Bottom Line: A case apart
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.SMITH & NEPHEW'S management could be forgiven for feeling it rather unfair that the City should have lumped its shares in with the drug groups when it came to assessing the damage done by the fires of healthcare reform.
Smith's business differs greatly from that of a typical drug company and, though it is not immune from reform, the impact will probably be very different from the effect on Glaxo or Wellcome.
For a start, Smith & Nephew has a product range of about 2,500 items, not one of which contributes more than about pounds 25m to its near pounds 1bn of sales.
Its margins are also half those of drug companies at about 16 per cent. The scope for margin erosion is correspondingly less.
More important still, the entry barriers for competitors are high. Smith's products are high-tech and require considerable selling expertise. Nor does it have the destocking problems that face many drug companies. Buy on any further sector weakness.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments