By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) due to the significant risks posed by impending patent cliffs for key drugs Eliquis and Opdivo, the uncertainty surrounding the pipeline's ability to compensate for these losses, and the potential impact of the Inflation Reduction Act's price negotiation provisions for Eliquis.
Risk: The Inflation Reduction Act's potential impact on Eliquis pricing, which could erode free cash flow faster than growth can offset, is the single biggest risk flagged by the panel.
Opportunity: The potential upside from successful late-stage pipeline drugs like Milvexian and Qvantig is the single biggest opportunity flagged, although the high clinical failure rates at this stage and competitive dynamics pose significant uncertainty.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Bristol Myers Squibb has faced patent cliffs in recent years and will face more in the next few years.
The company's portfolio of newer drugs, along with its deep pipeline, can help it overcome this headwind.
The stock looks attractively valued and offers a reliable dividend program.
Bristol Myers Squibb's (NYSE: BMY) shares are trading for a bit less than $60 apiece, which may seem like an affordable price to pay for a pharmaceutical company of its stature. But some would argue that the drugmaker looks far too expensive, even at current levels, relative to its growth potential. Bristol Myers has encountered patent cliffs in recent years, and there are more on the horizon. By the end of the decade, the company will lose patent exclusivity for its two best-selling medicines, the cancer drug Opdivo and the anticoagulant Eliquis.
So, the stock could significantly underperform broader equities, or perhaps even be a wealth destroyer, over the next five years, or so the argument goes. Should value investors even bother taking a second look at the pharmaceutical giant?
Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »
In the first quarter, Bristol Myers' revenue grew by just 3% year over year to $11.5 billion. Eliquis and Opdivo accounted for more than half of that, racking up $6.3 billion in sales between them. It's no wonder many investors are worried about the company's medium-term outlook. However, there are some reasons to be optimistic. Over the past seven years (or so), Bristol Myers has earned approval for newer products that it hopes will fill the hole Opdivo and Eliquis will leave in the wake of their patent cliffs.
The list includes Reblozyl, a medicine for anemia in patients with beta-thalassemia, Opdualag and Breyanzi, two cancer drugs, and a subcutaneous version of Opdivo. These products are performing well. Take Reblozyl, whose sales in the first quarter jumped by 16% year over year to $555 million. The most important of the bunch is likely Opdivo Qvantig (the subcutaneous version). In clinical studies, it significantly reduced prep and administration time for healthcare professionals administering it -- versus the original version -- without compromising efficacy.
Opdivo Qvantig isn't generating much revenue yet, but it is growing rapidly. First quarter sales were $163 million, up more than 200% year over year. Bristol Myers' growth portfolio, which features the two versions of Opdivo and several other medicines, posted $6.2 billion in sales during the first quarter, up 12% year over year. Within a few years, it should account for a larger percentage of the drugmaker's top line.
In addition to its newer medicines, which will hopefully post solid sales growth well into the 2030s, Bristol Myers will look to strengthen its portfolio with new approvals. The company has a deep pipeline with several dozen ongoing clinical trials. Some of the company's products in development look highly promising. One of them is a next-gen anticoagulant called Milvexian, which Bristol Myers Squibb is developing with Johnson & Johnson. While current options are effective, they come with significant side effects, including heavy bleeding.
Milvexian could potentially reduce bleeding without compromising efficacy. Some analysts expect it to generate well over $1 billion in annual sales eventually. Of course, there is still some work to be done. Milvexian is currently undergoing phase 3 studies. But if it aces these clinical trials, Milvexian could help replace Eliquis. There are others, including an investigational cancer medicine called Pumitamig, which Bristol Myers is developing with BioNTech. It belongs to a newer class of drugs, bispecific antibodies, which can bind to two different antigens simultaneously, potentially offering greater efficacy than traditional monoclonal antibodies, which are currently the standard of care in oncology.
Pumitamig is being tested across a range of different cancers, including breast, lung, gastric, and more. It is another product that could meaningfully move the needle down the road for Bristol Myers, and there are several more. Provided the company's pipeline progress remains solid, it could find even more ways to replace its current best-selling drugs.
Bristol Myers is trading at 9x forward earnings, versus the healthcare sector's average of 16.8. The company's sales growth may not be impressive right now, and things may get worse on that front before they get better. But my view is that given Bristol Myers' current growth portfolio and strong pipeline, the pharmaceutical giant could perform well over the medium term. So, the stock looks attractive, especially at current levels, for investors looking to stay the course. Bristol Myers is also a solid dividend stock, currently offering a juicy forward yield of 4.5%. Value investors and income-seekers should seriously consider this stock.
Before you buy stock in Bristol Myers Squibb, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Bristol Myers Squibb wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $471,827! Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $1,319,291!
Now, it’s worth noting Stock Advisor’s total average return is 986% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 207% for the S&P 500. Don't miss the latest top 10 list, available with Stock Advisor, and join an investing community built by individual investors for individual investors.
**Stock Advisor returns as of May 11, 2026. *
Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Johnson & Johnson. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bristol Myers Squibb. The Motley Fool recommends BioNTech Se and Johnson & Johnson. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The current valuation is not a bargain but a reflection of a structural decline in earnings that the existing pipeline is unlikely to fully neutralize."
BMY is a classic value trap masquerading as a yield play. While the 9x forward P/E and 4.5% dividend yield look enticing, they reflect a market pricing in a permanent erosion of earnings power. The article overstates the 'growth portfolio'—these assets are currently insufficient to offset the impending revenue cliff from Eliquis and Opdivo. Furthermore, the reliance on Milvexian is a massive binary risk; Phase 3 clinical outcomes are notoriously unpredictable, and the competitive landscape for anticoagulants is fierce. Unless BMY engages in significant M&A to buy growth, the stock is likely to remain range-bound or drift lower as the patent cliff approaches.
If BMY successfully executes its subcutaneous Opdivo rollout and Milvexian hits its clinical endpoints, the current valuation provides a significant margin of safety that could lead to a double-digit re-rating.
"BMY's growth portfolio must more than double from $6.2B to fully replace Eliquis/Opdivo revenue post-patent cliffs, a tall order given pharma pipeline risks."
BMY trades at 9x forward earnings (vs. healthcare's 16.8x) with a 4.5% yield, but Q1 shows vulnerability: total revenue +3% to $11.5B, with Eliquis/Opdivo at $6.3B (>50% of sales) masking declines elsewhere. Growth portfolio hit $6.2B (+12%), led by Reblozyl (+16% to $555M) and subcu Opdivo Qvantig (+200% to $163M), but it must scale massively to offset patent losses by decade's end. Pipeline like Milvexian (phase 3 w/ JNJ) and Pumitamig (w/ BNTX) offers upside, yet 90%+ of phase 3 drugs fail or underperform peak sales forecasts. Attractive for yield-chasers, but growth skeptics have reason for caution.
If growth products accelerate as in Q1 and pipeline hits (e.g., Milvexian peaks >$1B sales), BMY could re-rate to 12-14x on 5-7% EPS growth, delivering total returns crushing the sector average.
"The valuation discount reflects real pipeline execution risk, not market irrationality—and the article conflates a deep pipeline with a *successful* one."
BMY at 9x forward earnings looks cheap, but that multiple reflects real execution risk the article downplays. Yes, the growth portfolio hit $6.2B (up 12% YoY), but it needs to grow 15%+ annually for a decade to offset Opdivo/Eliquis patent cliffs by 2030. Opdivo Qvantig's 200% growth is encouraging but off a tiny $163M base. Milvexian and Pumitamig are phase 3—clinical failure rates run 40-60% at that stage. The 4.5% dividend is attractive until it isn't; if pipeline stumbles, BMY cuts it to preserve cash. The article treats pipeline success as probable; I see it as priced-in already at 9x.
If even two of the pipeline candidates (Milvexian, Pumitamig) clear phase 3 and reach $500M+ sales each by 2028, the growth portfolio compounds faster than I'm modeling, and 9x becomes genuinely cheap for a 6-8% compounder with a 4.5% yield.
"Valuation at ~9x forward earnings hinges on a successful, near-term pipeline; any delay or failure in Milvexian/Pumitamig or weaker-than-expected Opdivo/Eliquis replacement could trigger meaningful downside."
BMY trades near $60 with a 4.5% forward yield, but the headline risk centers on patent cliffs for Opdivo and Eliquis and whether a growing pipeline can meaningfully compensate. The article leans into Milvexian, Pumitamig, and Qvantig as catalysts, yet Phase 3 outcomes, payer acceptance, and competitive dynamics remain high-uncertainty items. Missing context includes sensitivity to near-term top-line slowdown, higher R&D spend to sustain the pipeline, and potential regulatory or labeling hurdles. Even at 9x forward earnings, a material earnings re-rating risk persists if growth stalls or if milestone-driven milestones falter, given heavy reliance on a few blockbuster franchises.
If Milvexian hits Phase 3 and Eliquis clinically stabilizes revenue through stronger labeling, the stock could surprise on the upside; the current setup undervalues optionality rather than risk.
"BMY's valuation is supported by cash flow and buybacks, not just the binary outcomes of its clinical pipeline."
Claude, you’re missing the capital allocation angle. BMY isn't just a pipeline play; it’s a cash-flow machine. Even if the pipeline underperforms, the current free cash flow supports the dividend and aggressive share buybacks, which provide a floor the market is ignoring. By focusing solely on clinical success, you’re treating BMY like a biotech startup rather than a mature pharma firm. The real risk isn't just clinical failure, but management overpaying for growth via desperate, late-stage M&A.
"IRA price controls on Eliquis accelerate revenue erosion starting 2026, undermining FCF and buybacks."
Panel, you're fixated on pipeline and cliffs, but overlooking the Inflation Reduction Act torpedo: Eliquis (BMS/Pfizer JV, Medicare's top drug) faces price negotiation with caps in 2026, risking 25-60% cuts per CBO. This preempts patents, eroding FCF faster than growth offsets. Gemini, that 'cash-flow machine' buyback floor crumbles under IRA-mandated deleveraging pressure.
"IRA price caps on Eliquis (BMY's largest franchise) create a revenue cliff independent of patent expiry, undermining the cash-flow floor argument."
Grok's IRA torpedo is the most material risk nobody quantified. Eliquis does ~$9.8B annually; a 25-60% Medicare price cut hits 40%+ of volume immediately, not 2030. That's $2.5-5.9B revenue erosion *before* patent expiry, collapsing the FCF thesis Gemini leaned on. Buyback support evaporates faster than pipeline upside materializes. The 9x multiple assumes Opdivo/Eliquis stability; IRA pricing pressure invalidates that assumption entirely.
"IRA pricing is material but not binary; there are offsets that could soften Eliquis erosion and keep optionality in Milvexian/Qvantig as the key driver of any re-rating."
Grok, IRA pricing is material, but not a guaranteed 25-60% hit by 2026 across all Eliquis volumes. Negotiated rebates, payer mix, and potential on-label flexibility could soften the worst case. Even if near-term FCF is pressured, a durable yield story could survive with buybacks if Milvexian and Qvantig deliver incremental upsides. The market may misprice optionality if it assumes a clean cliff rather than phased risk.
The panel consensus is bearish on Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) due to the significant risks posed by impending patent cliffs for key drugs Eliquis and Opdivo, the uncertainty surrounding the pipeline's ability to compensate for these losses, and the potential impact of the Inflation Reduction Act's price negotiation provisions for Eliquis.
The potential upside from successful late-stage pipeline drugs like Milvexian and Qvantig is the single biggest opportunity flagged, although the high clinical failure rates at this stage and competitive dynamics pose significant uncertainty.
The Inflation Reduction Act's potential impact on Eliquis pricing, which could erode free cash flow faster than growth can offset, is the single biggest risk flagged by the panel.