Glenmark Life Sciences (GLS) IPO notes 🔬

Plans to take the capacity to 1762KL (currently 762KL) in the next 4 years.

Hit the 'retweet' & help us educate more investors

A thread 🧵👇

#IPOwithJST

1/ About the company

Developer & manufacturer of high value, non- commoditized APIs (complex & low competition) in chronic therapeutic areas: CVS, CNS, pain management & diabetes, etc

Basic details about the IPO 👇

Note: After paying off liabilities, 150crs remain for capex.
2/ The Journey

Established the API business in FY02

Since 2015, Have not received any adverse reactions from regulators (USFDA, PMDA) in the total 38 audits & inspections & Have gone through 432 customer audits.

Filled 403 DMFs & CEP registration across markets globally.
3/ Trends that the company is betting on & what works for them

China+1: India API market growth (10% cagr projected from FY21-26) will outpace the industry: Driven by specialty API+ Strong domestic market

Highest no. of USFDA approved API facilities & % of DMFs filled
4/ Interesting facts

- 120 molecules: $142B market size
- Targetting 8 to 10 new molecules every yr (Key differentiator over time)
- 66% of sales from regulated markets
- Works with 16 of the top 20 generic cos.
- Top 7 customers: 5 to 15yrs old
5/ API Portfolio

Key products in generic API business 👇 (Shows cost leadership in few molecules as market share is 30%+)

Strategy to mix: High value & High Volume APIs

Complex API is a future growth market: Going into the development of Peptide APIs by FY22.
6/ R&D: the secret ingredient

Spends 2-2.5% of rev every year
39 patents under the belt
213 R&D personnel in 3 dedicated facilities

Focus on cost improvements in existing products & developing newer products: onco, peptides, iron compounds
7/ Manufacturing Capacity & Capex

4 plants 762KL capacity, running at 85% capacity: 3 USFDA approved, 1 for emerging markets

Increasing capacity by 200KL in Dahej & Ankleshwar by FY23

Investing in a new greenfield capacity: will take it to aggregate 800KL capacity in 3-4yr
8/ Experienced Management with a proven track record: A total of 1537 permanent employees.
9/ CDMO business: 8-10% of their rev (will ramp up)

End of lifecycle management- when the innovator loses its patent & looks for a cheaper source of their API; they can choose GLS

The 🌎 trends that benefit this business 👇
10/ Financials

Rev scaled at 16% cagr from FY19-21

Margins consistently above 30% (high operational efficiency as GMs are 50-55%)

Stable cash flows: WC requirements are high, OCF & debt would be enough to increase capacity over the next 4-5yrs
11/ Risks:

- High Customer churn: Only 41% of the customers stayed from FY19 to FY21.
- Imports 40% of RM from China: could face huge pricing pressure which they are not able to pass on.
- Regulatory & compliance risks
- Client concentration: 56% of rev from the top 5 customers
12/

- Dependence on key products: Top 10 account for 66% of sales
- Capex implementation risk
- Multiple outstanding litigations against the promoter & the company
- COVID risk: some disruptions in acute products & favipiravir sales benefit: net 2-3% +ve effect in FY21.
13/

- Increased competition in their respective products: pricing pressure
- Working capital risk: have huge credit terms up to 180 days
- High employee attrition of 18-20%
- Failure to get the environmental clearances for new facilities.
14/

We believe Glenmark Life sciences IPO which is currently valued at 4.6x EV/sales, 15x EV/EBITDA & 25x Price/Earnings & following the lucrative strategy to become bigger in complex APIs, is rather reasonably valued.

End of thread.
Comparison with the peers

- Top quartile EBITDA margins
- Low capex requirements & high asset turnover business
- Cash conversion cycle is one of the worst: Needs to invest a lot of working capital to grow if it doesn't improve
- Valuation wise, A discount to industry averages
A glossary for the complex industry-related abbreviations I used above 👇

More from ᴀɴɪsʜ ᴍᴏᴏɴᴋᴀ

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x