????周一，輝瑞制藥（Pfizer）公開宣布，有意收購英國藥業巨頭阿斯利康（AstraZeneca）。后者對收購提議一直保持沉默，至少從未公開發表意見。最近突然興起了一股大型藥企并購浪潮，輝瑞的行動是這股浪潮中的最新一步棋。引發藥業并購潮的原因是，整個行業暢銷藥品的開發速度放緩，而且，大型跨國公司需要花掉數千萬億美元的海外收入。（大部分海外收入回到國內必須繳納巨額稅金。）

????輝瑞董事長兼CEO伊恩?里德在下面的訪談中談到，通過將年收入520億美元的輝瑞和英國競爭對手合并，他希望達成怎樣的目的。有一點是肯定的：如果這兩家公司完成合并，這個年收入1,000億美元的龐然大物將成為醫藥行業史上規模最大的公司。

????《財富》雜志（Fortune）：為什么選擇阿斯利康？為什么是現在？

????里德：阿斯利康的產品與輝瑞的產品匹配度很高。阿斯利康在炎癥藥物方面尤為擅長，在腫瘤和糖尿病藥物方面也有很好的表現。如果合并成功，通過利用新興市場和其他地區的網絡，以及合并給我們帶來的成熟的產品，我們將會大幅提高生產效率。這一點對我們非常重要。兩家公司在科研方面有許多重疊之處。未來，醫藥行業的整合仍將繼續，實現的方式要么是我們現在正在操作的交易，要么是資產交換的形式。

????除了股票溢價外，這筆交易對于阿斯利康還意味著什么？雙方是否曾進行過正式的討論？

????阿斯利康有一個全新的管理團隊，很顯然，他們都很優秀，也有非常專注的愿景。我認為，他們需要讓自己確信一點，那就是兩家公司的結合能夠成功。到目前為止，除了我們表示“希望進行交易”外，雙方還沒有進行任何實質性的談判。股價出現波動的前一天（1月3日），我們曾經提出過要約?，F在，（由于英國的法律規定，）我們有28天時間來決定（是否提出正式要約）。目前還沒有收到對方的直接回應。

????許多分析師和投資者都認為，輝瑞進行這筆交易的動機是為了稅收優惠，而不是戰略優勢。因為輝瑞想利用包容策略，獲得基于英國政策的稅務處理。是這樣嗎？

????我說的很清楚，交易的出發點是整合兩家公司，以及科研力量，同時為股東創造價值的能力。對比一下在美國進行類似交易需要付出的成本，如果我只看這次交易不利的（稅收）協同效應，我會扼殺這筆交易。英國執行的稅率是20%，但在美國，由于股息要求，收購阿斯利康的稅率可能要達到38%。因此，要想完成交易，我們必須在英國進行支付。

????研究一筆交易的時候要看三個因素：潛在收益協同效應，成本協同效應，有些交易還要關注財務協同效應。我們的交易中具備了這三個要素，而且我們并不認為某一個要素占據了主導地位。

????輝瑞似乎一直在努力變得更小，而不是更大，比如最近分別出售和分拆了營養健康和動物健康業務?，F在為什么要改變這一策略？

????我上任時（2010年末）曾經說過，我們是一家醫藥公司，我們必須確立創新核心，適當地分配資本。我們的醫藥業務并沒有縮小規模。我一直以來的觀點都是，公司的規模并不是重要問題。我們只是希望專注于能夠為股東創造價值的業務。我（在我的任期內）一直在努力創造這種選擇性，還曾經就這個問題與華爾街進行過討論。我們將向投資者保持透明；而投資者可以通過投資方式來告訴我們，他們對我們的資產管理感到滿意，還是認為將資產單獨管理會更好。

????過去二十年間，輝瑞每一任CEO都曾進行過改變行業格局的大規模并購【2000年收購沃納-蘭伯特（Warner-Lambert），2002年收購法瑪西亞（Pharmacia），2009年收購惠氏（Wyeth）】。這次的交易是你對這個傳統的延續嗎？

????大家看一下每筆交易，會發現它們都有各自不同的背景。收購沃納-蘭伯特是因為立普妥（Lipitor）（專利期滿），輝瑞的市場份額遭到蠶食。收購法瑪西亞的意義遠不止止痛藥的專營權。作為一個概念，它是成功的。我們獲得的專營業務都非常出色，但同時，交易也給我們帶來了伐地考昔（Bextra）問題。與默克公司（Merck）的止痛藥Vioxx一樣，這個藥品因為被爆出副作用而退出了市場；2009年，輝瑞因為非法營銷伐地考昔和其他藥物被處以23億美元的民事和刑事罰款。收購惠氏是看中了它的技術，進軍大分子藥物和疫苗市場的機會，以及成本協同效應，這是一箭三雕的好事。收購阿斯利康同樣是如此。（財富中文網）

????譯者：劉進龍/汪皓

????On Monday, Pfizer publicly announced its interest in acquiring British drug giant AstraZeneca—an overture that the U.K. firm has so far met with silence, at least publicly. It's the latest chess move in a sudden wave of big pharma dealmaking. The push has been driven by an industry-wide slowdown in blockbuster drug development—as well as a need for large multinationals to do something with their hundreds of billions of dollars in overseas earnings. (Much of it can't be repatriated without generating a huge tax bill.)

????Below, Pfizer Chairman and CEO Ian Read weighs in what he hopes to accomplish by meshing his $52 billion-in-revenues company with its U.K. rival. One thing's for sure: If it happens, the $100 billion behemoth would be industry's biggest company ever.

????FORTUNE: Why AstraZeneca and why now?

????Read: AstraZeneca is a wonderful portfolio match with our portfolio. It has tremendous strength in inflammation, a good oncology presence and a good position in diabetes. And we can be far more productive if you look at the match with the established products unit by leveraging the network in emerging markets and elsewhere. That's of critical importance to us. There are a lot of overlaps in science being done, and the secular trend is that the industry will continue to consolidate by the type of deal we're doing, or by an exchange of assets.

????What's in it for AstraZeneca (AZN), other than the share price premium? Have there been any formal discussions yet?

????They're a new management team, and clearly they are good people and they've got a focused vision. I think they need to be convinced that the combination of the two [will work]. There have been no real discussions of substance other than 'we'd like to do a deal.' We did give them an offer on the last day we had an undisturbed stock price (January 3). Now [because of UK law] we have 28 days to decide [whether to make a formal offer]. There has been no direct response.

????A lot of analysts and investors think this deal is motivated by tax benefits rather than strategic advantages, since you would use the inclusion strategy to get a UK based tax treatment. Is this true?

????I've been very clear that the origin of this deal is the combination of the two companies and the science and the ability to create great value for shareholders. Now when I look at that deal compared with what I would have to pay if I did it in the U.S, the negative [tax] synergies would kill the deal. There's a 20% tax rate in the UK, and here, because of dividend requirements, it would probably be a 38% tax rate. So to get the deal done we have to domicile in the UK.

????When you look at a deal you look at three components: What are the possible revenue synergies, what are the cost synergies, and some deals also look at financial synergies. We have got all three components in our deal and we don't think any one is dominant.

????It seems like Pfizer (PFE) has been trying to get smaller, not bigger, of late, with its sales and spinoffs of nutritional health and animal health, respectively. Why the shift in strategy?

????When I took over (in late 2010), I said we're a pharmaceutical company and we have got to fix the innovative core and get capital allocation right. We haven't gotten smaller in pharma. My discussion point has always been that size is not the relevant question. We just want to focus on what creates shareholder value. [Over my tenure] I have been trying to create this optionality, which we've discussed with the Street, that we're going to give you transparency, and you're going to be able to feed back to us through how you invest whether you believe we're managing [our assets] well or if they would be better managed separately.

????Every Pfizer CEO of the past two decades has done an enormous, industry-changing merger (Warner-Lambert in 2000, Pharmacia in 2002, Wyeth in 2009). Is this one meant to be your legacy?

????I think if you look at the deals, each was caused by different circumstances. Warner-Lambert was driven by the [patent expiry] of Lipitor and seeing that share taken away. The Pharmacia deal was more about the pain franchise. As a concept it worked. The specialty businesses we got were wonderful businesses, but we had a Bextra problem [like Merck's Vioxx, it was withdrawn from the market after negative side effects were reported; in 2009 Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in a civil and criminal fine for illegal marketing of Bextra and other drugs]. The Wyeth deal was a deal about technology, about getting into large molecules and vaccines and about cost synergies. That was a trifecta. This one is too.