Recently, Walgreens Boots Alliance struck a deal with private-equity group Sycamore Partners that will “bring the struggling pharmacy chain’s century-long run as a public company to an end”, says the Financial Times. Sycamore agreed to pay $11.45 a share, a premium of almost 30% to the price before news of a possible deal emerged in December. Sycamore is valuing the business, including its debt, at $23.7 billion. Billionaire Stefano Pessina, Walgreens’ executive chairman and largest shareholder, will maintain a “sizeable minority shareholding” in the business.
Despite retaining a stake, the deal is a blow for Pessina. He “spent half a century building a pharmacy behemoth that stretches almost three times further than the Roman empire ever did”, says Benjamin Katz in The Wall Street Journal. After turning around and expanding his father’s “fledgling and failing pharmaceutical wholesaler”, he merged it with UniChem in 1997 and bought Boots in 2006. That combination was in turn acquired by Walgreens in 2014, creating a conglomerate with a peak market value in excess of $100 billion. However, it struggled with Amazon “quickly eating into drugstores’ non-medical revenues”. This forced it to cancel its dividend and slash the store’s portfolio.
What does the Walgreens sale mean for Boots?
Walgreens proved unable to deal with the challenges posed by both Amazon and “big-box retailers, such as Walmart and Target”, says Chris Isidore on CNN; “lower reimbursement rates for prescription drugs” in the United States hardly helped matters. However, despite claims that Sycamore’s “strong... record of successful retail turnarounds” will help turn Walgreens around, “retail’s graveyard is full of the bones of many once-dominant retailers who closed up shop after being bought by private-equity firms”. At the very least, “the fundamental problems leading to the private-equity purchase” won’t go away after this deal.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
The fact that Sycamore is using up to $12 billion of leverage to push through the deal will make it even harder for Walgreen’s “miserable decade” to be reversed, says Robert Cyran for Breakingviews. The added debt (assuming a 10% interest rate) will more than double Walgreen’s interest payments, eating into the $1.8 billion in operating profit it is currently making – sharply down from $7 billion in 2018. Far from buying the company to turn it around, Sycamore seems to be aiming at “dismantling it further by splitting out units [such as] Boots”.
The sale “could lay the groundwork for Boots to be relisted or sold out from under its parent”, says Laith Al-Khalaf in The Sunday Times. It makes “little commercial sense” for a US retailer to “retain a UK-centric pharmacy”, especially since there is a feeling that the parent company “has chronically underinvested in Boots”. Still, with 8.1% like-for-like sales growth in the latest quarter, and 15 quarters of rising market share, Boots “is very important for Walgreens”. Sycamore may decide that the best bet is for Boots to remain part of the overall group.
This article was first published in MoneyWeek's magazine. Enjoy exclusive early access to news, opinion and analysis from our team of financial experts with a MoneyWeek subscription.
-
UK growth: opportunities amid tariff turbulenceIain McCombie, joint manager of the Baillie Gifford UK Growth Trust, explains how adaptable UK companies in growth-driving sectors can prosper over the long term despite international trade restrictions.
-
These British stocks are a bargain – should you buy?From high street favourites such as Sainsbury’s and Greggs to healthcare firms, these stocks are trading at a heavy discount
-
'Nationalisation is not the answer'Opinion Labour's enthusiasm for nationalising steel was met with approval across the spectrum. Political consensus is a sign that thinking has been abandoned, says Max King
-
Why did the government take over British Steel – and was it a good idea?The government has stepped in to take control, not ownership, of British Steel, citing national security and other factors. But does that make sense?
-
'Rachel Reeves' plan to force pension funds into UK assets won't work'Opinion Hustling pension fund cash into British assets sounds like a good idea. It would be better to make Britain an attractive place to invest, says Matthew Lynn
-
What caused the Birmingham bin strike – and what does it mean for British businesses?The Birmingham bin strike is the fallout from an equal-pay claim brought by female cleaners. That bodes ill for the rest of British business
-
Supersonic travel: How China could 'leapfrog' US and Europe's commercial aviation industryOpinion Innovation in commercial aviation has been stuck for 60 years. A commercial supersonic jet might be back on the market soon, but will China get there first?
-
How British businesses can tackle Trump's tariffsThe majority of British businesses are likely to take a hit from the chaos caused by Trump’s tariffs to reorder global trade. Companies in the firing line face some difficult decisions, says David Prosser
-
Trump wants to colonise Mars – will it happen?Donald Trump wants to plant the US flag on Mars. Could humans really live there?
-
A new wealth tax is a terrible idea. The rich are already being hit by sneaky taxes – Merryn Somerset WebbOpinion Ideologues want to squeeze more tax out of the rich with a wealth tax. They’re already wrung dry, says Merryn Somerset Webb
