Eye on the Market podcast

Subscribe today and never miss an episode

Join Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy, as he explores a wide variety of investment topics, including the economy, policy and markets. Your subscription, using your preferred podcast provider, will feature new episodes with the release of each Eye on the Market publication.

Sick as a Dog

Good morning, everybody. This is Michael Cembalest with the August 2025 podcast. For the last couple of months, I’ve been working on a healthcare piece. Something that I thought I was never going to do because the sector is very broad and very complicated. But, I decided that it was important to do, given all the conflicting things going on.

And so, we've written a deep dive piece on the healthcare sector, its cheapness issues about and also issues about battles over publicly funded healthcare research and its implications for the sector. I'm going to go through a little bit of it here. But the broader piece goes through the details. And if you are interested in the healthcare sector, take a look.

So let’s dive into it. And the first couple of charts really explain the reason why I felt I had to look at this. For most of my career, and I joined J.P. Morgan in 1987, so I started the clock pretty close to that date, and from 1989 until 2019, I remembered healthcare as having this incredible run.

And you can see here in this first chart from 1989 to 2019, healthcare generated, almost like the identical term returns as the tech sector and with a lot less volatility. And so it was it was really seen as, as a parallel growth investment theme for most of my life. And then ever since 2019, technology, the tech sector has been barreling ahead and healthcare has more or less completely stagnated.

This is one of the biggest before and after shifts that I’ve ever seen at the sector level. And just to look at a couple of the pieces, large cap pharma P/E is right now on a forward basis are around 14. That sounds a little distressed, but when you think about the fact that Lilly is a third of the pharma index and trades at a multiple of 24, it kind of tells you what's going on.

The rest of the sector, Merck, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers and the other stalwarts are trading at that forward multiples of just 8 to 9 times earnings. Biotech trades at one of the largest valuation discounts in the entire market. 80% of biotech IPOs since 2018 have imploded. I'll define what imploded means later. Managed care returns have completely collapsed.

And then the life sciences companies may be hurt by cuts to the NIH and CDC and other scientific research organizations, a trend which we can already see based on the sharply reduced pace of NIH grants this year. So this healthcare piece looks at a lot of different pieces, not everything in the sector, because there’s too many widgets.

But we look at valuations and earnings. Both absolute and relative to the tech sector. We looked at prescription proposals to cut prescription drug prices in the U.S., closing the large gap versus other OECD countries. Issues around the patent, closed patent thickets and drug companies, war chests, pending tariffs on the pharmaceutical sector, which still haven't been announced.

Competition from China. A section, this is unavoidable, a section on the pace of drug approvals at the FDA, the bizarre things going on there, and the impact of RFK Jr.’s leadership. But Health and Human Services, we look at the managed care sector, whose returns, as I mentioned, have imploded, and headwinds coming from the Big Beautiful Bill and things like that.

We take another quick look at GLPs, more evidence of cardiovascular benefits and possible dementia benefits, but some obstacles on the path to greater adoption. We take a quick look at the healthcare services sector. We have some charts in here on biotech IPOs and just how miserable that space has been the last few years, and closed with some comments on new potential drug discoveries on the horizon.

As I mentioned, the section on the political battles over publicly funded science research and then some peer reviewed evidence on longevity drugs in mice. There’s some kind of shyster guru types out there talking a lot about longevity treatments. I'm going to focus instead on the actual peer reviewed science on the subject, so those are the topics. I'm going to talk about a few of them briefly in this podcast.

As I mentioned, you know, the piece gets into the details, if you’re interested, on valuations, right. This this chart reminds me of the one where Homer Simpson keeps falling down a hill, and then he hits a tree, and then he hits a bus. And then he hits the highway. And then he keeps falling.

So from 1976 to the end of last year, the healthcare P/Es relative to the market have just continuing, have just continued to stumble. Healthcare used to trade at 1.8 times the P/E of the market. Now it trades at just 0.65 or so. So a 30% discount to the market. And then we have this dashboard that we like to look at to see how industries are priced, where we plot return on equity on one axis and then price to book on another axis.

And it’s a way of seeing what sectors are key, expensive and fairly priced. And you can see from this chart that we put together, with the exception of medical devices, almost all of the healthcare industries, whether it’s biotech, pharma, healthcare providers or managed care, are trading at steep discounts to the overall market of all the other sectors and things like that, and industries. And then this is the killer. This looks at healthcare PE ratios versus the market since 1992. And again, with the exception of medical devices, the rest of the healthcare sector P/Es are trading at either close to the lows or at the lows of the valuations that they've seen over the last 35 years or so.

So this is this is a unique time for value investors to look at the space when things are this cheap. Sometimes all you need is a little bit of a catalyst. And combined with low valuations and there can be some interesting opportunities. But we have to look at that more closely. The again, another cut on just how much things have changed.

We have charts here. For the S&P 500 healthcare industries, their annualized returns for the period up until 2019, and then their annualized returns from 2019 until July of this year. And, without exception, every single industry has seen a sharp decline in its annualized returns. The same thing is true in the mid-cap space. In case anybody was wondering.

Obviously, there’s a lot of companies in the healthcare space that are not large cap. When we ran the analysis for mid-cap and small cap, we got the same thing. Massive performance gaps between for the pre 2019 period and the post 2019 period. Now you know there’s dispersion in every sector right. So medical devices is a good example.

And the returns on the sector kind of mask some very attractive large returns of a few companies and then some very negative returns or other. So you know, for stock pickers there are always opportunities here to outperform benchmarks and things like that. But as a whole, a lot of these sectors have struggled. And I thought this was it was also important to put this in the context of how technology has done.

So over the last few years. if you look at annualized earnings growth, the leaders have been obviously software, semiconductors and tech hardware and most of the healthcare sector earnings growth has been much lower, in particular, pharma and biotech, which have barely kept up with things like telecom equipment within the tech sector. So there’s a real have and have not picture here when you’re looking at recent earnings growth.

So it’s not just valuations. It’s also earnings growth where technology and healthcare have begun to separate. One of the big drivers of the concerns that people have is proposals to lower drug prices in the U.S. And there’s lots of different ways of measuring just how high U.S drug prices are versus other countries. And I love looking at these reports from Health and Human Services.

They’re pretty agnostic about this and do it a lot of different ways. And you can see here they do it for all drugs, brand names, generics different country weights but just biologics, just biosimilars, before and after rebate adjustments and things like that. It’s a pretty consistent story here. And even when you’re netting out all the, of the, of the rebates and things like that, U.S drug prices are in the neighborhood of two times higher than other OECD countries, and much higher when you’re looking at certain brand name drugs.

So that’s been the lot of focus of proposed legislation. We also have a giant table in here that looks at this by country. And it’s a pretty consistent story here, whether we're looking at the U.S. or Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, you know, and the U.K. But it’s really the brand name retail drugs where some of the multiples are just much higher in terms of U.S. prices versus overseas prices.

So until this year, most of the drug price proposals that were getting thrown around in policy circles and in legislative circles would have certainly taken a bite out of growth expectations. But they were up for the stocks, but they would only have reduced drug prices by anywhere from 0 to 3%. And some of them would have said, let’s add more drugs to the CMS Medicare, Medicaid negotiations.

Let's, make negotiated drug prices also available to commercial purchasers, require manufacturers to play to pay inflation rebates for sales in the commercial market. They were kind of tinkering on the margin. And I think over the last year or so, what's really spooked people is the discussion of a most favored nation policy that the Trump administration has mentioned to set drug prices for Medicaid and Medicare based on drug prices outside the U.S. In other words, you wouldn't be able to have a higher price than in some of these other most favored nations or some multiple of those prices.

And if that approach were adopted, drug prices could fall by 5 or 10%. And the people who look at this more closely, say that large cap pharma earnings could decline by 9 or 10%, you know, over the next few years if that happened. Some people are a little bit less concerned about this because they say that the drug price U.S. to other country multiples are not quite as high for the drugs that are covered by government channels when compared to the commercial ones.

And if this kind of policy were done at the agency level rather than through legislation, it would be challenged in court, just like the tariffs happen. Right. And it also might be limited in scope. So I think the truth is somewhere in between. I think the Trump administration is going to push harder on drug prices than them in previous administrations.

But I think a blanket most favored nation policy affecting the entire market is unlikely. That said, there are at least six bipartisan bills, designed to lower drug prices that are kind of floating around the Senate right now. And, you know, there are two things that unite people in the Senate. One is the need to ring fence China and have anti-China legislation, and the other one is to lower drug prices.

And so that’s reflected in the multiple for the sector. The other thing that’s floating around is the tariff issue and the tariff issue on pharmaceuticals is something, it’s important to understand what the driving factor is behind this for a variety of reasons. And based on all the publicly available information, the U.S. pharmaceutical sector, large cap pharma has really kind of contorted itself into a pretzel as it relates to the domicile of its profits and the domicile of its cells.

And so this is based on data from testimony from Brad Setser, who I know at the Council on Foreign Relations and, U.S. drug companies report massive amounts of domestic revenue and almost no domestic profit. And, on a smaller amount of foreign revenue and a pretty large amount of foreign profit. And what that translates into is, is a lot of tax paid offshore and very little tax or much less tax paid onshore, particularly when you strip out the annual payments that drug companies are making from the 2017, accumulated earnings tax.

That was part of that bill. So, but to be clear, it while this while citing drug company manufacturing for, for tax purposes offshore it’s something that a lot of sectors do. It got a lot of worse under Trump administration number one. And we know that because we can look at the pharma trade deficit, which over the course of around 15 years was, I don't know, 30, 40 billion.

And then with the passage of the TCJA tax bill in 2017 the pharma deficit exploded, implying that a lot more production was moved offshore. Why did this happen? That tax bill set a 10.5% minimum tax on global intangible income, a tax rate that was much lower than the tax rates those companies would have based on onshore.

And so for all the obvious reasons, the former deficit exploded. And so it’s kind of weird to see the Trump people trying to solve this problem through tariffs, when they could simply instead have adopted a higher minimum tax on global intangible income in the recent tax bill, which would have been a lot cleaner way to do it, you know, anyway, that said, we're waiting for the outcome of the section 232, tariff investigations.

And, they, you know, the former secretary will face the other the same decision other sectors face, which is do they pass those price increases on to consumers or do they eat to in terms of lower margins? Neither one, neither one is a great selling point for the sector right now. And then to make matters more interesting, you have the patent cliff.

Now, there’s always a patent live in in the large cap pharma sector, which refers to when patents expire. And, but there happens to be, some fairly large patents that that expire over the next five, ten years, and with anywhere from 15 to $30 billion of revenue annually associated with those drugs. For the companies that we show here, whether it’s Merck or IBD or Novo or JNJ or Lilly.

So, you know, there are there are there are legitimate questions people are asking about how those revenue streams are going to be replenished. I would argue that by the time a large cap pharma company is trading at a multiple of eight times earnings, you’re being compensated for that kind of risk. But that’s an issue. And then the a lot of those same companies have very large war chests of cash and cash equivalents that they have built up for purposes of replenishing those revenue streams.

Obviously, some of those, they're going to be doing their own internal R&D, but they've earmarked a lot of capital for acquisitions. And so I, I do think that, that, you know, by the time you can buy some of these companies at eight times earnings, it’s interesting when you think about the, the magnitude of acquisitions that they might be able to make to replenish them.

In the piece, we also walk through what's called a patent thicket. And, I don't want to get into too much detail, but I do think it’s important because it’s another regulatory risk that’s kind of floating out there. Most lay people think of patents as, you know, your file, your patent, you have your patent, the patent expires.

Generics come in, but it in reality, whether it’s for biologics or small molecule drugs, companies file patents and then after they get them and after the drug is being commercially sold, they file for more patents. And the patent can be on things other than just the active ingredient. They can be on formulation, method of use, and a variety of creative ways that companies have figured out to file for new patents.

And so essentially the generics and things like that can't really compete on scale with these drugs until they go off all the patents, not whether they go off the initial patents. And there have been some ideas floated over the last couple of administrations in both parties to change the nature of these patent thickets so as not to represent some kind of abuse of the whole patent system.

We have a chart in here. For example, these are the four highest selling small molecule drugs in the U.S. for HIV, stroke, cancer and myeloma. And once you take into account the patents that were filed after FDA approval, the companies have dramatically pushed out the period of patent protection. And that that could change. Okay, so I mentioned that there was no way to avoid this.

So, and I'm not going to mention everything that we've written. So sometimes I, I write more pointed things than I say, on these podcasts. But that has to do with what's going on at the FDA and RFK Jr and Health and Human Services, the biotech. And why does this matter for investors? The biotech sectors R&D, as a share of its market capitalization has grown a lot faster than the rest of the market.

And we have a chart in here that shows that, accumulated R&D, the market cap of biotech relative to the S&P, this number has gone up from, from almost no premium in 2015 to 25% premium. That there’s a lot of money in drug development that’s at risk to changes in how the FDA functions. And so far it’s early yet.

But so far, the pace of drug approvals has declined. When you look back over the last few years, the Trump administration says they're going to speed things up. They're going to simplify things. They're going to use AI to fix the approval process, whatever that is. They say, you know, whatever they're saying, I'll believe it when I see it.

Instead, investors who are focused on FDA issues have to have had to deal with all a lot of noise and uncertainty. Okay, so reports of unorthodox and unexplained interventions by the head of the FDA and his deputies and the drug approval processes. And there’s a few examples we discussed in the piece. The massive departure of senior FDA officials with decades of experience, at the center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation Research, the Office of New Drugs and Gene Therapy, 19% DOGE cuts to the FDA workforce.

They have brought back. We’ll see how long it lasts. They've brought back the head of one of these agencies. We’ll see what happens. RFK Jr. fired all 17 members of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. And then in a step that really kind of spooked a lot of people in the healthcare research industry, RFK announced last week that, BARDA will terminate all 22 contracts it has with university researchers and private companies to develop new uses for mRNA technology and some fairly tepid people who are normally very balanced in what they say, had some very sharp commentary. You know, Michael Osterholm at the center for Infectious Disease Research at the University of Minnesota, this may be the most dangerous public policy public health judgment that he's seen in 50 years. Its basis will pay huge price. Rick Bright, who ran BARDA during Trump's first term. It’s irresponsible. We're taking our country's in 2025 back to 1940, Jerome Adams, who was the surgeon general under Trump's first term, said something like, a lot of people are going to die from this.

I'm just sharing with you the reactions to this. And so there are a lot of questions about RFK leadership that are weighing on multiples in multiple places within the healthcare space. And understandably. And then in the piece, I also have a section with some personal reflections on what's going on with RFK, what he said over time, and the MMR vaccine paces of vaccination in the United States, and the risk around active and inactivated vaccine.

So you can take a look at that. Another train wreck to hit the healthcare sector, as if they didn't need anymore. is the collapse in managed care returns. Managed care is basically, it’s in the large cap space, five large healthcare insurance companies, including United Healthcare Molina and companies like that. And the sector returns have imploded since the middle of 2024 or down by roughly half.

Right. These are some pretty catastrophic returns. The this decline doesn't appear to be based on lower earnings, at least so far. So when you look at trailing EPS trends for the sector, you'd be confused. Like what's going on? Why is this happening? But when you look at forward earnings projections that pick up some of the guidance comments, that’s where you can see, why the market's so concerned.

And one example is the impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on this sector. In July, Centene, one of the five large cap names, cut its guidance from $7.25 a share to $1.75 a share, driven by lower market growth in in most of the states where they operate, particularly as it relates to its ACA exchange business. One way to visualize what's going on here is a chart showing the projected increase in the number of people uninsured by cause and, KFF.

You know, which used to be called the Kaiser Foundation, which is now just call KFF. They're the ones that do the work on this, and they're estimating 16 million people by 2034, as a result of spending cuts to Medicaid, which is of around 14%, and then some changes in tax credits for the, for the ACA.

So their four categories are people of people losing their insurance: Changes to ACA proposed rules, the expiration of the ACA enhanced premium tax credits, the ACA changes in the reconciliation bill and then the Medicaid cuts. And so for companies in the managed care space that insure a lot of these people, their earnings guidance is being slashed.

So that’s what's going on there. Okay. I said it we're not going to cover everything. Let me just cover a few more things. I know people have things to do. So for GLPs there’s good news and bad news. The good news is there’s more evidence that these things are effective in in addressing conditions unrelated to weight loss.

And there was a study of 1.7 million diabetes patients, people that were recently diagnosed with diabetes. And what they examined was their dementia risk based on which diabetes treatment they got. And, because a lot of these people were older and the rate at which people developed diabetes, I'm sorry, the rate at which people developed dementia, I hope I'm not getting it.

It was 2% for people treated with insulin and half that rate for people being treated with glucose. And so and the strongest impact was seen on vascular dementia. And there may be a connection there because of semaglutide’s association with reduced vascular inflammation. So that’s good news. Second, continued good news on GLP impacts on cardiovascular events. And this is from about a little over a year ago.

We have a chart here showing all of the of the different outcomes, on a controlled trial versus a placebo of cardiovascular things, whether it’s drugs or heart attacks, anginas, hospitalizations and things like that. Around a 20% decline, from semaglutide on some of these outcomes. So that’s good. The bad news is that a couple of recent studies, one directly from Lilly and another one from a paper in the Journal of Merck Medicine, are showing very high discontinuation rates, of people taking these drugs and then some limited effectiveness as it relates to weight loss. And so Lilly's stock, got clocked last week by around 15% after they announced their oral GLP results. And so just to simplify this whole thing, the injected version of the semaglutide has a given level of, of weight loss and then discontinuation from adverse events. And I think everybody always knew that the pill version might not be as good as the injected version, but the pill version was kind of critical to the outlook for Lilly and some of the other stocks, because there’s a broader universe of people that would be willing to take the pill than to inject themselves.

But the weight loss numbers from the Lilly study that they announced last week was only like 8 to 12% over 18 months. And so, you know, that’s a modest amount of weight loss and lower than the injectable version, particularly when almost a third of all the participants had to deal with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation and things like that.

So, that was not a great outcome in terms of those phase three trials. One of the things we’ll have to watch is CMS, you know, which is the center that that oversees Medicaid and Medicare is talking about, you know, what's going to happen, talking about a trial program to cover these drugs, which currently, for the most part, they don't do.

And if they if it’s approved, this experiment would start in April of next year, for Medicaid and in January 27th for Medicare. And, it would cost 35 to $50 billion. Which used to be a lot of money, but in the context of the Trump deficits is just another drop in the bucket. And so, we’ll see.

That would be a welcome boost for the sector if Medicare and Medicaid covered these drugs. But, you know, it’s early stage and these those experiments, this this kind of treatment experiment is still being debated. Let’s see, on biotech IPOs, I’ve mentioned that they've been harder to find than a needle in a haystack. I think this table that we have in the piece should be taught in every high school stats class so that people understand the difference between mean and median.

So let me give you an example. In 2022, there were 22 biotech IPOs. The average return on those 22 IPOs was 13%. The median return was -68%. In other words, you know, you have a population that skewed to a few winners and a lot of big losers. And similarly in 2023 or here's another one, how about 2019, 47 biotech IPOs average return 41%.

Positive median return 86% negative. So in other words, most of the IPOs implode and go to zero. And then there’s a handful of winners. And so this is a tough space for investors. Since 2018, half of all IPOs in the biotech space have lost 80% plus of their value and only 20% of positive returns. So that is tough.

And we did some analysis using three different biotech IPO universes, one from biopharma, one from Bloomberg and one from our capital markets colleagues. They got the same results, with each universe, which you can see in the piece. Okay, so wrapping up, there are some interesting drug discoveries on the horizon, right, these things are kind of technical.

I'm just learning about them. But bispecific antibodies to revolutionize cancer care. New treatments for neuro psychic conditions, antibody products that may slow progression of Alzheimer's, certain new gene editing formats unrelated to CRISPR, and then longevity, which we which I'll talk about very briefly and which we cover in the appendix. There’s also a lot of work to be done on cancers, most of which are still not curable.

Debilitating autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular disease, lots of genetic diseases and high mortality rates. So there’s still a lot of people to cure in the healthcare space. The problem is the country, the United States is running out of money to do it. And there’s two ways of looking at this. You can either look at total national health expenditures to GDP or personal consumption health expenditures to GDP.

Those numbers were consistently rising during that heyday of healthcare performance and were consistently rising, as you can see here, from 1976 to around 2010. Ever since then, these expenditure levels have more or less flatlined, with the exception of the bump during Covid. So, you know, the country may have reached a peak of what it can afford to spend as a share of GDP on healthcare stuff, which means that new treatments and new ideas are substitution effects for existing drugs rather than being additive.

And when you look at life expectancy versus annual health expenditures per capita, it’s another reason to be concerned that the U.S. isn't really getting as much of a return on its money when compared to other countries, which have higher life span, life expectancy, and lower health expenditures. And for those of you that follow the on the market have seen this chart before.

What does the federal government spend money on? And you look at this ratio of entitlement spending dwarfing non-defense discretionary spending, where the latter is really key to future productivity growth and jobs and national security. I think there’s an there’s an informal national referendum going on to narrow this gap rather than to increase it. And if that’s the case, there are going to be limitations on how much the country can afford to be spending on healthcare and expansions of entitlement spending related to Medicaid, Medicare.

Okay. So, the sector is trading at some of the lowest valuations in many years. There’s probably an M&A wave coming. Low prices solve a lot of problems. But, you know, if the country is serious about reforming drug pricing through some kind of most favored nation approach, it may take some time for the sector to demonstrate that it deserves higher multiples.

And it’s getting today. I think the sector is definitely worth a look for long term value investors, that have patience. So. Last couple of things, we have an appendix on the battles over publicly funded U.S. scientific research. And I have to admit, I was kind of spooked when I saw there’s this American Association for the Advancement of Science, and they were talking about projected cuts, anywhere from 27 to 60% of the budgets of the NIH, the National Science Foundation and NASA.

But the political process is complicated. The White House can't unilaterally decide how much those agencies get funded. Right? Appropriations belong to Congress. So as a general principle, Congress decides the amount of funding for these entities. And while the White House might submit something called a rescissions package, which is to claw back money from the NIH, I think it’s very unlikely to pass both chambers.

And in the short term, Congress is likely to pass a continuing resolution which maintains funding at levels roughly similar to prior years. Government shutdown may happen first, but a continuing resolution would not slash the budgets of these organizations. Then, if an appropriations bill ever gets passed and it’s unclear that one will be, it can't be passed via reconciliation, which is the way that so many bills been passed over the last couple that over the last ten years, a regular appropriations bill is going to require 60 votes in the Senate.

And gutting the NIH and the National Science Foundation is likely to be a nonstarter for the for the Democratic votes needed to pass an appropriations bill. And as a sign that the Senate views the NIH issue very differently from the president, the Appropriations Committee, which the GOP runs, approved a budget for HHS, that had flat year on year funding by a vote of like 26 to 3.

So even there’s a there’s a lot of distance between the White House and the GOP in the Senate on these kinds of issues. That said, we're already seeing the negative impact of the Trump policies on the NIH, and we have a chart here showing the decline in new and competitive renewal grant funding, compared to prior years. And this is already hurting, the sector.

And it does raise some questions about whether or not the U.S. will be able to maintain the leadership position it has in science and technology innovation. Right now, the United States is at the top. And compared to all other countries, even all the European countries. But we’ll see whether or not that changes. And last, I, I’ve been at some conferences with longevity gurus.

I typically step out during those parts of the presentation because I’ve had my share of wackos. I am interested in peer reviewed studies about certain drugs. There have been a couple that we discuss in the second appendix. One of them looks at the life expectancy of mice that are taking certain longevity drugs. Let’s feel like in a botched this traumatic to oh, gosh, traumatic to I'm going to give up and rapamycin.

And then the second one was I spoke to some scientists just last week that are working on these TERT activators that slow down some of the cellular aging. And so both of those studies actually showed reasonably decent results to either stall or reverse aging processes in mice. That said, mice are very different from people. And there have been a lot of failed trial going from preclinical to phase three because the animal models didn't work, which is another topic that we discussed.

And I’d say anyway, take a look. Thank you for listening to this long healthcare rant. It’s probably the last time I'm going to talk about this sector, because this was very aggravating to do. And we will be back to you in early September looking at labor markets and other signs of a potential economic slowdown. Thank you very much.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, JP Morgan, Eye on the Market. August 2025, Sick as a Dog: The cheapness of US healthcare stocks, and the battle over publicly funded science research. An image of a St. Bernard wearing a red cross cape and barrel around his neck, an ice pack on his head, and a thermometer in his mouth.

(SPEECH)

Good morning, everybody. This is Michael Cembalest with the August 2025 podcast.

(DESCRIPTION)

Michael sits in an office beside a JP Morgan sign.

(SPEECH)

For the last couple of months, I've been working on a health care piece, something that I thought I was never going to do because the sector is very broad and very complicated. But I decided that it was important to do given all the conflicting things going on.

And so we've written a deep dive piece on the health care sector, its cheapness, and also issues about battles over publicly funded health care and its implications for the sector. I'm going to go through a little bit of it here, but the broader piece goes through the details. And if you're interested in the health care sector, take a look.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Healthcare: Sick as a Dog. S&P 500 healthcare vs technology, 1989-2019. Total return index (100 equals September 1989). A line graph with x-axis 1989 to 2019 and y-axis 0 to 3,500, with a tan line labeled healthcare and a blue line labeled technology. Both lines start at 0 and 1989. Technology has a spike around 2000, then drops and slowly rises. Healthcare is jagged but mostly rising steadily, with a larger increase around 2012. Text, Source: Bloombery, JP MAM, July 2025.

(SPEECH)

So let's dive into it. And the first couple of charts really explain the reason why I felt I had to look at this. For most of my career-- and I joined JP Morgan in 1987, so I started the clock pretty close to that date.

And from 1989 until 2019, I remembered health care as having this incredible run. And you can see here in this first chart from 1989 to 2019, health care generated almost the identical returns as the tech sector, and with a lot less volatility. And so it was really seen as a parallel growth investment theme for most of my life.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, S&P 500 healthcare vs technology, 2019-2025, total return index 100 equals December 2019. The tan Healthcare line and blue Technology lines both start around 100, 2020. The jagged Healthcare line rises to about 150 near 2025, the jagged technology line rises around 2022 and dips, then rises again to about 350 in 2025. Text, Source: Bloombery, JP MAM, July 2025.

Text, Large cap pharma forward P slash E of 14 times doesn't sound that distressed, but Lilly is 35% of the S&P pharma index and trades at a forward multiple of 24 times, down from 31 times in July 2025 before LLY reported disappointing results from its oral GLP phase 3 trials. Remaining pharma stalwarts like Merck, Pfizer and Bristol Myers trade at forward P slash E ratios of just 8 to 9 times; and life sciences companies may be hurt by cuts to the NIH, NSF, CDC and other scientific research organizations, a trend which is already visible in the form of sharply reduced NIH grants through July of this year.

(SPEECH)

And then, ever since 2019, technology, the tech sector has been barreling ahead, and health care has more or less completely stagnated. This is one of the biggest before-and-after shifts that I've ever seen at the sector level.

And just to look at a couple of the pieces, large cap pharma P/E is right now on a forward basis of around 14. That sounds a little distressed, but when you think about the fact that Lilly is a third of the pharma index and trades at a multiple of 24, it kind of tells you what's going on.

The rest of the sector-- Merck, Pfizer, Bristol Myers, and the other stalwarts are trading at forward multiples of just 8 to 9 times earnings. Biotech trades at one of the largest valuation discounts in the entire market. 80% of biotech IPOs since 2018 have imploded. I'll define what "imploded" means later.

Managed care returns have completely collapsed, and then the life sciences companies may be hurt by cuts to the NIH and CDC and other scientific research organizations, a trend which we can already see based on the sharply reduced pace of NIH grants this year.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Table of Contents. On valuation, how far healthcare has fallen, 3. Healthcare market returns and earnings growth, 4. Proposals to lower prescription drug prices in the US, closing the large gap vs other OECD countries, 5. The patent cliff, patent thicketsand drug company war chests, 6. Pending US tariffs on pharmaceutical imports, 7. Small but growing, drug development competition from China, 9. The pace of drug approvals, the FDA and RFK Jr at HHS, 10. Managed care "Big Beautiful Bill" headwinds, AI algorithms and the pace of denied claims, 12. GLPS, cardiovascular benefits, possible dementia benefits and the path to greater adoption, 15. Healthcare services, drug prices and the negligible impact on Pharmacy Benefit Managers, 17. Biotech IPOs, since 2018, harder than finding a needle in a haystack, 18. New drug discoveries on the horizon, US healthcare spending and conclusions for investors, 19. Appendix 1, the political battles over publicly funded US scientific research, 20. Appendix 2, peer-reviewed evidence on longevity drugs in mice, 25.

(SPEECH)

So this health care piece looks at a lot of different pieces, not everything in the sector, because there's too many widgets. But we look at valuations and earnings, both absolute and relative to the tech sector. We looked at proposals to cut prescription drug prices in the US, closing the large gap versus other OECD countries, issues around the patent cliff, patent thickets and drug company war chests, pending tariffs on the pharmaceutical sector, which still haven't been announced, competition from China, a section-- this is unavoidable-- a section on the pace of drug approvals at the FDA, the bizarre things going on there, and the impact of RFK Jr.'s leadership at Health and Human Services.

We look at the managed care sector, whose returns, as I mentioned, have imploded, and the headwinds coming from the big beautiful bill and things like that. We take another quick look at GLPs, more evidence of cardiovascular benefits and possible dementia benefits, but some obstacles on the path to greater adoption.

We take a quick look at the health care services sector. We have some charts in here on biotech IPOs and just how miserable that space has been for the last few years and closed with some comments on new potential drug discoveries on the horizon, as I mentioned, the section on the political battles over publicly funded science research, and then some peer-reviewed evidence on longevity drugs in mice.

There's some kind of shyster guru types out there talking a lot about longevity treatments. I'm going to focus instead on the actual peer-reviewed science on the subject. So those are the topics.

I'm going to talk about a few of them briefly in this podcast. As I mentioned, the piece gets into the details if you're interested.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, On valuations, how far healthcare has fallen. Large cap pharma stock valuations, forward P slash E relative to the 750 largest stocks by market cap. A chart with 1976-2025 on the x-axis and 0.5 to 2.0 on the y-axis, with a horizontal dotted line at 1.0. The jagged line starts at 1.7, drops at 1992, back up to 1.8 near 1998, then slowly drops again. A dot at 2026 E with text, assuming US drug prices are 10% lower than baseline, and a dot at 2031 E with text, based on current drug price expectations.

(SPEECH)

On valuations, this chart reminds me one where Homer Simpson keeps falling down a hill, and then he hits a tree, and then he hits a bus, and then he hits the highway, and then he keeps falling.

So from 1976 to the end of last year, the health care P/Es relative to the market have just continued to stumble. Health care used to trade at 1.8 times the P/E of the market. Now it trades at just 0.65 or so, so a 30% discount to the market.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, S&P 500 valuations vs return on equity, consensus forward 12 month price to book ratio. A graph with 10 to 45% on the x-axis and 1x to 11x on the y-axis, with a dotted line starting at the origin and rising steadily. Text, Expensive vs market. On the left of the line, from top to bottom, are utilities, materials, life sciences, medical devices, autos, industrials, aerospace, retailing, software, semis, info tech. On the right side, top to bottom, Banks, managed care, energy, airlines, financials, HC providers, real estate, All healthcare, comms, media and entertainment, pharma, cons staples, and biotech. Text, Consensus forward 12 month return on equity, Source Factset JP MAM, July 29, 2025.

(SPEECH)

And then we have this dashboard that we like to look at to see how industries are priced, where we plot return on equity on one axis and then price to book on another axis. And it's a way of seeing what sectors are cheap, expensive, and fairly priced.

And you can see from this chart that we put together, with the exception of medical devices, almost all of the health industries, whether it's biotech, pharma, health care providers, or managed care, are trading at steep discounts to the overall market of all the other sectors and things like that in industries.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Healthcare P slash E ratios vs the market since 1992, relative forward P slash E ratio vs S&P 500. A bar graph with 0.4x to 2.8x on the y-axis and a horizontal line at 1.0. Blue bars are range and red dot is current. On the x-axis is pharma, biotech, medical devices, HC providers, managed care, life sciences, all healthcare. All are roughly between 0.6 and 1.8, except biotech is 0.6 to 2.8. Text, Source, Bloomberg, JP MAM, July 29, 2025, Life sciences since 2005.

(SPEECH)

And then this is the killer. This looks at health care P/E ratios versus the market since 1992. And, again, with the exception of medical devices, the rest of the health sector P/Es are trading at either close to the lows or at the lows of the valuations that they've seen over the last 35 years or so.

So this is a unique time for value investors to look at the space. When things are this cheap, sometimes all you need is a little bit of a catalyst combined with low valuations, and there can be some interesting opportunities. But we have to look at that real closely.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Market returns and earnings growth, S&P 500 healthcare returns, annualized return, percent. A bar graph with the same x-axis and negative 5% to 20% on the y-axis, with a blue bar for April 1994 to December 2019 and a red bar for December 2019 to July 2025. The blue bar is higher than all red bars. Text, Source, Bloomberg, JP MAM, July 29, 2025,

(SPEECH)

Again, another cut on just how much things have changed-- we have charts here for the S&P 500 health care industries, their annualized returns for the period up until 2019, and then their annualized returns from 2019 until July of this year.

(DESCRIPTION)

Next slide text, S&P 400, mid-cap, healthcare returns, annualized return, percent. The blue bars are December 1994 to December 2019 and red bars are December 2019 to July 2025. All blue bars are much higher than the red bars. Text, Source, Bloomberg, JP MAM, July 2025.

(SPEECH)

And without exception, every single industry has seen a sharp decline in its annualized returns.

The same thing is true in the mid-cap space, in case anybody was wondering. Obviously, there's a lot of companies in the health care space that are not large-cap. When we ran the analysis for mid-cap and small-cap, we got the same thing-- massive performance gaps between the pre-2019 period and the post-2019 period.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Dispersion, medical device annualized returns since July 2020. A bar graph with negative 30% to 30% on the x-axis. From top to bottom, with lines going from 23% to negative, text, Boston Scientific Corp, Intuitive Surgical Inc, Stryker Corp, Abbott Laboratories, S&P 500 Medical Devices Index, Medtronic Plc, Edwards Lifesciences Corp, Dexcom Inc, Becton Dickinson And Co, Zimmer Biomet Holdings Inc, Baxter International Inc. Text, Source, Bloomberg, JP MAM, August 3, 2025,

(SPEECH)

Now, there's dispersion in every sector, right? So medical devices is a good example. And the returns on the sector kind of mask some very attractive large returns of a few companies and then some very negative returns for others. So for stock pickers, there are always opportunities here to outperform benchmarks and things like that.

But as a whole, a lot of these sectors have struggled. And I thought it was also important to put this in the context of how technology has done. So over the last few years, if you look at annualized earnings growth, the leaders have been obviously software, semiconductors, and tech hardware.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Market returns and earnings growth, technology and healthcare annualized earnings growth, 2017-2025, percent. A graph with negative 6% to 21% on the y-axis. From left to right, from 20% to negative 6%, the bars read software, semiconductors, tech sector, tech hardware, managed care, life sciences, electronic equipment, IT services, HC providers, S&P 500, medical devices, all healthcare, pharma, telecom equipment, biotech. Text, Source, Bloomberg, JP MAM, Q2 2025,

(SPEECH)

And most of the health care sector earnings growth has been much lower, in particular pharma and biotech, which have barely kept up with things like telecom equipment within the tech sector. So there's a real have-and-have-not picture here when you're looking at recent earnings growth. So it's not just valuations. It's also earnings growth where technology and health care have begun to separate.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Proposals to lower drug prices in the US, US drug prices as a % of select OECD country prices. a bar graph from 0 to 500% on the x-axis and, from top to bottom on the y-axis, all drugs at 278%, brand-name originators at 422%, unbranded generics at 67%, generics including branded at 100%, active ingredient level at 320%, retail factor adjustment at 271%, other country weights at 456%, blended weights at 357%, biologics at 359%, biosimilars at 226%, biologics with US biosimilar, ingredient at 329%, nonbiologics 226%, all-drug US net price adjustment at 173%, retail brand US net price adjustment at 213%, net prices, retail brands only at 308%. The first is main results, next three are brand slash generic categories, next four are robustness checks, next five are biologics categories, and last three are net price adjustments. Text, source: HHS, February 2024.

(SPEECH)

One of the big drivers of the concerns that people have is proposals to lower drug prices in the US. And there's lots of different ways of measuring just how high US drug prices are versus other countries. And I love looking at these reports from Health and Human Services. They're pretty agnostic about this and do it a lot of different ways.

And you can see here they do it for all drugs-- brand names, generics, different country weights, just biologics, just biosimilars, before and after rebate adjustments and things like that. It's a pretty consistent story here.

And even when you're netting out all of the rebates and things like that, US drug prices are in the neighborhood of two times higher than other OECD countries, and much higher when you're looking at certain brand-name drugs. So that's been the lot of focus of proposed legislation.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Proposals to lower drug prices in the US, US drug prices vs select OECD counterparts, US drug price divided by OECD country price, with 100% equals parity. The categories of drugs are in the columns and countries are in the rows, with percentages in the cells. Text, source, International Prescription Drug Price Comparisons, assistant secretary for planning and evaluation, HHS, February 2024. Notes, The first three columns are presentation-level analyses in which active ingredients, dosage and strength match international counterparts. Active ingredient level results shown in the fourth column are higher since the US uses a more expensive mix of specific presentations and products within an active ingredient. Biosimilars refer to biological products similar to FDA-approved reference products, while biologics are medications derived from living sources.

(SPEECH)

We also have a giant table in here that looks at this by country. And it's a pretty consistent story here, whether we were looking at the US versus Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK. It's really the brand-name retail drugs where some of the multiples are just much higher in terms of US prices versus overseas prices.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Proposals to lower drug prices in the US. Until 2025, most drug price proposals would only reduce drug prices by 0-3%. Such proposals included adding more drugs to CMS Medicare slash Medicaid negotiations; making negotiated drug prices available to all commercial purchasers; requiring manufacturers to pay inflation rebates for sales in the commercial market; allowing commercial imports of prescription drugs outside the US; facilitating earlier market entry for generics and biosimilars; and requiring public reporting of net prices for brand name drugs. But now there's discussion of a Most Favored Nation policy to set drug prices covered by government programs like Medicare slash Medicaid based on drug prices outside the US. If this approach were adopted, drug prices could decline by 5 to 10% and US large cap pharma earnings could decline by 9% by 2031. Some healthcare analysts are less concerned about MFN risks, citing lower US vs non-US price ratios for drugs covered by government channels vs commercial channels. And to be clear, a government agency MFN edict (rather than a legislative one) would be challenged in court as tariffs have been, and would likely be limited in scope with respect to reimbursement channels, geography and impacted drugs. That said, pressure is building; there are at least six bipartisan bills designed to lower drug prices.

(SPEECH)

And some of them would have said, let's add more drugs to the CMS, Medicare, Medicaid negotiations. Let's make negotiated drug prices also available to commercial purchasers, require manufacturers to play to pay inflation rebates for sales in the commercial market. They were kind of tinkering on the margin.

And I think over the last year or so, what's really spooked people is the discussion of a Most Favored Nation policy that the Trump administration has mentioned to set drug prices for Medicaid and Medicare based on drug prices outside the US. In other words, you wouldn't be able to have a higher price than in some of these other most favored nations or some multiple of those prices.

And if that approach were adopted, drug prices could fall by 5% or 10%. And the people who look at this more closely say that large-cap pharma earnings could decline by 9% or 10% over the next few years if that happened.

Some people are a little bit less concerned about this because they say that the drug price US-to-other-country multiples are not quite as high for the drugs that are covered by government channels when compared to the commercial ones. And if this kind of policy were done at the agency level rather than through legislation, it would be challenged in court, just like the tariffs have been. And it also might be limited in scope.

So I think the truth is somewhere in between. I think the Trump administration is going to push harder on drug prices than in previous administrations. But I think a blanket Most Favored Nation policy affecting the entire market is unlikely.

That said, there are at least six bipartisan bills designed to lower drug prices that are kind of floating around the Senate right now. And there are two things that unite people in the Senate. One is the need to ring-fence China and have anti-China legislation, and the other one is to lower drug prices. And so that's reflected in the multiples for the sector.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, pending tariffs on US pharma imports, large cap pharma profits and revenues by region, 2022. A bar graph with text, universe, Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myers, J&J, Merck, Pfizer. 0 to $250 on the y-axis and from left to right domestic profit (10), domestic revenue (225), foreign profit (90), foreign revenue (160) on the x-axis. Text, Source, Brad Setser, council on foreign relations, 2022.

(SPEECH)

The other thing that's floating around is the tariff issue. And the tariff issue on pharmaceuticals is something-- it's important to understand what the driving factor is behind this. For a variety of reasons, and based on all the publicly available information, the US pharmaceutical sector, large-cap pharma, has really kind of contorted itself into a pretzel as it relates to the domicile of its profits and the domicile of its sales.

And so this is based on data from testimony from Brad Setser, who I know, at the Council on Foreign Relations. And US drug companies report massive amounts of domestic revenue and almost no domestic profit, and a smaller amount of foreign revenue and a pretty large amount of foreign profit.

And what that translates into is a lot of tax paid offshore and very little tax or much less tax paid onshore, particularly when you strip out the annual payments that drug companies are making from the 2017 accumulated earnings tax that was part of that bill.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Pending tariffs on US pharma imports, US pharma trade deficit, US $ billions, trailing 12 months. A line graph with 2002 to 2024 on the x-axis and negative $160 to negative $20 on the y-axis. The line goes from the top left corner and falls by 2024. Text, TCJA. To be clear, the US pharma trade deficit shown below is of Trump's own making. The deficit averaged negative $30 billion from 2002 to 2015 but after the 2017 tax bill set a 10.5% minimum tax on global intangible income, US pharma companies moved production offshore and the pharma deficit ballooned to $140 billion. Source, Brad Setser, Council of Foreign Relations, March 14 2025.

(SPEECH)

But to be clear, it, while citing drug company manufacturing for tax purposes offshore is something that a lot of sectors do, it got a lot worse under Trump administration number one. And that because we can look at the pharma trade deficit, which, over the course of around 15 years, was, I don't know, $30, $40 billion.

And then, with the passage of the TCJA tax bill in 2017, the pharma deficit exploded, implying that a lot more production was being moved offshore. Why did this happen? That tax bill set a 10 and 1/2% minimum tax on global intangible income, a tax rate that was much lower than the tax rates those companies would have faced onshore.

And so for all the obvious reasons, the pharma deficit exploded. And so it's kind of weird to see the Trump people trying to solve this problem through tariffs when they could simply instead have adopted a higher minimum tax on global intangible income in the recent tax bill, which would have been a lot cleaner way to do it.

Anyway, that said, we're waiting for the outcome of the Section 232 tariff investigations. And the pharma sector will face the other-- the same decision other sectors face, which is, do they pass those price increases onto consumers or do they eat them in terms of lower margins? Neither one's a great selling point for the sector right now.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, The patent cliff, patent thickets and drug company war chests. Sales and patent expiry years for top selling drugs, 2024, US $ billions. 0 to $30 on the x-axis. On the Y axis, top to bottom, Merck, AbbVie, Noro Nord, J&J, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bristol Myers, Regen slash Sanofi, Gilead, Vertex. The bars start all the way across and reduce as they go down. Text, source, JP MAM Equity research, evaluate pharma 2024.

(SPEECH)

And then, to make matters more interesting, you have the patent cliff. Now, there's always a patent cliff in the large-cap pharma sector, which refers to when patents expire. But there happens to be some fairly large patents that expire over the next 5, 10 years, and with anywhere from $15 to $30 billion of revenue annually associated with those drugs for the companies that we show here, whether it's Merck or AbbVie or Novo or J&J or Lilly.

So there are legitimate questions people are asking about how those revenue streams are going to be replenished. I would argue that by the time a large-cap pharma company is trading at a multiple of eight times earnings, you're being compensated for that kind of risk. But that's an issue.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, 2025 year end acquisition capacity by pharma company, US $, billions. 0 to $80 on the y-axis, with the same companies on the x-axis, with the first bar at the top and then going down.

(SPEECH)

And then a lot of those same companies have very large war chests of cash and cash equivalents that they have built up for purposes of replenishing those revenue streams. Obviously, some of-- they're going to be doing their own internal R&D, but they've earmarked a lot of capital for acquisitions.

And so I do think that by the time you can buy some of these companies at eight times earnings, it's interesting when you think about the magnitude of acquisitions that they might be able to make to replenish them.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Patent thickets and the risk of IP reform, small molecule drugs, average active patients per drug. A line graph with years since FDA approval, from negative 25 to 35 on the x-axis and 0 to 60 on the y-axis. A line labeled filed before FDA approval is a bell curve, with apex at 5, 32. A line labeled filed after FDA approval peaks at 7, 60. Text, Biktarvy (HIV), Eliquis (stroke), Imbruvica (Cancer), Remlivid (myeloma). Note, Commerce Secretary Lutnick has floated the idea of an intellectual property tax on biotech patents of 1 to 5% on patent value, instead of the current flat fee of roughly $10,000 over the entire life of a patent. Source, JAMA Internal Medicine, JP MAM, May 2024.

(SPEECH)

In the piece, we also walked through what's called a patent thicket. And I don't want to get into too much detail, but I do think it's important because it's another regulatory risk that's kind of floating out there. Most laypeople think of patents as you file your patent, you have your patent, the patent expires, generics come in, fine.

In reality, whether it's for biologics or small-molecule drugs, companies file patents. And then, after they get them and after the drug is being commercially sold, they file for more patents. And the patent can be on things other than just the active ingredient. They can be on formulation, method of use, and a variety of creative ways that companies have figured out to file for new patents.

And so essentially, the generics and things like that can't really compete on scale with these drugs until they go off all the patents, not whether they go off the initial patents. And there have been some ideas floated over the last couple of administrations in both parties to change the nature of these patent thickets so as not to represent some kind of abuse of the patent system.

We have a chart in here. For example, these are the four highest selling small molecule drugs in the US, for HIV, stroke, cancer, and myeloma. And once you take into account the patents that were filed after FDA approval, the companies have dramatically pushed out the period of patent protection, that could change.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, The pace of drug approvals, the FDA and RFK Jr at HHS, biotech accumulated R&D as a share of market cap relative to the market, percent, trailing 8 year horizon. A line graph with 2010 to 2025 on the x-axis and 0 to 25% on the y-axis, with a line starting at 5%, going down, then back up to 25%. Text, source, Bloomberg JP MAM, June 2025.

(SPEECH)

OK, so I mentioned that there was no way to avoid this. And I'm not going to mention everything that we've written, because sometimes I write more pointed things than I say on these podcasts.

But that has to do with what's going on at the FDA and RFK Jr. at Health and Human Services. And why does this matter for investors? The biotech sector's R&D, as a share of its market capitalization, has grown a lot faster than the rest of the market.

And we have a chart here that shows that accumulated R&D-to-market-cap of biotech relative to the S&P, this number has gone up from almost no premium in 2015 to a 25% premium now. So there's a lot of money in drug development that's at risk to changes in how the FDA functions.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Quarterly FDA novel drug approvals, number of novel drugs approved. A bar graph with Q1 2021 to Q1 2025 on the x-axis and 0 to 18 on the y-axis. The bars start at 14, drop at Q2 2022, then rise again with a few dips.

(SPEECH)

And so far, it's early yet. But so far, the pace of drug approvals has declined when you look back at the last few years. The Trump administration says they're going to speed things up. They're going to simplify things. They're going to use AI to fix the approval process.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, reports of unorthodox and unexplained interventions by the new head of the FDA and by his deputies in the drug approval process, Examples: KalVista, Sarepta, Novavax. Departure of senior FDA officials with decades of experience; the directors and deputy director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and the directors of the Office of New Drugs and cell slash gene therapy office, and 19% DOGE cuts to the overall FDA workforce. RFK Jr firing all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in June of this year, and announcing last week that the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority will terminate 22 contracts with university researchers and private companies to develop new uses for mRNA technology. On mRNA termination, Michael Osterholm who runs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota had this to say; "This may be the most dangerous public health judgment that I've seen in my 50 years in this business. It is baseless, and we will pay a tremendous price in terms of illnesses and deaths. I'm extremely worried about it." From Rick Bright who ran BARDA during the first Trump Administration: "It's irresponsible to strip funding from future technologies with great potential and shift it towards outdated old-fashioned technologies. We're taking our country from 2025 back to 1940, and we all know that's a recipe for disaster and failure."

(SPEECH)

Whatever they're saying, I'll believe it when I see it.

Instead, investors who are focused on FDA issues have had to deal with a lot of noise and uncertainty-- so reports of unorthodox and unexplained interventions by the head of the FDA and his deputies in the drug approval processes. And there's a few examples we've discussed in the piece, the massive departure of senior FDA officials with decades of experience at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Office of New Drugs and Gene Therapy, 19% DOGE cuts to the FDA workforce.

They have brought back-- we'll see how long it lasts-- they've brought back the head of one of these agencies, Vinay Prasad. We'll see what happens. RFK Jr. fired all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

And then, in a step that really kind of spooked a lot of people in the health research industry, RFK announced last week that BARDA will terminate all 22 contracts it has with university researchers and private companies to develop new uses for mRNA technology. And some fairly tepid people who are normally very balanced in what they say had some very sharp commentary.

Michael Osterholm at the Center for Infectious Disease Research at the University of Minnesota-- "This may be the most dangerous public health judgment that he's seen in 50 years. It's baseless. We'll pay a huge price."

Rick Bright, who ran BARDA during Trump's first term-- "It's irresponsible. We're taking our country from 2025 back to 1940."

Jerome Adams, who was the surgeon general under Trump's first term, said something like, a lot of people are going to die from this. I'm just sharing with you the reactions to this. And so there are a lot of questions about RFK's leadership that are weighing on multiples in multiple places within the health space, and understandably.

And then, in the piece, I also have a section with some personal reflections on what's going on with RFK, what he said over time, and the MMR vaccine, paces of vaccination in the United States, and the risk around active and inactivated vaccines. So you can take a look at that.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Managed care, the collapse in Managed Care Returns, total return index, 100 equals December 2019. A line graph with x-axis from 2020 to 2025 and y-axis from 80 to 180. A line labeled Healthcare sector running just below a line labeled Managed healthcare sub industry until the end, when healthcare sector stays up and the other drops.

(SPEECH)

Another train wreck to hit the health sector, as if they didn't need any more, is the collapse in managed care returns. Managed care is basically, in the large-cap space, five large health care insurance companies, including UnitedHealthcare, Molina, and companies like that.

And the sector returns have imploded since the middle of 2024, go down by roughly half. These are some pretty catastrophic returns.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Managed care earnings per share, index, 100 equals December 2019. A line graph from 2020 to 2025 on the x-axis and 80 to 200 on the y-axis, with a line labeled last months EPS and a line labeled next 12 months EPS running close together. Text, One example of the OBBA impact on managed care: In July, Centene withdrew its full-year 2025 earnings guidance and slashed its adjusted EPS forecast from $7.25 to $1.75 per share, driven by lower market growth in 22 of the 29 states where Centene operates, particularly affecting its ACA exchange business. Text, source, Bloomberg, JP MAM, Q2 2025.

(SPEECH)

This decline doesn't appear to be based on lower earnings, at least so far. So when you look at trailing EPS trends for the sector, you'd be confused, like, what's going on? Why is this happening?

But when you look at forward earnings projections that pick up some of the guidance comments, that's where you can see why the market's so concerned. And one example is the impact of the big, beautiful bill on this sector.

In July, Centene, one of the five large cap names, cut its guidance from $7.25 a share to $1.75 a share, driven by lower market growth in most of the states where they operate, particularly as it relates to its ACA exchange business.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Managed care, Increase in number of uninsured people by cause, 2034, number of people, millions. A bar chart with, starting at 0 and building up, reconciliation bill: Medicaid changes to 7.6, reconciliation bill, ACA changes to 11, expiration of ACA enhanced premium tax credits to 15, and Trump admin ACA proposed rule. Text, The OBBBA, Medicaid and the ACA. Spending reductions: The CBO estimates a reduction of $91.1 billion in federal Medicaid spending over the next decade, a 14% cut to projected Medicaid expenditures for the period. Coverage: KFF projects that the OBBBA and ACA changes will result in 16 million people losing insurance coverage by 2034. The OBBBA creates Medicaid work requirements for adults 19 to 64 who don't have disabilities or dependents, mandating at least 80 hours a month of work or other qualifying activities. These requirements are the largest source of Medicaid savings, reducing spending by $326 billion over ten years. Expiration of Enhanced Tax Credits: The OBBBA did not extend enhanced ACA premium tax credits which are set to expire at the end of 2025. The expiration of these subsidies and new administrative restrictions could lead to a one-third cut in ACA marketplace enrollment.

(SPEECH)

One way to visualize what's going on here is a chart showing the projected increase in the number of people uninsured by cause. And KFF, which used to be called the Kaiser Foundation, which is now just called KFF, they're the ones that do the work on this.

And they're estimating 16 million people by 2034 as a result of spending cuts to Medicaid of around 14%, and then some changes in tax credits for the ACA.

So there are four categories of people of people losing their insurance-- changes to ACA proposed rules, the expiration of the ACA enhanced premium tax credits, the ACA changes in the reconciliation bill, and then the Medicaid cuts. And so for companies in the managed care space that insure a lot of these people, their earnings guidance is being slashed. So that's what's going on there.

OK.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, GLPs, more evidence of effectiveness and challenges in the way of greater adoption. Study of 1.7 million diabetes patients compared dementia risk across different diabetes drugs including Insulin, metformin, first-gen GLP-1s and second-gen GLP-1s, containing semaglutide. Second-gen GLP-1s halved Alzheimer's related dementia risk vs insulin, 1 to 2%, within 3 years of diabetes diagnosis. Strongest impact seen on vascular dementia, likely due to semiglutide's known association with reduced vascular inflammation. A bar graph titled Risk of Alzheimer's related dementia in type 2 diabetes by T2D drug, % of patients developing Alz related dementia in 3 years. The y-axis goes from 0 to 2.5%. From left to right, more to least, is insulin, DPP-4i, increase incretin levels, SU, Simulate insulin release, metformin, TZD, increase insulin sensitivity, SGLT2i, remove excess glucose, 1st gen GLP-1s, 2nd gen GLP-1s, semaglutide. Text, Sample size of 1.7mm. An arrow labeled 46% reduction runs left to right. Text, source, Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, JP MAM, May 13 2025.

(SPEECH)

I said we're going to cover everything. Let me just cover a few more things. I know people have things to do.

So for GLPs, there's good news and bad news. The good news is there's more evidence that these things are effective in addressing conditions unrelated to weight loss. And there was a study of 1.7 million diabetes patients, people that were recently diagnosed with diabetes.

And what they examined was their dementia risk based on which diabetes treatment they got. And because a lot of these people were older, the rate at which people developed diabetes-- I'm sorry, the rate at which people develop dementia-- I hope I'm not getting it-- was 2% for people treated with insulin and half that rate for people being treated with GLPs.

And the strongest impact was seen on vascular dementia. And there may be a connection there because of semaglutides' association with reduced vascular inflammation. So that's good news. Second, continued good news on GLP impacts on cardiovascular events, and this is from about a little over a year ago.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, GLPs, more evidence of effectiveness and challenges in the way of greater adoption. Major adverse cardiovascular event, semaglutide vs placebo, hazard ratio 1 equals placebo, error bars show 95% confidence interval. A graph with 0 to 1.2 on the x-axis and on the y-axis, Primary CV composite endpoint, cardiovascular death, all-cause death, expanded primary CV comp endpoint, composite heart failure outcome, all-cause death, heart attack or stroke, nonfatal heart attack, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure hospitalization or urgent visit, nephropathy. The bars are from 0.7 to 0.9, with a line extending longer on each bar. Text, source, Eric Topoli, Scripps Research, November 2023.

(SPEECH)

We have a chart here showing all of the different outcomes on a controlled trial versus a placebo of cardiovascular things, whether it's drugs or heart attacks, anginas, hospitalizations, things like that, around a 20% decline from semaglutides on some of these outcomes. So that's the good news.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Elevated GLP discontinuation risks for non-diabetic patients. Medicare does not cover GLP use for obesity, while Medicaid covers GLP for obesity in 13 states. CMS is now reportedly exploring GLP-1 demonstration programs for both Medicare and Medicaid. If approved, the experiment is expected to start in April 2026 for Medicaid and January 2027 for Medicare plans, conducted by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. The CBO estimates that Medicare coverage of GLPs would cost $35 billion from 2026-2034. Medicaid coverage would cost the Federal government another $11 billion. Tables titled Elevated GLP discontinuation rates for non-diabetic patients and Comparison of oral and injected GLPs.

(SPEECH)

The bad news is a couple of recent studies, one directly from Lilly and another one from a paper in the Journal of American Medicine, are showing very high discontinuation rates of people taking these drugs and then some limited effectiveness as it relates to weight loss.

And so Lilly's stock got clocked last week by around 15% after they announced their oral GLP results. And so just to simplify this whole thing, the injected version of the semaglutide has a given level of weight loss and then discontinuation from adverse events.

And I think everybody always knew that the pill version might not be as good as the injected version. But the pill version was kind of critical to the outlook for Lilly and some of the other stocks because there's a broader universe of people that would be willing to take the pill than to inject themselves. But the weight loss numbers from the Lilly study that they announced last week was only, like, 8% to 12% over 18 months.

And so that's a modest amount of weight loss and lower than the injectable version, particularly when almost a third of all the participants had to deal with nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and things like that. So that was not a great outcome in terms of those phase III trials.

One of the things we'll have to watch is CMS, which is the Center that oversees Medicaid and Medicare, is talking about-- we don't what's going to happen-- talking about a trial program to cover these drugs, which, currently, for the most part, they don't do. And if it's approved, this experiment would start in April of next year for Medicaid and in January '27 for Medicare.

And it would cost $35 to $50 billion, which used to be a lot of money, but, in the context of the Trump deficits, is just another drop in the bucket. And so we'll see. That would be a welcome boost for the sector if Medicare and Medicaid covered these drugs. But it's early-stage, and this kind of treatment experiment is still being debated.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Biotech IPOs, since 2018, harder than finding a needle in a haystack, biotech performance since IPO by vintage year. Since 2018, half of all biotech IPOs have lost 80% of their value, and only 20% had positive holding period returns. A table with years in rows from 2018 to 2025 and columns, vintage, IPO count, average return, median return, % with positive returns returns greater than 100%, returns less than 80%. Text, Source, BioPharma Drive, Bloomberg, JP MAM August 5 2025.

(SPEECH)

Let's see. On biotech IPOs, I've mentioned that they've been harder to find than a needle in a haystack. I think this table that we have in the piece should be taught in every high school stats class so that people understand the difference between mean and median. So let me give you an example.

In 2022, there were 22 biotech IPOs. The average return on those 22 IPOs was 13%. The median return was minus 68%. In other words, you have a population that's skewed to a few winners and a lot of big losers.

(DESCRIPTION)

Next text, needles in a haystack, biotech IP O holding period returns since January 2018, percent of companies. A line graph with negative 100% to over 200% and 0 to 45% on the y-axis, with lines labeled BioPharma universe, Bloomberg universe, JPM Investment Bank universe, all starting around 30-40% and dropping quickly.

(SPEECH)

And similarly in 2023-- or here's another one. How about 2019? 47 Biotech IPOs, average return-- 41% positive. Median return-- 86% negative. So in other words, most of the IPOs implode and go to 0, and then there's a handful of winners. And so this is a tough space for investors.

Since 2018, half of all IPOs in the biotech space have lost 80%-plus of their value, and only 20% have had positive returns. So that is tough. And we did some analysis using three different biotech IPO universes, one from biopharma, one from Bloomberg, and one from our capital markets colleagues at the investment bank-- got the same results with each universe, which you can see in the piece.

OK, so wrapping up, there are some interesting drug discoveries on the horizon. And these things are kind of technical.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Healthcare spending and conclusions, there are significant drug discoveries on the horizon, including biospecific antibodies that can revolutionize cancer care, new products for treatment of neuropsychic conditions, antibody products recently approved that may slow progression of Alzheimer's, non-CRISPR slash Cas9 gene editing formats that may cure disease and the study of longevity drugs that may extend health spans and promote healthier aging, see appendix 2. In addition, there's still plenty of work to be done on cancers, most of which are still not curable, debilitating autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular disease and dozens of genetic diseases with high mortality rates.

(SPEECH)

I'm just learning about them, but-- bispecific antibodies to revolutionize cancer care, new treatments for neuropsychic conditions, antibody products that may slow progression of Alzheimer's, certain new gene editing formats unrelated to CRISPR, and then longevity drugs, which I'll talk about very briefly and which we cover in the appendix.

There's also a lot of work to be done on cancers, most of which are still not curable, debilitating autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular disease, lots of genetic diseases with high mortality rates. So there's still a lot of people to cure in the health space.

The problem is the country, the United States, is running out of money to do it. And there's two ways of looking at this. You can either look at total national health expenditures to GDP or personal consumption health expenditures to GDP.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Healthcare spending and conclusions, US healthcare spending as a share of GDP, percent. A line graph with 1976 to 2022 on the x-axis and 4 to 20% on the y-axis, and a line labeled personal consumption health expenditures starting 5.5% and slowly rising, and a line labeled total national health expenditures above the other. Text, Source, Bloomberg, JP MAM, December 2024. Next, A graph titled Life Expectancy vs annual health expenditures, 2023. The x-axis is labeled Annual health expenditure per capita, US $, from 0 to 12,000 and 66 to 86 on the y-axis. The US is alone in the top right, South Africa is alone in the bottom left, and other countries fill in the upper left corner.

(SPEECH)

So the country may have reached a peak of what it can afford to spend as a share of GDP on health care stuff, which means that new treatments and new ideas are substitution effects for existing drugs rather than being additive. And when you look at life expectancy versus annual health expenditures per capita, it's another reason to be concerned that the US isn't really getting as much of a return on its money when compared to other countries, which have higher life expectancies and lower health expenditures.

And for those of you that follow the Eye on the Market, you've seen this chart before. What does this federal government spend money on? And you look at this ratio of entitlement spending dwarfing nondefense discretionary spending, where the latter is really key to future productivity growth and jobs and national security.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, What does the Federal government spend money on? % of GDP, with ratio of entitlement to non-defense discretionary. A line graph from 1965 to 2035 on the x-axis and 2% to 16% on the y-axis, with a line labeled Non-defense discretionary spending near the 4% line and a line labeled Entitlement spending going up from 2% in 1965 to 14% in 2035.

(SPEECH)

I think there's an informal national referendum going on to narrow this gap rather than to increase it. And if that's the case, there are going to be limitations on how much the country can afford to be spending on health care and expansions of entitlement spending related to Medicaid and Medicare.

So the sector is trading at some of the lowest valuations in many years. There's probably an M&A wave coming. Low prices solve a lot of problems. But if the country is serious about reforming drug pricing through some kind of Most Favored Nation approach, it may take some time for the sector to demonstrate that it deserves higher multiples than it's getting today. I think the sector is definitely worth a look for long-term value investors that have patience.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Appendix, the political battles over publicly funded US scientific research. AAAS dashboard of projected cuts of 27 to 62% to the NIH, NSF and NASA. But the political process is complicated and does not allow the White House to decide these things unilaterally. As a general principle, Congress decides funding amounts for entities like the NIH. While the White House might submit a recissions package on the NIH, we consider it unlikely to pass both chambers. In the short term, Congress is likely to pass a Continuing Resolution which maintains all funding at levels similar to prior years, a government shutdown might happen first. Since Appropriations bills cannot be passed via reconciliation, they require 60 votes in the Senate and therefore must be passed on a bipartisan basis. As a result, the likelihood of the sharp NIH cuts shown above occurring via an Appropriations bill appears low, at least right now. As a sign that the Senate view on NIH funding differs from the President, the GOP-led Appropriations Committee approved the Senate F Y 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services bill by a vote of 26 to 3. The bill authorized roughly flat year on year funding for the NIH. While the White House has floated the idea of pocket rescissions of certain NIH funds, i e allowing funds previously appropriated for designated NIH programs to expire, that has not yet occurred. Senate Appropriation Chair Collins, R dash M E, has declared that any such attempts would be unconstitutional and violate the1974 Impoundment Control Act.

(SPEECH)

So last couple of things-- we have an appendix on the battles over publicly funded US scientific research. And I have to admit I was kind of spooked when I saw there's this American Association for the Advancement of Science, and they were talking about projected cuts anywhere from 27 to 60% of the budgets of the NIH, the National Science Foundation, and NASA.

But the political process is complicated. The White House can't unilaterally decide how much those agencies get funded. Appropriations belong to Congress. So as a general principle, Congress decides the amount of funding for these entities. And while the White House might submit something called a rescissions package, which is to claw back money from the NIH, I think it's very unlikely to pass both chambers.

And in the short term, Congress is likely to pass a continuing resolution which maintains funding at levels roughly similar to prior years. A government shutdown may happen first, but a continuing resolution would not slash the budgets of these organizations.

Then, if an appropriations bill ever gets passed-- and it's unclear that one will be-- it can't be passed via reconciliation, which is the way that so many bills have been passed over the last couple-- over the last 10 years. A regular appropriations bill is going to require 60 votes in the Senate, and gutting the NIH and the National Science Foundation is likely to be a nonstarter for the Democratic votes needed to pass an appropriations bill.

And as a sign that the Senate views the NIH issue very differently from the president, the Appropriations Committee, which the GOP runs, approved a budget for HHS that had flat year-on-year funding by a vote of, like, 26 to 3. So there's a lot of distance between the White House and the GOP and the Senate on these kinds of issues.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Appendix, the political battles over publicly funded US scientific research, NIH new and competitive renewal grant funding, FY15 to FY25, percent of annual grant funding. A line graph with October to July on the x-axis and 0 to 20% on the y-axis. Text, Trump 2.0 inauguration. jagged lines run from 0% in October up to spread from 17%, with F Y 2015 to F Y 2024 up higher and one line below all the others that is labeled FY2025.

(SPEECH)

That said, we're already seeing the negative impact of the Trump policies on the NIH. And we have a chart here showing the decline in new and competitive renewal grant funding compared to prior years. And this is already hurting the sector.

And it does raise some questions about whether or not the US will be able to maintain the leadership position it has in science and technology innovation.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, Healthcare innovation, science and technology score. A bar graph with 0 to 80 on the y-axis and countries from 80 down to about 10, United States to Poland.

(SPEECH)

Right now, the United States is at the top compared to all other countries, even all the European countries.

(DESCRIPTION)

Next text, Appendix, longevity drugs in mice. A line graph titled life expectancy in mice taking select longevity drugs vs control group, percent of female mice living, with 0 to 1,400 on the x-axis and 0 to 100% on the y-axis. Lines for four drugs start at 100%. Trametinib and rapamycin, goes to 1,400, rapamycin to 1,100, trametinib and control group both to 1,050. A bar chart titled Impact of TERT activator compound on cellular aging, activity of mice, cellular aging measure, lower less aging. The y-axis is from 0.0 to 1.0. Blue bars, placebo baseline, all go to 1.0. Tan bars for TERT activator compound are 0.35 for cortext, 2.5 for skeletal muscle, 3.5 for kidney, 2.5 for heart, and 0.1 for liver.

(SPEECH)

But we'll see whether or not that changes.

And last, I've been at some conferences with longevity gurus. I typically step out during those parts of the presentation because I've had my share of wackos. I am interested in peer-reviewed studies about certain drugs.

There have been a couple that we discuss in the second appendix. One of them looks at the life expectancy of mice that are taking a certain longevity drugs-- let's see, I'm not going to botch this-- "tra-met-it-tib"-- oh gosh, "tra-met-it-tib"-- I'm going to give up-- and rapamycin.

And then the second one was I spoke to some scientists last week that are working on these TERT activators that slow down cellular aging. And so both of those studies actually showed reasonably decent results to either stall or reverse aging processes in mice. That said, mice are very different from people, and there have been a lot of failed trials going from preclinical to phase III because the animal models didn't work, which is another topic that we discuss and I'd say [INAUDIBLE]. Anyway, take a look.

Thank you for listening to this long health care rant. It's probably the last time I'm going to talk about this sector, because this was very aggravating to do.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, August 2025, Sick as a Dog: The cheapness of US healthcare stocks, and the battle over publicly funded science research.

(SPEECH)

And we will be back to you in early September, looking at labor markets and other signs of a potential economic slowdown. Thank you very much. Bye.

(DESCRIPTION)

Text, JP Morgan, Eye on the Market.

Download full report

Previous Episodes and Research

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Summer mailbag

Every summer, I answer questions from the Eye on the Market client mailbag.

Michael Cembalest

Jul 29, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Eye on the Market 20th Anniversary Podcast

Take a look back at 30 standout pieces which are just as relevant for the future as they were for the past.

Michael Cembalest

Jul 8, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

"OK Boomer" on stablecoins, profits, tax cuts vs tariffs…

Throughout history, non-FDIC insured short-term dollar denominated debt redeemable at par on demand has been prone to runs,…

Michael Cembalest

Jun 12, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Chicken Hawks: a quick note on the US budget…

A brief note on the debt and deficit impacts of the House budget reconciliation bill, Henery Hawk and Foghorn Leghorn.

Michael Cembalest

May 27, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Back to our Regularly Scheduled Programming

With some kind of tariff equilibrium possibly within reach, we return to some regularly scheduled programming: artificial…

Michael Cembalest

May 13, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Dogespierre Has Left the Building

Like his predecessor Robespierre, Dogespierre (Elon Musk) also brought down the proverbial guillotine with indiscriminate cuts…

Michael Cembalest

May 1, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Redacted

Straight talk from the CEO front lines on Liberation Day. Almost all the news on tariffs and declining CEO business confidence…

Michael Cembalest

Apr 2, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Fifty Days of Grey

Here’s the interesting thing about the stock market: it cannot be indicted, arrested or deported; it cannot be intimidated,…

Michael Cembalest

Mar 12, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Eye on the Market Energy Paper: Heliocentrism

Our 15th annual energy paper covers the speed of the transition, electrification, the changing planet, the high cost of…

Michael Cembalest

Mar 4, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

From Here to Eternity

From Here to Eternity: tracking Trump’s economic, market and constitutional milestones. Whether you’re elated or despondent…

Michael Cembalest

Feb 13, 2025

Economy & Markets

DeepSeek and the sincerest form of flattery

The sincerest form of flattery: on DeepSeek, NVIDIA, OpenAI and the futility of US chip bans The DeepSeek episode can be two…

Michael Cembalest

Jan 28, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Eye on the Market Outlook 2025: The Alchemists

Deregulation, deportations, tariffs, tax cuts, cost cutting, crypto, oil & gas, medical freedom and Agency purges: What could…

Michael Cembalest

Jan 1, 2025

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

The Year of Living Dangerously

I was visited by six ghosts recently warning me of dangers related to predictions, allocations, apparitions, legalizations,…

Michael Cembalest

Dec 10, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

"Kamilton": the 2024 election and who tells your story

A reflection on the 2024 election and who tells your story.

Michael Cembalest

Nov 6, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

The Thucydides cap on the China equity rebound trade

For participants in the China equity rebound trade: once you hit your return targets, take the money and run.

Michael Cembalest

Oct 17, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Mind the Gap: a historically polarized US election

The US is about to conduct its most polarized Presidential election in 100 years.

Michael Cembalest

Sep 30, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

A severe case of COVIDIA: prognosis for an AI-driven US…

NVIDIA and its GPU customers are now a large driver of equity market returns, earnings growth, earnings revisions, industrial…

Michael Cembalest

Sep 3, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

There’s no place like home

Work-from-home trends have plateaued at ~30%, which has important implications for owners of impaired office buildings. Most…

Michael Cembalest

Aug 6, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

The Lion in Winter

From 1930 to 2010, there were six extended periods of small cap outperformance as it dominated large cap over that entire perio…

Michael Cembalest

Jul 23, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

A Piece of the Action

Investing in professional sports leagues and related businesses. As rules around private equity ownership of sports leagues…

Michael Cembalest

Jun 6, 2024

Contains video.

Investment Strategy

Animal Farm

With spring planting season having arrived in Zone 7, it’s a good time to review agriculture from an investor’s perspective.…

Michael Cembalest

May 15, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Cicadian Rhythms

Cicadian Rhythms: the fading prospects of a US disinflationary boom; Japan’s structural reform/M&A emergence; and Eye on the…

Michael Cembalest

Apr 24, 2024

Contains video.

Investment Strategy

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: on tech valuations, AI, energy and US politics. Last week I spoke to the firm’s tech CEO…

Michael Cembalest

Apr 2, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

14th Annual Energy Paper (2024)

The predominant vision for the future involves the electrification of everything, powered by solar, wind, transmission and…

Michael Cembalest

Mar 5, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Five Easy Pieces

Five Easy Pieces: on Magnificent 7 stocks, open source large language models, the No Labels movement, the Armageddonists and…

Michael Cembalest

Feb 8, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Medical Complications

This Eye on the Market is about all the things that can be true at the same time. The collapse of the political middle in…

Michael Cembalest

Jan 23, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Eye on the Market Outlook 2024: Pillow Talk

Michael Cembalest takes a closer look at equities, fixed income, China, Japan, antitrust, weight loss drugs and ten surprises…

Michael Cembalest

Jan 16, 2024

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

It's Mostly a Paper Moon: Alternative Investments Review

A review on industry returns in private equity, venture capital, hedge funds, commercial real estate, infrastructure and privat…

Michael Cembalest

Dec 5, 2023

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

Not That 70's Show

Six questions and answers on the intersection between geopolitics, US politics and financial markets

Michael Cembalest

Nov 14, 2023

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

New York, Just Like I Pictured It

A comparison of NYC to 21 other US cities with respect to urban recovery, commercial real estate, mass transit, crime,…

Michael Cembalest

Oct 16, 2023

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

What was I made for: Large Language Models in the Real World

I asked Chat GPT-4 questions on economics, markets, energy and politics that my analysts and I worked on over the last two year…

Michael Cembalest

Sep 26, 2023

Contains video.

Economy & Markets

The Rasputin Effect: Global resilience to higher rates

Explaining global economic and equity market resilience.

Michael Cembalest

Aug 2, 2023

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor. To start, some comments on mega-cap stocks and artificial intelligence during the narrowest market…

Michael Cembalest

Jun 14, 2023

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Too Long at the Fair

Time to retire the US/Emerging Markets barbell for a while.

Michael Cembalest

May 23, 2023

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Oh, The Places We Could Go

A recent article in the South China Morning Post was entitled “End of dollar dominance will also spell demise of US hegemony”. …

Michael Cembalest

Apr 26, 2023

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Frankenstein's Monster

Frankenstein’s Monster: banking system deposits and the unintended fallout from the Fed’s monetary experiment; commercial real…

Michael Cembalest

Apr 10, 2023

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Winter Heating

US economy stays warm, large language model battles get hot.

Michael Cembalest

Feb 21, 2023

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

American Gothic

The Federal debt and how the Visigoths may try to break the system if no one fixes it.

Michael Cembalest

Jan 24, 2023

Contains audio.

Investment Strategy

Eye on the Market Outlook 2023: The End of the Affair

The affair with the market catalysts of the last decade is over now, and a new era of investing begins.

Michael Cembalest

Jan 1, 2023

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Holiday Eye on the Market: Non-Fungible Trainwreck

First, a gift for our clients: a 2022-themed non-fungible token for your digital collection embedded in the Eye on the Market. …

Michael Cembalest

Dec 1, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

A CH₄, HR4346 and mRNA-1273 Thanksgiving

A Thanksgiving list of things I am thankful for. My list this year: CH₄, HR4346 and mRNA-1273.

Michael Cembalest

Nov 2, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Reruns

Three reruns for investors: equity declines, Thucydides Trap update, and the Pitcairn Problem.

Michael Cembalest

Oct 19, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Arrested Development

Three topics this week: the repricing of risky credit, labor markets and a COVID recap. While equities are pricing in a much…

Michael Cembalest

Sep 26, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

On CPI, S&P, GHG and the IRS

Three topics in this month’s Eye on the Market. First, an update on the Fed, inflation and corporate profits since we believe…

Michael Cembalest

Sep 6, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Independence Days

Topics: A revised map of the United States; investing in equities before a recession; Russia’s natural gas squeeze on Europe…

Michael Cembalest

Jun 27, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Bear Market Barometers

The slowdown induced by central bank tightening is just starting. You can be patient when adding risk to portfolios; earnings…

Michael Cembalest

May 17, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

The Tide Goes Out: Growth Trade Aftermath

Growth Trade Aftermath: asset allocation, equity mutual funds and hedge funds after the selloff

Michael Cembalest

Apr 11, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Surveying the Damage

Surveying the Damage: Russia’s recurring war on Ukraine, equity market declines and the opportunity for bottom-fishing investor…

Michael Cembalest

Mar 22, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine; full steam ahead for the Fed; the paths not taken.

Michael Cembalest

Mar 7, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Russia/Ukraine update: energy implications

The brief note covers the price Europe is now paying for allowing its energy reliance on Russia to reach extreme levels, and th…

Michael Cembalest

Feb 24, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Risk unwind, supply chains and the Ukraine

Tracking the market risk unwind; Supply chain update; Ukraine; Invasion of the COVID Body Snatchers.

Michael Cembalest

Feb 15, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

The Maltese Falcoin

On cryptocurrencies and the blockchain

Michael Cembalest

Feb 3, 2022

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

2021 Holiday Eye on the Market: The Middle Ages

On equity markets, the Lombards, SPAC investors, Bone-setters, George Washington, COVID bots and Omicron

Michael Cembalest

Dec 5, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Thanksgiving Eye on the Market: “The Thing”

Some things just cannot be talked about. So in this year’s Thanksgiving piece, I wrote about something else.

Michael Cembalest

Nov 15, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Help Wanted

Topics: Labor shortages, the issue of Taiwan and an update on the most over-indebted US states

Michael Cembalest

Oct 20, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Dude, Where’s My Stuff?

The global supply chain mess will require increased vaccination and acquired immunity, semiconductor capacity expansion and the…

Michael Cembalest

Sep 27, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Your Fall 2021 syllabus

Greetings students. We look forward to seeing you back on campus. Your Fall 2021 syllabus is attached. Syllabus update: Biology…

Michael Cembalest

Sep 7, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Spaccine hesitancy

Topics: if people avoided SPACs instead of avoiding COVID vaccines, the US would be both wealthier and closer to herd immunity…

Michael Cembalest

Aug 18, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Red Med Redemption

Red Med Redemption: A visual depiction of politics, ideology, vaccine resistance and the Delta variant. Other topics: US…

Michael Cembalest

Jul 26, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Thy Brother's Keeper

Topics: Delta variant; the Fed as firefighter and arsonist; US-China economic divorce picks up steam; and a unified theory of…

Michael Cembalest

Jul 13, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Food Fight: 2021 private equity update

Every two years, we take a close look at the performance of the private equity industry given its rising share of institutional…

Michael Cembalest

Jun 28, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Absolute Value

Biden goes for broke on growth, driving coincident and leading indicators to all-time highs; the Value recovery and where it…

Michael Cembalest

Apr 15, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Interest rate pretzels and the Zoom shock on real estate

If long-term US interest rates stay below 2%, that’s a great sign for equity investors. But if they don’t…it’s amazing to see…

Michael Cembalest

Mar 15, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Very short stories

Short stories on the global recovery, plummeting COVID infections, Larry Summers & the bond market, SPAC sponsors, renewable…

Michael Cembalest

Feb 18, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Hydraulic Spacking

In this month’s note, we look at the SPAC capital raising boom and Biden’s early stage energy policies.

Michael Cembalest

Feb 8, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Fear of Flying

Equity markets are flying. So is COVID. So are corporate reactions to Congressional objectors.

Michael Cembalest

Jan 19, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Eye on the Market Outlook 2021

Our views on what will drive markets and the economy in 2021, as well as the challenges we face that stimulus and vaccines can’…

Michael Cembalest

Jan 1, 2021

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Holiday Eye on the Market: The Winter of Our Discontent

The belief in election illegitimacy is spreading faster than COVID. With field reporting from Alexander Fleming, Rutherford B…

Michael Cembalest

Dec 15, 2020

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

The Armageddonists, Revisited

The Armageddonists were not rescued from underperformance purgatory by COVID, and markets are at all-time highs again with…

Michael Cembalest

Nov 19, 2020

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Buckle Up!

Pre-election processing of absentee ballots; a COVID Rorschach test; Trump and Biden deficit explosions; Equity market impacts.

Michael Cembalest

Oct 13, 2020

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

Election 2020 - Praying for Time

The election as referendum on America: how well does the “system” work, and for whom?

Michael Cembalest

Oct 1, 2020

Contains audio.

Economy & Markets

The Needle and the Damage Done

The long-term fiscal and monetary cost of the US recovery as the world waits for a vaccine; Biden agenda on taxes/spending; Tec…

Michael Cembalest

Sep 8, 2020

Sick as a Dog

Previous Episodes and Research

Summer mailbag

Eye on the Market 20th Anniversary Podcast

"OK Boomer" on stablecoins, profits, tax cuts vs tariffs…

Chicken Hawks: a quick note on the US budget…

Back to our Regularly Scheduled Programming

Dogespierre Has Left the Building

Redacted

Fifty Days of Grey

Eye on the Market Energy Paper: Heliocentrism

From Here to Eternity

DeepSeek and the sincerest form of flattery

Eye on the Market Outlook 2025: The Alchemists

The Year of Living Dangerously

"Kamilton": the 2024 election and who tells your story

The Thucydides cap on the China equity rebound trade

Mind the Gap: a historically polarized US election

A severe case of COVIDIA: prognosis for an AI-driven US…

There’s no place like home

The Lion in Winter

A Piece of the Action

Animal Farm

Cicadian Rhythms

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

14th Annual Energy Paper (2024)

Five Easy Pieces

Medical Complications

Eye on the Market Outlook 2024: Pillow Talk

It's Mostly a Paper Moon: Alternative Investments Review

Not That 70's Show

New York, Just Like I Pictured It

What was I made for: Large Language Models in the Real World

The Rasputin Effect: Global resilience to higher rates

Letters to the Editor

Too Long at the Fair

Oh, The Places We Could Go

Frankenstein's Monster

Winter Heating

American Gothic

Eye on the Market Outlook 2023: The End of the Affair

Holiday Eye on the Market: Non-Fungible Trainwreck

A CH₄, HR4346 and mRNA-1273 Thanksgiving

Reruns

Arrested Development

On CPI, S&P, GHG and the IRS

Independence Days

Bear Market Barometers

The Tide Goes Out: Growth Trade Aftermath

Surveying the Damage

China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Russia/Ukraine update: energy implications

Risk unwind, supply chains and the Ukraine

The Maltese Falcoin

2021 Holiday Eye on the Market: The Middle Ages

Thanksgiving Eye on the Market: “The Thing”

Help Wanted

Dude, Where’s My Stuff?

Your Fall 2021 syllabus

Spaccine hesitancy

Red Med Redemption

Thy Brother's Keeper

Food Fight: 2021 private equity update

Absolute Value

Interest rate pretzels and the Zoom shock on real estate

Very short stories

Hydraulic Spacking

Fear of Flying

Eye on the Market Outlook 2021

Holiday Eye on the Market: The Winter of Our Discontent

The Armageddonists, Revisited

Buckle Up!

Election 2020 - Praying for Time

The Needle and the Damage Done

Contact us to discuss how we can help you experience the full possibility of your wealth.

Contact us to discuss how we can help you experience the full possibility of your wealth.

Important Information