied to the greater use of power-hungry air conditioners. Those higher generation trends will in turn further lift power sector pollution totals, even as electricity production from clean power sources such as solar farms hit record highs. Over the first half of 2024, U.S. coal-fired power generation climbed by 14% from the same period in 2024 to 14.9 million megawatt hours (MWh), according to data from LSEG. The chief driver behind the rise in coal use was a steep rise in the price of natural gas during the opening quarter of the year, which applied fresh cost pressure on utilities and spurred higher use of cheaper coal within generation mixes. Henry Hub natural gas futures - the main benchmark price for U.S. natural gas - have averaged around $3.53 per million British thermal units (BTU) so far this year, LSEG data shows. That compares to an average of $2.15 per BTU during the first half of 2024. As a result of that over 60% jump in gas costs, gas-fired power production during January to June was down 4.2% to 31.8 million MWh, according to LSEG. The higher proportion of coal power within the U.S. generation mix has had a big impact on overall emissions. Coal-fired power stations emit roughly 950,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per terawatt hour of electricity production, according to Ember. That compares to around 540,000 tons of CO2 per TWh from gas-fired plants, and explains why overall fossil fuel emissions have climbed much more steeply than fossil fuel power output so far this year. The U.S. has two well-defined peak periods of power use every year - for heating during winter and for cooling during summer. And for more than a decade, power use during the summer has exceeded the power needs over the winter, as air conditioning units require greater volumes of electricity than heating systems. This year that trend looks set to be extended after several parts of the U.S. were gripped by record-setting heat waves during the latter half of June, and are forecast to get further hot spells during July, August and into September. To meet the resulting rise in electricity use, utilities will need greater power output from all production sources, but especially from fossil fuels which are needed to meet the lion's share of system use at night when solar generation stops. And as gas prices remain well above year-ago levels, most power generation systems will continue to prioritize lifting output from relatively cheaper coal rather than costlier gas. That sets the stage for a fresh climb in power emissions, which are already at their highest since 2022 and are primed to hit their annual peak over the coming months as power firms deploy all the power they can muster to keep up with demand. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab.