Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY): what the price assumes
boothcheck covers Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMY) but does not put one priced-in number on it: here the defensible answer is the evidence rather than a point estimate. boothcheck publishes no house fair value, target price, or buy/sell rating. Narrative composed 2026-07-25.
Generated: 2026-08-30 · Source: https://boothcheck.com/report/BMY
Headline
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Ticker | BMY |
| Company | Bristol-Myers Squibb Company |
| Sector / Industry | Healthcare |
| Current price | $66.47/sh |
| Composition | Opdivo 21% / Opdivo Qvantig 0% / Orencia 8% / Yervoy 6% / Reblozyl 5% / Breyanzi 3% / Opdualag 2% / Camzyos 2% / Zeposia 1% / Abecma 1% / Sotyktu 1% / Krazati 0% / Cobenfy 0% / Other Growth products 4% / Eliquis 30% / Revlimid 6% / Pomalyst/Imnovid 6% / Sprycel 1% / Abraxane 1% / Other Legacy products 2% |
What The Price Assumes (Inversion)
The assumption today's price embeds, recovered by inverting the valuation.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Inversion basis | whole-company |
| Operating margin (value-band context) | 6.4% |
| Operating margin today | 24.2% |
| Margin compression (value-band) | -17.8pp |
| Multiple paid | 13x operating income |
The operating-margin figure is value-band context at year 12: derived from the framework's value band, a separate calculation — not part of the priced-in solve.
The price sits below what even a 5%/yr operating-profit decline would warrant; the inversion reports a bound, not a solved growth path.
Solve inputs: computed at a 7% cost of capital with 4% terminal growth over a 5-year stage (computed at the 7% minimum rate; the CAPM rate 6.6% sits below it).
How unusual the bet is: n/a
| Reference | Value |
|---|---|
| cohort percentile (of 115 peers) | 17 |
Valuation X-Ray
The price is supported by asset-based and relative-multiple and growth-DCF value. A value/asset-supported name, not a pure growth bet.
How the valuation models price the stock relative to the market price. Price/FV above 1.0 means the market pays more than that lens defends (expensive); at or below 1.0 the lens can defend the price.
| Family | Median price/FV | Models | Reads |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asset | 1.10x | 4 | expensive |
| Earnings | 1.46x | 4 | expensive |
| Relative | 0.96x | 5 | justifies |
| Growth | 0.82x | 4 | justifies |
Families that justify the price: Asset, Relative, Growth
The models below discount at their own flat-beta convention rates (cost of equity 9.3%, WACC 7.1%); the inversion above states its own rate.
Per-Model Detail (n=17)
| Model | Family | FV | Price/FV | Applicable | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCF Perpetual Growth | Growth | $120.73 | 0.55x | yes | FCF base $11.4B, growth 3% (input: historical growth), terminal g 3.1%, WACC 7.1%, 5yr projection |
| DCF Exit Multiple | Growth | $73.50 | 0.90x | yes | Exit EV/EBITDA: 46.5x / 48.5x / 50.5x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull), 5yr |
| Relative Valuation | Relative | $69.55 | 0.96x | yes | P/E 24x (static sector reference · 2026-04), scenarios: 20.2x / 24.0x / 27.8x (bear / base = reference held flat / bull), EV/EBITDA 25.74x |
| Simple DDM | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Two-Stage DDM | Growth | $89.37 | 0.74x | yes | Stage 1: 20% for 5yr, Stage 2: 3.5% perpetual |
| Simple Excess Return | Asset | $49.12 | 1.35x | yes | BV/sh $10.93, ROE (TTM) 41.6%, ke 9.3% |
| Two-Stage Excess Return | Asset | $117.39 | 0.57x | yes | 5yr excess ROE then converge to ke=9.3% |
| Discounted Future Market Cap | Growth | $47.67 | 1.39x | yes | Rev $49.2B, growth 3% (input: historical growth; tapered), Terminal P/S: 2.3x / 2.8x / 3.2x (bear / base = today's held flat / bull, cap 8x) |
| Peter Lynch Fair Value | Relative | $54.60 | 1.22x | yes | EPS $4.55, growth 2% (input: historical EPS growth), PEG=7.32 (Overvalued) |
| Margin Trajectory | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Earnings Power Value | Earnings | — | — | no | — |
| Residual Income | Asset | $78.11 | 0.85x | yes | BV $10.93 + 5yr PV of (ROE (TTM) 41.6% − Kₑ 9.3%) × BV; BV grows 8.8%/yr |
| Graham Number | Asset | $33.44 | 1.99x | yes | √(22.5 × EPS $4.55 × BVPS $10.93) — Graham's conservative floor |
| EV/EBITDA Relative | Relative | $9.78 | 6.80x | yes | EBITDA $3.57B × sector EV/EBITDA 16.0x |
| FCF Yield | Earnings | $42.38 | 1.57x | yes | FCF $11440.0M / Kₑ 9.3% — zero-growth perpetuity |
| SBC-Adj FCF Yield | Earnings | $39.46 | 1.68x | yes | SBC-adj FCF $10.89B (FCF $11.44B − SBC $0.55B) capitalized at Kₑ |
| Ben Graham Formula | Earnings | $146.81 | 0.45x | yes | EPS $4.55 × (8.5 + 2×15.0%) × (4.4 / 5.3%) |
| ROIC-Justified P/B | Asset | — | — | no | — |
| P/Sales Sector | Relative | $96.31 | 0.69x | yes | Revenue $49.19B × sector P/S 4.0x |
| PEG Fair Value | Relative | $170.63 | 0.39x | yes | EPS $4.55 × (PEG 1.5 × growth 25.0% (input: historical EPS growth)) → PE 37.5x |
| Earnings Yield | Earnings | $49.19 | 1.35x | yes | EPS $4.55 / required return 9.3% (Rf 4.3% + ERP 5.0%) |
| Funds From Operations Multiple | Relative | — | — | no | — |
| Clinical Phase NPV | Growth | — | — | no | — |
| Merton | Asset | — | — | no | — |
| V5 Mechanical | — | — | — | no | — |
Economic-Unit Decomposition (Sum Of The Parts)
Only one reportable economic unit is present in the current topology source. Consolidated operating lenses remain available, but there is no multi-unit decomposition.
| Unit | Role | Valuation basis | Revenue | Reported profit | Value evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bristol-Myers Squibb (consolidated) | operating | enterprise | 48.2B reported-currency | — | withheld | unresolved no unit value |
No total common-equity value is stated. One or more material units lack a supported unit value. The displayed values are an indicative subtotal; consolidated debt and cash cannot be applied to a fraction of the company.
Solvency
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Net debt | $32.8b |
| Net debt / NOPAT (after-tax) | 3.40x |
| Net debt / operating income (pre-tax) | 2.76x |
| Interest coverage | 6.9x |
| Share count CAGR (buyback) | -1.2% |
| Burning cash | no |
Bullet Takeaways
- Eliquis, an anticoagulant, is the single largest revenue line at 30% of sales, and the annual filing reports its U.S. revenues up 6% in 2025 on higher demand with international revenues up 14%, or 9% excluding currency.
- Roughly 46% of revenue sits in products the company itself classifies as legacy, which is the concentration behind its own risk heading: "We depend on several key products for most of our revenues, cash flows and earnings."
- Second-quarter results are scheduled for the morning of July 30, 2026, and the number that matters is whether the growth portfolio is replacing legacy revenue fast enough to hold the total flat.
Bull Case
The moat here shows up in a ratio most investors skip past. Bristol-Myers Squibb earns a return on its book equity above 36%, and it does so because the assets producing the profit are patents, approvals and clinical data rather than factories. Book value is under ten dollars a share against a share price above sixty. A company that converts that little accounting capital into roughly 11.9 billion dollars of annual free cash flow is not winning on cost or on scale. It is collecting rent on molecules nobody else is permitted to sell.
What produces the rent is a portfolio of twenty named products, and the shape of it is more interesting than the headline. Eliquis is the largest line at 30% of revenue, and it is still growing: per the annual filing, U.S. revenues rose 6% in 2025 on higher demand while international revenues rose 14%, or 9% excluding currency effects. Opdivo, the immuno-oncology franchise, is 21%. Yervoy, its usual combination partner, is 6%, and the filing reports its U.S. revenues up 14% in 2025 on both higher demand and higher average net selling prices. These are not products in freefall.
The split that decides the next five years is between what the company calls legacy and what it calls growth. Roughly 46% of revenue is legacy, dominated by Eliquis with Revlimid and Pomalyst behind it. Roughly 54% is the growth portfolio: Opdivo and Opdivo Qvantig, Orencia, Yervoy, Reblozyl, Breyanzi, Opdualag, Camzyos, Zeposia, Abecma, Sotyktu, Krazati and Cobenfy. The market has priced the legacy decay as certain and the growth replacement as speculative. That is the standard treatment for a large pharmaceutical company approaching a patent cliff, and it is right often enough to be a reasonable default. It is not right always, and the price offers no compensation for being wrong in the other direction.
Cash does reach shareholders rather than accumulating. The share count has fallen about 1.4% a year across the four years to March 2026, which is buyback deployment showing up in the one place it cannot be faked. The board declared a quarterly dividend of 63 cents a share on June 17, 2026, payable on August 3 to holders of record as of July 2. Free cash flow near 11.9 billion dollars covers that several times over and still leaves capacity to retire borrowings.
Management's forecasting record is also unusually clean for this industry. Since 2006 it has raised guidance on 31 separate occasions, cut it on 2, reaffirmed it on 17, and initiated new guidance on 2. A management team that has lowered its own numbers twice in twenty years is not one that habitually surprises owners badly, and in a sector where the central uncertainty is timing rather than direction, that record is worth something concrete.
Finally, the entry point asks for very little. At roughly 13.4 times company-wide operating income, the multiple already embeds contraction rather than expansion, on the order of five percent a year in operating profit. The bull case therefore does not need growth at all. It needs the decline to be slower than the market has already concluded it will be, and the filing's own 2025 product-level numbers are not the numbers of a portfolio decaying on that schedule.
Bear Case
Look first at who is across the table. AMGN, GILD, MRK, PFE and ABBV all chase the same oncology and immunology prescribers, and several are pulling away. AMGN grew revenue 9.1% over the trailing year on a base of 37.2 billion dollars. ABBV grew 9.5% on 62.8 billion. GILD grew 3.5% on 29.7 billion. BMY sits on a base of 48.5 billion that has been close to flat, which is precisely what the forward valuation inputs assume when they carry a 2% historical rate forward. In a sector where the scoreboard is new approvals, being the company whose revenue does not move is a competitive statement in itself.
The company does not argue with the pressure. Of immuno-oncology, where Opdivo represents 21% of revenue, its own 10-K states that "we anticipate that our IO products will continue to experience intense competition" as new agents win approval and as combination regimens expand into more indications. Opdivo is defending a category it helped create rather than opening a new one, and defending in oncology means matching every competitor's combination trial with one of your own.
Underneath that sits the structural exposure, stated by the filing as a risk-factor heading: "We depend on several key products for most of our revenues, cash flows and earnings." The arithmetic is unforgiving. One product, Eliquis, is 30% of the total. And Eliquis carries a policy exposure the filing describes with unusual precision, warning that a negotiated price "could be renegotiated. This could, among other things, accelerate revenue erosion prior to expiry of intellectual property protections." Erosion arriving before the patent expires is the part of the cliff that models handle worst, because patent calendars are public and negotiated outcomes are not.
Borrowings turn a timing problem into a financing problem. The balance sheet carries net debt near 36 billion dollars, with about 46 billion of gross borrowings set against roughly 10.5 billion of liquid assets. Interest is covered about 5.9 times over, which is adequate rather than generous for a business whose largest product faces a defined expiry. A company with no borrowings can simply wait out a patent cliff and let the pipeline mature. A company owing that much has to refinance through it, and refinancing terms are set by lenders reading the same patent calendar everyone else reads.
There is a floor under the downside, and it is honest to name its size. Beyond the drug portfolio the company holds roughly 1.9 billion dollars of equity stakes that sit outside operating value, about 1.5% of the market capitalisation, which works out to a little under a dollar a share. That bounds the bear case at something above zero. It does not move it.
The cheapness is the bear's evidence, not its refutation. A price that concedes a five percent annual contraction and then discounts it further has already reached its verdict. Owning it is a wager on the rate of decay rather than on any growth. Two of the four families of method are already stretched at today's level: the earnings-power lenses leave a premium near 46% and the asset-based lenses near 32%, both because they capitalize what exists today and credit nothing to a pipeline. If the growth portfolio does not replace legacy revenue on schedule, the frames that look conservative now will turn out to have been the optimistic ones.
Valuation
Most reports on a large pharmaceutical company spend their space explaining a premium. This one has to explain a discount. The market pays about 13.4 times company-wide operating income for Bristol-Myers Squibb, and running that backwards does not yield a growth requirement at all. It yields a bound instead. Model the company as shrinking by roughly five percent a year in operating profit and the value that falls out still lands above what buyers are paying today. The price has conceded contraction and then discounted it further. That is a description of what has been assumed, not a forecast of what will happen.
How unusual is such an assumption? Not very, which is itself the useful finding. Measured against the company's own record, the pace embedded in the price is inside what it has recently delivered. Measured against the wider set of comparable pharmaceutical names, the multiple sits in the lower half of the range. The embedded assumption reads as broadly consistent with plausible outcomes. For a company priced as though it were shrinking, that is the single most important thing on the page.
The methods disagree, and for once they do not all point one way. The forward cash-flow approaches land above today's price, and they reach there on modest inputs: a free cash flow base near 11.9 billion dollars carried forward at about 2% annual expansion, with a terminal rate set lower still. That is not an aggressive projection by any reading. Peer-multiple approaches land beside the price, leaving a premium around 11%, built off a static sector reference in the mid-twenties on earnings. The earnings-power lenses leave a premium near 46% and the asset-based lenses near 32%, both of which capitalize what the company earns and owns today while crediting nothing to what is in development. When the forward frames sit above the price and the comparable frames sit beside it, the argument among the methods is about how quickly the legacy products fade, not about whether the business earns money.
Two filing-sourced inputs carry most of the weight underneath all of that. The first is the revenue mix. Eliquis at 30% of sales is the largest single line, and per the annual filing its U.S. revenues rose 6% in 2025 on higher demand with international revenues up 14%, or 9% excluding currency. Roughly 46% of revenue sits in the products the company classifies as legacy and roughly 54% in the growth portfolio. The second is the concentration disclosure itself: "We depend on several key products for most of our revenues, cash flows and earnings." Those two facts together are what the price is actually arguing about.
The balance sheet decides how much time that argument gets. Net debt runs near 36 billion dollars against liquid assets of roughly 10.5 billion, with interest covered about 5.9 times over. The share count has fallen about 1.4% a year across four years, so the cash has been going to owners and lenders rather than into dilution. Separately, the company holds around 1.9 billion dollars of equity stakes outside the operating segments, roughly 1.5% of market value. None of that is a valuation of anything. It is the measure of how long a company priced for decline can afford to be wrong about when the decline arrives.
Catalysts
The next scheduled information event is close. Bristol Myers Squibb reports second-quarter 2026 results on the morning of July 30, 2026, with management reviewing them on a call beginning at 8:15 a.m. Eastern. The line to watch is not the headline total but its composition: whether growth-portfolio products are adding revenue faster than the legacy products are losing it. That single comparison is what the current multiple is disputing.
Capital return is already fixed for the quarter. The board declared a quarterly dividend of 63 cents a share on June 17, 2026, payable on August 3, 2026 to shareholders of record as of July 2. Alongside that, the share count has continued to shrink, falling about 1.4% a year across the four years to March 2026, so the per-share effect of any given quarter's earnings is being quietly amplified.
The slower-moving catalyst is policy, and it is disclosed rather than speculative. The annual filing warns that a negotiated price for a previously selected product "could be renegotiated. This could, among other things, accelerate revenue erosion prior to expiry of intellectual property protections." For a portfolio where one product is 30% of revenue, the practical consequence is that the erosion schedule may be set by a negotiation calendar rather than by a patent calendar. Investors watching the patent dates alone are watching the wrong document.
Peer Cohorts (Per Segment, With Filing Citations)
Bristol-Myers Squibb (consolidated) (reported)
- PFE (Pfizer Inc.)
- FY2025 10-K: .42 - $ 3,292,882,444 Total 132,731 $ 25.27 - (a) Represents (i) 129,716 shares of common stock surrendered to the Company to satisfy tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of awards under our long-term incentive programs and (ii) the open market purchase by the trustee of 3,015 shares of common…
- FY2025 10-K: Cash Flows • Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Pfizer Inc. 2025 Form 10-K 107 15(a)(2) Financial Statement Schedules. Schedules are omitted because they are not required or because the information is provided elsewhere in the financial statements. The financial statements of unconsolidated subsidiaries are…
- AMGN (Amgen Inc.)
- FY2025 10-K: …about existing products may result in (i) increased competition for our marketed products, even for those protected by patents and/or (ii) reductions in the prices we receive from selling our products. In addition, the development of new treatment options or standards of care may reduce the use of our products or may…
- FY2025 10-K: …Squibb Company. (4) REVLIMID ® also includes generics. (5) A subsidiary of Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (6) PROCRIT ® competes with Aranesp in supportive cancer care and predialysis settings. TEPEZZA and KRYSTEXXA currently do not face any direct competitors in the United States, Europe or Japan. TEPEZZA faces…
- GILD (GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.)
- FY2025 10-K: 4 Master Agreement by and between Registrant, Gilead Sciences K.K. and Japan Tobacco Inc., dated November 29, 2018 +(39) 10.65 Amended and Restated Collaboration Agreement by and among Registrant, Gilead Sciences Ireland UC (formerly Gilead Sciences Limited) and Janssen R&D Ireland, dated December 23, 2014 +(40) 10.66…
- FY2025 10-K: …ended June 30, 2022, and incorporated herein by reference. (23) Filed as an exhibit to Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2023, and incorporated herein by reference. (24) Filed as an exhibit to Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2014, and…
- NVS (Novartis AG)
- FY2025 20-F: …Novartis is deemed to have significant influence, and foundations required to be consolidated under IFRS Accounting Standards. It includes Novartis AG direct subsidiaries and its indirect subsidiaries, associated companies and consolidated foundations with total assets or net sales to third parties from continuing…
- FY2025 20-F: …growth drivers. • Embed operational excellence to deliver returns : In an increasingly competitive environment, we are simplifying processes and reducing costs to become more efficient and effective in our decision-making and to free up resources for investment in new medicines. Our goal is to continue making…
- GSK (GSK plc)
- FY2025 20-F: …Ordinary 78.30% GSK Medicines Research Centre, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, SG1 2NY, United Kingdom ViiV Healthcare UK (No.5) Limited Ordinary 78.30% GSK Medicines Research Centre, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, SG1 2NY, United Kingdom ViiV Healthcare UK (No.6) Limited Ordinary 78.30% GSK Medicines Research Centre,…
- FY2025 20-F: …by reference to Exhibit (a)(2) to the registration statement on Form F-6 (No. 333-264759) filed with the Commission on May 6, 2022. 2.3 Form of American Depositary Share is incorporated by reference to the filing pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) in connection with the registration statement on Form F-6 (Nos. 333-232726 and…
- MRK (Merck & Co., Inc.)
- FY2025 10-K: SD iso4217:USD xbrli:shares mrk:segment mrk:aqua_facility xbrli:pure mrk:antibodyDrugConjugate mrk:candidate mrk:site mrk:interest_rate_swap iso4217:EUR mrk:case mrk:company mrk:patent 0000310158 2025-01-01 2025-12-31 0000310158 us-gaap:CommonStockMember 2025-01-01 2025-12-31 0000310158 mrk:A1.875Notesdue2026Member…
- FY2025 10-K: …is a first-in-class erythroid maturation recombinant fusion protein that is being commercialized through a global collaboration with Bristol Myers Squibb Company (BMS) (see Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements). Reblozyl is approved for the treatment of anemia in certain rare blood disorders. Alliance…
- LLY (ELI LILLY & Co)
- FY2025 10-K: …and Lilly USA. Previously, he served as Executive Vice President and President, Lilly Immunology and Lilly USA, and Chief Customer Officer, senior vice president and president, Lilly Bio-Medicines and president and general manager, Lilly Japan. Mr. Jonsson has 35 years of service with Lilly. Lucas Montarce 48…
- FY2025 10-K: ; Novartis AG; Pfizer Inc.; Roche Holding AG; Sanofi S.A.; and Stryker Corporation. (2) Prior to 2025, the peer group we used as the industry index for this graph was comprised of the following companies in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries: AbbVie Inc.; Amgen Inc.; AstraZeneca PLC; Biogen Inc.;…
- ABBV (AbbVie Inc.)
- FY2025 10-K: The accompanying notes are an integral part of these consolidated financial statements. 2025 Form 10-K | 56 AbbVie Inc. and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Note 1 Background Background The principal business of AbbVie Inc. (AbbVie or the company) is the discovery, development, manufacturing and…
- FY2025 10-K: …(GAAP) and necessarily include amounts based on estimates and assumptions by management. Actual results could differ from those amounts. Significant estimates include amounts for rebates, pension and other post-employment benefits, income taxes, litigation, valuation of goodwill, intangible assets and contingent…
Methodology Note
- Priced-in inversion: the valuation is inverted on the current price to recover the operating-income growth, duration, and steady-state margin the price embeds (ROE for financials, FFO growth for REITs).
- Valuation x-ray: the valuation models, grouped into four families (asset, earnings, relative, growth). Each model is expressed as a price/FV ratio (distance from price), not a point fair-value estimate. The spread across families is the disagreement.
- Economic-unit decomposition (SOTP): each disclosed business unit is assigned its native valuation basis before any multiple is applied. Operating units are valued on enterprise value; funded financial units are valued on their own common equity, because their borrowings fund earning assets rather than levering the parent. A company total is stated only once every material unit carries a supported value and the parent capital bridge reconciles.
- Solvency: net cash/debt, net-debt-to-NOPAT, interest coverage, and share-count CAGR from EDGAR financials (net debt / FFO and fixed-charge coverage for REITs; regulatory-capital framing for financials).
- Peer cohorts: per-segment comparables with deep-linkable SEC filing citations.
Fundamentals sourced from SEC EDGAR filings. Current price from Databento. The priced-in inversion and valuation x-ray are computed by the boothcheck engine; narrative composed by AI from the structured data.
Sources
BMS press release, June 18, 2026 · BMS dividend declaration, June 17, 2026