Ousted Novo Nordisk CEO pays for investors' inflated hopes
Novo Nordisk
chief executive Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen comes not amid scandal or strategic calamity, but a less fashionable misstep: disappointing the stock market.
Once Europe's most valuable firm, Novo's shares have halved since last summer.
Investor expectations, it seems, are harder to manage than blood sugar.
Jørgensen was the architect of Novo's transformation from a diabetes stalwart into a world leader in obesity drugs.
READ MORE
Sales of
Wegovy
, its blockbuster weight-loss injection, soared. So did the company's valuation: by June 2024, Novo was worth over $600 billion and traded on 56 times earnings.
Such altitude brings thinner air. Any stumble, and gravity does the rest. And stumble it did.
Competition from
Eli Lilly
intensified. Cheaper, compounded versions of GLP-1 drugs proliferated in the United States. Clinical trials for Novo's next generation of treatments disappointed heady expectations.
None of these are fatal, but they are enough to turn a growth fairytale into a more familiar pharmaceutical plotline: one of pricing pressures, pipeline uncertainty, and restive shareholders.
Jørgensen was surprised by his ousting, as were analysts and investors. There was no hint of change during Novo's earnings call just a week earlier.
Whatever his mistakes, it is hard to pin Novo's malaise solely on his leadership. When euphoria untethers a stock, a bloodletting often follows.
That Jørgensen became the fall guy may say more about investor nerves than executive negligence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
An answer to Ireland's housing crisis is right behind us
When you are in a crisis, the choice is never between good and bad – it's always between bad and worse. Ireland has a housing crisis . We have far too many people and not enough homes for them. We can't seem to build quickly enough in the right areas at the right price. All the while, rising rent and house prices are prompting tens of thousands of young educated Irish people to emigrate . As argued here last month , our immigration policy is giving out too many work visas relative to the economy's ability to house these new migrants. There is too little supply and too much demand. The solution must include a reduction in immigration rates and a simultaneous increase in home building. In the short term, all bottlenecks to building should be removed while the number of people coming into the country needs to be capped, which means identifying a number for sustainable migration and sticking to it for a specific time period. READ MORE Facing a crisis resolutely is often described as the 'Dunkirk strategy', where you achieve your goals however you can, galvanising all your resources. At Dunkirk, rather than waiting for navy frigates to evacuate the stranded British army, the war cabinet commandeered every boat possible – fishing boats, yachts, pleasure boats, the lot. The objective in the crisis was: do whatever necessary. One housing-related idea under discussion is the notion that Irish people should be allowed (or even encouraged) to build small homes in their back gardens for the family to alleviate the pressure on the rental market. As long as the homes are within a specific size and meet some specific guidelines, families should be allowed to do what they want, right? [ We need to confront the reality that the housing shortage can't be solved Opens in new window ] This seems pretty sensible and, while it is hardly a universal solution, as an incremental move it's a start. The back gardens of many homes are potentially an amazing resource. In place of Nimbyism, living in the garden could be the start of a Yimbyism movement: yes in my back yard. Although some have voiced opposition, the international evidence is overwhelmingly positive. Allowing people to build in their back garden creates reasonably priced homes in the right areas. In North America, removing planning barriers in recent years has unleashed huge growth in small garden homes. For example, in three years Seattle tripled its permits to build what they call secondary dwelling units. In California, permits surged by 15,334 per cent. In Vancouver today, roughly 35 per cent of single-family lots host a laneway or secondary suite. These are families taking the housing crisis into their own hands and building in their gardens. Why would you stop them? In the Irish context, how big might this garden housing opportunity be? The Dublin City Council area contains about 3,305 hectares of private gardens. To give you a sense of how big this is, consider 8,262 Croke Parks. Now you get the picture. These are already residential-zoned, serviced plots located in prime, established urban areas. By contrast, empty brownfield sites are scarce in Ireland because even though dereliction is rife, there simply isn't enough derelict land to meet targets. If we want to avoid more sprawl and longer commutes, new greenfield development should be curtailed. Ireland's national policy is already aiming for 40 per cent of new housing to be built in existing urban areas. Gardens are already inside the cities. Ireland has hundreds of thousands of square metres of ready-to-go residential land in gardens. A think tank called Progress Ireland has run some of the numbers to see how many small homes could be built in existing gardens. Obviously gardens without back lanes or side entrances aren't suitable, and they must be big enough to accommodate a basic studio or one-bedroom modular home. On top of these physical constraints, to be viable building in the garden must be cheaper than renting locally. The report concludes that, across the country, about 18 per cent of existing gardens are suitable. That's about 348,000 viable sites. [ Rise in young people's mental health difficulties partly due to housing insecurity, says charity Opens in new window ] In a crisis, surely it is worth green-lighting such an opportunity. At the very least, planning restrictions should be eased so that neighbours can't object on the basis of density or views or whatever Nimby nonsense is invented as grounds for objections. A serious problem for Ireland is that our population isn't dense enough. We have only 73 people per square kilometre, compared with 279 in the UK. Four times the density means that public infrastructure might be as much as four times more effective. The more we build outwards, the worse our infrastructure will be and the more it will cost. Speaking of cost, a basic two-bedroom log cabin for a garden is estimated to run about €30,000–€42,000, making it an attractive solution for intergenerational living or as a 'starter' home for a young person on family land. Contrast this with the cost of a two-bed apartment in Ireland or a similar starter home on a new estate. This sort of microdevelopment needs to be part of an overall housing plan. It can't hurt. I understand many people will regard commandeering back gardens as a gimmick, putting people in a glorified shed or cabin rather than fixing the housing problem permanently. I get it. But anything that reduces pressure on the rental market must be considered for the short term. Having sons and daughters living in their own place beside their parents, or vice versa, might also have dramatic family positives (although it might also have the opposite effect in some cases). The aim is to reduce the acute pressure. Many younger people might love to live, for a while at least, in the place where they grew up, with a modicum of independence and their own front door. Why should the State, which has failed to provide proper housing, object to this stopgap? Last year Ireland built only 33,500 houses, a pathetic number. Even if we were to build 50,000 a year, which would be quite an achievement, we are a long way from bringing supply and demand into alignment. On the demand side, migration must be reduced if we are to have any hope of stabilising prices. On the supply side, a Dunkirk emergency strategy must be accepted, however unpalatable to some.
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
Apple needs to up its game to impress
What does Apple have to do to impress analysts? A lot more than it is currently doing, it seems. Despite delivering a healthy set of results for its third quarter, investors seem to be unimpressed. The iPhone maker reported revenue that rose almost 10 per cent to $94 billion (€81.4 billion), with strong sales of its smartphones and momentum in China. But that wasn't enough to convince analysts that the company is on the right track. The bump in device sales was being viewed in some quarters as a reaction to potential tariffs, with lingering worries over what Donald Trump's trade war will do to Apple's future prospects. Meanwhile, the tech giant seems to be slipping further and further behind its rivals when it comes to the buzziest technology of them all: artificial intelligence . READ MORE Just over a year after the company unveiled its plans for Apple Intelligence, the speculation that Apple has lost its edge and its innovation is still rife. The tech giant has been slow to roll out new features, adopting a cautious approach to the technology even as Google and Samsung plough ahead. One of the biggest blows was the news that Apple was delaying the AI-powered, smarter version of Siri that it had previously promised. [ Is it time for a new kind of CEO at Apple? Opens in new window ] Apple has a tough line to walk. It has built its reputation on protecting the privacy of its customers, and views any developments in this area through that lens. And that means evaluating the potential impact of every decision on consumer privacy. But on Friday morning the company's shares dipped lower, extending a negative run for Apple that has seen the company's shares lose almost 17 per cent in the year to date. In contrast, one-time rival Microsoft has gained 25 per cent since the start of 2025, and Google parent company Alphabet is largely flat. Apple may have a plan up its sleeve. Chief executive Tim Cook indicated that he was open to the possibility of a deal with AI companies to help advance the technology on its platform. But that may not be enough to keep investors happy.
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
How much do landlords in Ireland really earn? You might be surprised
How much do landlords in Ireland actually earn? To listen to the many lobbying groups who dominate the property sector in Ireland, the answer is not nearly enough to compensate for all the regulations and bureaucratic hurdles they face. This, it is argued, explains what is often characterised as the ' mass exodus ' from the private rental sector although the number of registered landlords has actually increased in recent years . More than 80 per cent of Irish landlords have one or two tenancies and, we're frequently told, are mostly ordinary people whose livelihoods depend on rental income. This narrative suggests landlords are mere, to use the international term, 'mom-and-pop' investors who are 'struggling' or 'earning pin money' (an argument used by short-term let lobbyists as well). Or they are 'accidental landlords', sometimes represented as almost victims of the housing crisis themselves. This is not borne out by the data. The reality internationally, as well as in Ireland, is that small landlords have higher household income and wealth levels. Here, data made available on request from the CSO's 2024 Survey on Income and Living Conditions shows that the gross household income of those with a rental income from a second property or rent-a-room is €133,800, or 85 per cent higher than households without a rental income, who earn €72,500. And their net income is 56 per cent higher. READ MORE Average income premium of households with rental income At the other end of the scale, Ireland's largest landlord, Ires Reit , averaged €21,768 rental income per annum from each of its 3,668 units in 2024. And it was able to shelter all this income from tax via a special company structure . The reason such narratives continue to be so pervasive is partly down to the effectiveness of several large lobbying groups that dominate the property sector in Ireland. Representing professional bodies, there's the Institute of Professional Auctioneers and Valuers and the Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland . Ireland's small landlords are represented by the Irish Property Owners' Association. Property Industry Ireland is part of Ibec . Irish Institutional Property represents large landlords and is run by a former secretary general of Fianna Fáil and senator, Pat Farrell . Influencing policy since 1935 is the Construction Industry Federation, which was recently in the headlines after a terrace it owned in Dublin 6 partly collapsed . It was run for many years run by a former Progressive Democrats minister, Tom Parlon. Banking and Payments Federation Ireland is run by a former Fine Gael minister, Brian Hayes, and Airbnb is represented by a former Labour TD, Derek Nolan. All the former politicians have unfettered entry to Leinster House, allowing what Róisin Shortall called ' undue access ' to Ministers and influential politicians. Other groups peddle policy ideas mostly imported from elsewhere. Progress Ireland, which recently proposed garden cabins without planning permission as housing, was reportedly offered a meeting with senior Government advisers less than 24 hours after sending an email to Micheál Martin 's office. There is an obvious irony here: lobbying bodies demand " policy certainty " and stability for their members, and yet it is their function to lobby for policy change. Certainty and stability for developers is coincidentally mentioned in 2021's Housing for All policy, after which the Government went on to make numerous industry-friendly changes, including restricting access to judicial review and introducing inferior apartment standards - changes for which the Minister for Housing James Browne can unfortunately provide no credible evidence . This is not a uniquely Irish phenomenon. As nations' economies globalise, so too has the reach of international property money and its lobbyists. In the private rented sector internationally, global investors were enticed back post 2008 by tax-free rental income and the promise of significant profits. As housing for sale and mortgage credit dried up, the private rented sector became the tenure of necessity and grew significantly. Calls for meaningful changes to the sector to allow for it to become a better option for tenants were and are strenuously resisted everywhere. What is interesting about resistance to change is the consistency of narratives across countries. Research from Sweden's Uppsala University show three main arguments appear repeatedly: the 'vulnerable landlord', the 'counterproductive effects' and the 'violation of property rights'. This is a lobbying playbook. We've seen how the vulnerable landlord argument works in Ireland. The counter-productive effects argument claims that pro-tenant measures ultimately harm tenants by disincentivising rental housing supply and maintenance. This claim works on the basis that there is perfect competition in the housing market and that all other factors remain equal, what economists call ceteris paribus . But there's little competition in housing markets due to the fact that the supply of market land is limited and also privately owned, and other factors such as demand and interest rates are always changing, so nothing remains equal. Property lobbyists and right-of-centre politicians argue that the problem of high rents can be solved by expanding the supply of private rental housing. The logic is that high rental prices stimulate new supply, which will eventually lower rents. This sounds very familiar. Even if you ignore the interim financial pain of rising rents for existing tenants, this argument is ropey. Whereas rising prices may make the construction of housing for sale or rent more attractive, rising prices also make waiting around, or hoarding, just as attractive (as does increasing the density of housing). Owners of valuable land, who are unsurprisingly keen to extract the most profit from it, will not necessarily crystallise their risk by commencing construction, and so will not necessarily supply housing any faster. There is currently permission granted for about 70,000 new houses and apartments nationally that are lying around not commenced. As land prices rise, a natural brake is applied to new housing supply. The third argument found internationally concerns the violation of property rights. Such absolutist views ignore the social function of property. This violation-of-rights argument was recently deployed by a landlord who illegally evicted a tenant, saying at the Residential Tenancies Board hearing that ' no external authority may dictate his housing decisions '. The RTB disagreed. No matter what measure is proposed – tenants' rights, changes to planning rules or regulations – the playbook of counter arguments is automatically mobilised. There is little detailed critiquing of individual proposals. Instead, we're offered off-the-shelf responses driven by ideology, entrenched beliefs, and profits. The real contest here is between the needs of the market and the needs of society. This permanent tension is going to arise when a Government's strategic approach - as is there case here - is to rely on the market for the supply of most of its housing, private and public. Dr Lorcan Sirr lectures in housing at Technological University Dublin
