I read with great interest the recent news that Merck KGaA is going to acquire Millipore after reports that a fellow Massachusetts company, Thermo Fisher had made a bid. My initial (and admittedly weird) reaction was to start singing to myself that great Joe Jackson song, “Is She Really Going Out with Him?”. Let me try to explain why. For those of you not familiar with Millipore, the company is a leading provider of lab gear and supplies including filtration products (its legacy business), products for manufacturing of biological drugs, as well as reagents, kits and other consumables for life science/drug discovery research. At first glance, Thermo would be a logical acquirer of Millpore given that they sell products in many of the same markets; however, Thermo’s offering of products used in the manufacture of biologics drug (a rapidly growing segment of the drug market) is relatively small. So on the surface a marriage of Millipore and Thermo makes sense to me. In contrast, Merck KGaA is probably better known for its pharmaceutical business and the acquisition of Serono. Merck KGaA sells biological drugs, including Erbitux for colorectal cancer and Rebif for treatment of multiple sclerosis, but also has its Chemicals division that includes EMD Biosciences, a supplier of research reagents, kits and other consumables for life science research. So what drove Merck KGaA to make the decision to by Millipore? I think it’s fair to say that having products for biological drug manufacturing is a good thing considering the growth in such drugs is robust, not only in terms of new drugs but also in anticipation of generic biologics (so-called “biosimilars”). Some have speculated that it gives Merck KGaA access to this rapidly growing market while mitigating the risk of developing biologics themselves. Others that are more skeptical suggest that Merck KGaA must be seeing less than rosy growth prospects for its pharmaceutical business and therefore needed to find other business with healthier growth outlooks.
Regardless of the reason, what this transaction demonstrates is further consolidation in the research tools market. Over the past 18 months, we’ve seen some of the industry’s biggest players tie the knot, including: Invitrogen and ABI (to form Life Technologies) in a deal valued at $6.7 billion; and Agilent’s proposed acquisition of Varian, Inc. for $1.5 billion. In addition to these deals, Danaher has emerged as a major player in the life sciences tools space with recent acquisitions of AB SCIEX and Molecular Devices for an aggregate $1.1 billion. For those of us who work with emerging companies that possess life sciences tools and reagents, this consolidation could impact such companies in a number of ways. First, any wave of consolidation creates fewer buyers. Second, large transactions often take time to digest and therefore buyers that have just made such an acquisition may be on the sidelines during the integration process. Third, these transactions will probably push smaller and medium-sized players to be more aggressive in order to effectively compete with behemoths such as Life Tech. In my view, the latter will result in an active M&A market for smaller and medium sized life science tools and reagents companies especially if multiples remain attractive. If not, there’s always that hungry $20 billion market cap company in Waltham…
Dave Wood is a Vice President at Covington Associates. He can be reached at 617-314-3950 or ibankerblog@covllc.com.
