Forum Topics CSL CSL 1H FY24 Results

Pinned straw:

Added 3 months ago

CSL Have announced their 1H results with conference call later this morning.

ASX Announcement

Their Highlights

• Revenue $8.05 billion, up 11% at CC3

• NPAT $1.90 billion, up 17%

• NPAT $1.94 billion1 at CC, up 20%

• NPATA $2.02 billion, up 11%

• NPATA $2.06 billion at CC, up 13%

• NPATA earnings per share $4.182 , up 11%

• NPATA earnings per share $4.26 at CC up 13%

• Interim dividend5 of US$1.19 per share (Converted to Australian currency, the interim dividend is approximately A$1.81 per share, up 12%)

• Guidance reaffirmed – FY24 NPATA2,4 anticipated to be in the range of approximately $2.9 billion to $3.0 billion at CC


My Analysis

Pretty good results, which as far as I can see are broadly in-line with consensus. $CSL are sticking to FY guidance of 13%-17% NPATA Growth, and 9-11% CC revenue growth.

The stand out is Behring where revenue grew 14%, while Seqirus experienced a "challenging season" with only 2% growth. There's no PCP comparison for Vifor, so need to look at that.

There will be a short update on R&D. Key milestones ahead in the short terms are HIZENTRA (3Q - first phase 3 data) and Garadacimab (4Q first approval expected)

Disc: Held

jimmybuffalino
3 months ago

With all the talk about McNiven's formula (and having read the book over the weekend), I gave it a crack this afternoon taking all of the reported numbers at face value but adding back share-based payments as expenses.

One of the features of the approach is that the 'required return' (AKA discount rate) is intended to be a varying figure taking into account an assessment of business quality, rather than a hurdle - which seems quite Buffett-like to me. Anyway, with a 9.7% discount rate McNiven's formula will give you today's closing price.

Take all this with a large hanful of salt as I'm eagerly awaiting Rick's presentation on McNiven's formula and I've probably messed something up, but a 9.7% return over time in the current environment seemed to rhyme with what is being said by everyone in this thread.

12
Solvetheriddle
3 months ago

CSL FH24—Losing My Religion

Part of my top 10 holdings series

First a bit of history on CSL. Around 2001 the IG market went into meltdown, all players suffered as oversupply tipped the market bringing low IG prices. The market then consolidated with CSL playing a major part in taking out Behring. Since then, supply has been rational. Demand unexpectedly increased driven by extra usage and new indications. These tight s/d conditions built a hugely successful business. Secondly, what did CSL do with all that cash? Allocated it wisely through R&D largely built on using the excess plasma supplies to create high-margin specialised products. The much-vaunted last litre economics.

For many years CSL built on these favourable market conditions and spent wisely to perpetuate more growth.

Where does that leave us now? There have been two significant acquisitions, Seqirus and Vifor. The IG market remains one of the best you could wish for, despite the C19 poleaxing, while the R&D pipeline continues to attract capital.

Behring

The company states that it expects to get too pre-C19 margins. That is a big call, taking it at face value and according to my calculations, plus market growth, it, for the most part, underwrites CSL profit growth for the next 3-5 years. I assume some slowing from historic growth rates due to the bigger base effect, but it still generates meaningful profit growth.

The R&D pipeline has historically delivered the surprise. I would like to see the ROI of the R&D investment over the last 10 years, I suspect it would be enormous. The pipeline does not look as strong as it has been before. Especially with CSL112 out. This will manifest itself through lower growth and lower ROI. CSL had a purple patch during the last two decades, I struggle to think of a huge disaster, even CSL112 couldn’t be put in that category, just disappointing. What this means is lower returns than we have seen historically. Specialty products have overachieved, imo, over its history but I see fewer opportunities to drive strong growth now.

Seqirus

The flu business was a successful turnaround and I view it as a lower-growth cash cow for CSL. I don’t expect the large growth prospects we see in Behring.

Vifor

A new business and CSL’s largest acquisition. The business comes with its issues and although I like that they have entered a field not attracting capital like weight loss or oncology. However, it faces patent expiry that was known when acquired and the Vifor culture appears to be quite different to CSL. Unfortunately, I think management is going to need some work to approach CSL standards. Returns, I fear, will lag and already CSL is watering down expectations for this business.

In the Australian market, CSL has a reputation that although deserved from historic performance possibly faces a more difficult and riskier future. That could test the widely held view that CSL walks on water. I point to the following, the R&D pipeline that historically added the cream to returns is thinner than before, Behring must return to strong margins, although I think a recovery will occur, CSL is overly reliant on this achievement, Vifor looks to be a battle and Seqirus can't move the dial.

Putting this all together, the higher risk that CSL now runs will likely be reflected in a lower multiple. I see good earnings growth but as I said before this all hinges on Behring regaining pre-C19 margins and the company has a slew of strategies to get there that I won't repeat here, there are many moving parts to this recovery.

In terms of valuation, I see CSL struggling to keep its historic PE of mid 30s, although eps growth of 11% cagr for 5 years that I come up with is good, it is still higher risk, so means lower PE. That is not a disaster, at $305, and assuming a 25X PE, I find CSL offering similar returns to a raft of growth stocks, REA CAR etc. however with more to do to get there. Probably means a lower weight.

Please pull apart this thesis.

Disc Held Ave Cost $264

bought sold $250/300 range

27

mikebrisy
3 months ago

@Solvetheriddle nice summary. I am in a slightly different place.

My basic thesis is that there is a lot of upside in the near-to-medium term in Behring, much of which is under $CSL control. Namely, driving down costs of collection via improved collections process/technology and - more importantly, significant improvements in Ig yields driven by process technology (2x-3x). These are the levers which get them back to pre-COVID %GM, and both come on top of underlying demand growth driven by ageing populations in developed markets and increasing demand from middle income countries over time with large populations. (i.e., overall larger population base, spending longer on these products).

In my mind, the near term engine of Behring buys time to see how the recent new products and R&D pipeline delivers.

I'm not as down on Sequirus as you are. In 1HFY20 revenue was $1018m; in 1HFY24 it was $1804m, a 4-year CAGR of 15% - looking through the COVID bump.

The has been a large recent investment in $CSL infrastructure, and the mRNA technology and lessons from COVID vaccines can be expected to bear fruit. Overall, growth in respiratory, viral disease, and adoption of vaccination programs globally is a tail-wind. However, it is very seasonal (by which I mean good years and bad years). While Sequirus could end up a "cash cow" in the failure case, I think it is premature to call this given recent events. I need to judge this over a longer timeframe.

As for Vifor,... who knows. And I don't think $CSL even knows. We'll have to monitor that. But I can't call it either way. However, at around only 15% of the Group's Gross Margin, that's not fatal. Again, I am prepared to give them some time to figure it out.

In summary, the good news today is the Behring is delivering and the rhetoric on its outlook, especially the improvements, isn't diminshed. At over 58% of gross margin, it is the crown jewel, and it looks to become increasingly important over time.

I think your "Losing My Religion" straw is a good bear case. I'm by no means as high conviction on $CSL for the long term as some of my other RL holdings. However, in the short-to-medium term, I am OK having a significant (top 5) position.

Reduce / Exit Flags to Watch over next 12-18 months:

  • Stalling momentum in Behring on CPL and Yield progression
  • Multiple late stage failures from the R&D pipeline (say 2-3 of those featured today,... so let's say 112 is strike one)


Disc: Held in RL

27

Solvetheriddle
3 months ago

@mikebrisy appreciate your comments ????

7
Mujo
3 months ago

Thought the same too, decent result - I feel that Vifor isn't doing too well considering they paid a top price as per below comment though:

f138d2212524af7c60522a5c908fa1ffa2e96d.png

15

mikebrisy
3 months ago

@Mujo - I think you are right.

CEO Paul has just been asked by one of the analysts, "do you think Vifor will still grow as strongly as you expected" (question paraphrased).

Short answer "Yes". This in the context of prior commentary on strong competition and constraints on use of some products, in his response Paul offset this by talking about them seeing "new opportunities", as well as driving the global rollout.

I guess you'd expect him to say nothing less.

My own view is that in these businesses you have to take a longer term view. Of course its nice to see them get a short term kick, but I will be slower to judge on this.

Doing some rough maths, Vifor revenue in 1H FY23 for 5 months was $889m, which if you do a crude 6/5 multiplication is $1067m.

Compares with $1,011m reported revenue in 1H FY23. Below is a table for further breakdown - no adjustments for currency.

2c8f3b41f5d525220659463e05a9abe8289599.png

So, there are lots of reasons why NOT to do the above analysis, however, it does put some quantification on what is a softer narrative.

It will be good to see how the clean comparison looks in H2 (which of course won't be reported, but we can do the maths!)

Disc: Held in RL

EDIT: changes Q2 to H2 in last sentence.

18

Mujo
3 months ago

Thanks @mikebrisy - your right looks like it was more trial failures unfortunately.

"Further, some of the pipeline assets did not meet their desired clinical outcomes, a risk inherent in research and development pursuits. These collective dynamics have dampened our near-term financial growth expectations for CSL Vifor. "

Better synergies though.

"On a positive note, CSL Vifor continues to generate strong revenues and margins, together with strong cash flows, and we are extracting synergies over and above our initial expectations. Additionally, CSL Vifor has brought a number of enterprise-wide opportunities, leveraging the capability and strength of 3 businesses in a new and unified way. An excellent example of this is patient blood management. However, this initiative will take time to deliver returns."

...

"We said at the time of acquisition $75 million run rate synergies over the first 3 years, so we're at that level now. And it's broad not a pretty even mix actually between enabling functions a bit in R&D, which kind of falls into the 10% to 11%. So some of that gets repurpose rather than necessarily falling to the bottom line, which is fine. Procurement, so cost of sales, so some nice benefits in there. And then, of course, some of the sales and marketing synergies that we've delivered. And you'll start to see that come through on a run rate basis as the year continues."

Agree, its early days still to assess.

12