由 jpichiban Sat, 08 Feb 2025 12:19:15 GMT
在这篇文章中BDX关注你喜爱的股票创建免费账户Pavlo Gonchar | Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images公司：Becton Dickinson and Co (BDX)业务：Becton Dickinson开发、制造并销售医疗用品、设备、实验室设备及诊断产品，服务于全球的医疗机构、医生、生命科学研究人员、临床实验室、制药行业及公众。股票市值：约666.5亿美元（每股229.85美元）股票图表图标Becton Dickinson过去12个月的股价走势激进投资者：Starboard Value持股比例：约0.70%平均成本：不详激进投资者评论：Starboard是一位非常成功的激进投资者，在帮助企业聚焦运营效率和利润率提升方面经验丰富。同时，Starboard在战略激进主义方面也有显著经验。在其有战略主张的57次前期行动中，公司实现了32.96%的回报率，同期罗素2000指数为14.61%。此外，Starboard曾对24家医疗保健公司发起激进投资行动，平均回报率为17.65%，而同期罗素2000指数的平均回报率为9.57%。
事件经过2月3日，Starboard宣布已持有Becton Dickinson的股份，并呼吁其分离生命科学部门。几天后，即2月5日，公司表达了将其生物科学和诊断解决方案业务分拆的意向。
幕后情况Becton Dickinson (BDX) 是一家全球医疗技术公司，主要由两大业务组成：(i) MedTech，包括BD Medical（药物输送与管理解决方案、高级监测及制药系统）和BD Interventional（血管、泌尿、肿瘤及外科专科产品）；(ii) BD Life Sciences，提供诊断样本采集与运输产品，以及检测多种传染病的仪器和试剂系统。在MedTech领域，BDX是输液泵和预充式注射器市场的领导者，这一地位因GLP-1类药物受欢迎程度的增长而得到加强。这两项业务历史上规模相近，但MedTech增长更快，现贡献151亿美元收入和67亿美元息税折旧摊销前利润（EBITDA），而Life Sciences贡献52亿美元收入和20亿美元EBITDA。
问题简单明了：公司运营着两个截然不同的业务，处于不同发展阶段，拥有不同的增长率和估值倍数，且没有实质性的理由合并在一起。MedTech业务的增长率（中个位数）高于Life Sciences（低个位数），但估值倍数（13至14倍）低于Life Sciences（超过20倍），因为MedTech被视为“40法则”公司——即其增长率加运营利润率应等于或超过40。Life Sciences被视为结构更稳定，对周期性等因素免疫，且受报销压力影响较小。此外，Thermo Fisher和Danaher等主要行业参与者的存在，为Life Sciences业务带来了一定的整合价值，略微提升了其估值倍数。
这并不总是问题，但在BDX的案例中，整个公司的交易倍数为16.8倍EBITDA，更接近其价值较低部分的估值。正如Starboard所建议的，分拆或出售Life Sciences业务是解决这一简单问题的直接方案。短期内的价值创造显而易见。若分离，MedTech业务基于其增长应获得13至14倍的EBITDA估值，而Life Sciences应获得超过20倍的估值。仅此一项，即便在倍数区间的低端，也将使估值超过1100亿美元。 . But there is additional value creation that could be attained after separation. The ability to better motivate management with the success of their own division and expand the universe of potential investors to two pure-play businesses are just the table stakes in a separation. The real value comes from two separate management teams being able to better focus on and devote resources to their own businesses. In the case of BDX, that could lead to margin improvement through the integration of acquisitions that were somewhat neglected as part of a bigger company. There have been reports of a $30 billion valuation price for the Life Sciences business. This is a valuation slightly below the expected 20-times EBITDA multiple we think it could receive. We expect that is because BDX may retain some parts of the Life Sciences business that synergize with MedTech.This is not always a problem, but in BDX’s case, the entire company is trading at 16.8-times EBITDA, closer to the value of its least valuable part. As Starboard has recommended, spinning off or selling the Life Sciences business is a simple solution to a simple problem. The short-term value creation here is straightforward. If separated, the Medtech Business should get a 13-times to 14-times EBITDA valuation based on its growth, while Life Sciences should get a valuation north of 20-times. This alone would result in a valuation north of $110 billion at the low end of the multiple range. But there is additional value creation that could be attained after separation. The ability to better motivate management with the success of their own division and expand the universe of potential investors to two pure-play businesses are just the table stakes in a separation. The real value comes from two separate management teams being able to better focus on and devote resources to their own businesses. In the case of BDX, that could lead to margin improvement through the integration of acquisitions that were somewhat neglected as part of a bigger company. There have been reports of a $30 billion valuation price for the Life Sciences business. This is a valuation slightly below the expected 20-times EBITDA multiple we think it could receive. We expect that is because BDX may retain some parts of the Life Sciences business that synergize with MedTech.Starboard is known as a very diligent, tenacious and committed activist investor that will do whatever is necessary to create value for its investors and other shareholders. When the firm wants board seats, it generally gets board seats. But that is not the case here. Starboard’s “activist” skills might be wasted or not needed here as it appears that in this case, the firm is pushing an open door rather than breaking one down. BDX has already acknowledged this issue and announced that it is considering the divesture of its Life Sciences segment. Whether this is because the company has been considering this anyway or because it heard Starboard loud and clear is irrelevant. Starboard is the type of activist that does not care who gets the credit, as long as the best decisions are made for shareholders.Ken Squire is the founder and president of 13D Monitor, an institutional research service on shareholder activism, and the founder and portfolio manager of the 13D Activist Fund, a mutual fund that invests in a portfolio of activist 13D investments.
原文链接：https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/08/becton-dickinson-aims-to-split-off-biosciences-unit-as-starboard-calls-for-the-same.html