Business
Handshake
(Getty Images)

Big Pharma enters 2026 with an appetite for deals

At the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference, biotechs and Big Pharma signaled they’re primed for M&A this year, after a big year for deals in 2025.

Revolution Medicines CEO Mark Goldsmith, whose company might be at the center of what could wind up being the biggest biotech deal of the year, is staying tight-lipped.

His company, a California-based startup working on a late-stage oral cancer treatment, Daraxonrasib, is reportedly in talks with Merck to be acquired for as much as $32 billion, which would make it the biggest biotech deal since Pfizer bought Seagen for $45.6 billion in 2023. At the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco on Monday, analyst Brian Cheng asked Goldsmith, “How do you balance your goal in building a bigger machine then, you know, taking strategic transactions in front of you?”

“We have very little to say on the latter part of your question since we have an established policy of not commenting on market speculation,” Goldsmith said. “But with regard to what we are building, it’s not our goal to build something big. It’s our goal to build something that’s impactful.”

Merck, the company reportedly in talks to buy Revolution Medicines, was more cavalier. Speaking at the same conference on Monday, Merck CEO Mark Davis said he sees an opportunity for deals worth “multi tens of billion” dollars.

“We are not limited from a balance sheet,” Davis said. “It’s more, where do we see strategic opportunity?”

As some of the most lucrative drugs lose exclusivity in the next few years, pharmaceutical giants are increasingly shopping around for biotechs to add to their portfolios — and they are more than happy to pay a hefty premium for the right company.

Merck’s cancer drug, Keytruda, is the second-most sold drug after Eli Lilly’s GLP-1, tirzepatide. The drug is expected to have brought in $31.6 billion in sales last year, or about half of the company’s annual revenue. 

The drug also faces patent expiry in 2028, meaning Merck needs to fill a Keytruda-sized hole in its portfolio pretty soon as competition from Keytruda generics will begin to eat into its revenues. Companies like Pfizer, Amgen, and Novo Nordisk find themselves in similar positions.

M&A activity began heating up as biotechs made advancements in gene therapies and oncology, two lucrative treatment areas. For some Big Pharma companies, business development spending is now about equal to, or more than, research and development. 

In 2025, announced global biotech deals totaled $228.4 billion, up from $132.3 billion in 2024, data from Dealogic shows. Many of those deals were concentrated in the latter half of the year, once the sector gained clarity from the Trump administration amid a wave of threats of pharmaceutical tariffs. Just two weeks into 2026, $9.2 billion in deals have been announced, according to Dealogic.

Bid-offs are increasingly common 

The Wall Street Journal reported on January 8 that AbbVie was in talks to buy Revolution Medicines. The drugmaker later issued a statement saying it was not in talks to acquire the oncology biotech. Later that day, the Financial Times reported that Merck was in talks to buy Revolution Medicines for about twice the company’s market capitalization prior to the reports, suggesting there was potentially a bidding war happening behind the scenes. 

It wouldn’t be the first time. Late last year, Pfizer faced off against Novo Nordisk in a high-profile bidding war about Metsera, a GLP-1 startup. Pfizer ended up buying Metsera for $10 billion, up from the $7.3 billion it initially agreed to pay. 

Pfizer’s chief financial officer, Dave Denton, told Sherwood News in November that the company has about $6 billion left in “firepower” earmarked for acquisitions. He said he thinks the company may need more assets in Immunology & Inflammation. 

“That’s where we’d likely look to supplement through business development over time,” he said. 

Mike Doustdar, CEO of Novo Nordisk, told Bloomberg the company is “in the market for big or small.” Novo, which was willing to pay $10 billion for Metsera, will see its patent on its blockbuster diabetes drug, Ozempic, expire in the US in 2031.

“As long as it’s complementary to our own assets, then we can go very big, very big in buying something in, but it has to be worth it and it has to be so much better than whatever we have,” Doustdar said. 

Eli Lillyis reportedly in talks to acquire French biotech Abivax for €15 billion. Abivax announced positive Phase 3 trial results for obefazimod, its drug that treats an inflammatory bowel disease, in July. 

“If you are Big Pharma, you cannot ignore that this product may be one of the most used products in the next decade,” Abivax CEO Marc de Garidel, attending the JPMorgan Healthcare Conference, told Bloomberg News.

Brian Lian, CEO of Viking Therapeutics, a late-stage GLP-1 biotech, also suggested on Tuesday that interest in his company is mounting. Viking, which has a market value of over $3 billion, has been rumored to be an M&A target. 

“I think the interest is probably broader than is visible,” he said. “I think that there are more parties sort of circling the space and are very intrigued.”

More Business

See all Business
business

The Trump administration is reportedly planning a 50% made-in-America requirement for USMCA tariff relief

Qualifying for USMCA-related lower tariffs may soon require more US-made vehicle components, according to reporting by The Wall Street Journal.

The Trump administration is reportedly planning to introduce a 50% US content requirement for vehicles covered by the trade pact to receive lower tariffs. The content would be measured by cost, according to the WSJ.

There currently isn’t any US-specific requirement for those lower tariff rates, but in order to receive preferential tariffs, vehicles are must contain at least 75% regional content (components made in North America). Per Reuters reporting, the Trump admin is seeking to raise the regional requirement to 82%.

These reported plans are subject to change as the US negotiates USMCA terms with Mexico over the next few months.

Overall, Tesla will likely have the easiest time qualifying for any stricter requirements. The automaker’s vehicles contained the highest amount of US/Canadian content in 2025, according to American University research. Ford, GM, and Stellantis all scored lower.

Notably: the underlying government data that many domestic content measurements rely on intentionally combines US and Canadian components, so it’s difficult to know exactly how much of any given vehicle is specifically US-made.

There currently isn’t any US-specific requirement for those lower tariff rates, but in order to receive preferential tariffs, vehicles are must contain at least 75% regional content (components made in North America). Per Reuters reporting, the Trump admin is seeking to raise the regional requirement to 82%.

These reported plans are subject to change as the US negotiates USMCA terms with Mexico over the next few months.

Overall, Tesla will likely have the easiest time qualifying for any stricter requirements. The automaker’s vehicles contained the highest amount of US/Canadian content in 2025, according to American University research. Ford, GM, and Stellantis all scored lower.

Notably: the underlying government data that many domestic content measurements rely on intentionally combines US and Canadian components, so it’s difficult to know exactly how much of any given vehicle is specifically US-made.

business
Tom Jones

The $640,000 Luce makes the average Ferrari look like a bargain

Put aside the shape; put aside the smoothing out of Ferrari’s iconic sharp edges; put aside, even, the calls from former Chairman and President Luca Cordero di Montezemolo to “take the Prancing Horse off.” On the grounds of price alone, Luce detractors might have a point.

By now, many of us will have read the criticisms of Ferrari’s first fully electric vehicle, as the Luce — which was unveiled to the world earlier this week and promptly saw the company’s shares crash out in New York and Milan — gets subtly shaded by competitors online and not-so-subtly shaded by basically everyone else.

What makes all of this worse for Ferrari is that, even by the luxury car maker’s notoriously high standards, they’ve slapped a pretty hefty price tag on the Luce, and the company’s CEO, Benedetto Vigna, has already been forced to defend the €550,000 ($640,000) price point, saying yesterday that it’s “fair to pay for innovation,” per Reuters.

While Ferrari’s cars have been getting more expensive of late, as recently as 2022, Ferrari’s average revenue per car sold was around $340,000. At nearly twice that price, this new electric model is obviously proving a little much (visually, conceptually, and financially) for many loyal and long-standing fans of the Prancing Horse to stomach.

Ferrari Luce cost chart
Sherwood News

By now, many of us will have read the criticisms of Ferrari’s first fully electric vehicle, as the Luce — which was unveiled to the world earlier this week and promptly saw the company’s shares crash out in New York and Milan — gets subtly shaded by competitors online and not-so-subtly shaded by basically everyone else.

What makes all of this worse for Ferrari is that, even by the luxury car maker’s notoriously high standards, they’ve slapped a pretty hefty price tag on the Luce, and the company’s CEO, Benedetto Vigna, has already been forced to defend the €550,000 ($640,000) price point, saying yesterday that it’s “fair to pay for innovation,” per Reuters.

While Ferrari’s cars have been getting more expensive of late, as recently as 2022, Ferrari’s average revenue per car sold was around $340,000. At nearly twice that price, this new electric model is obviously proving a little much (visually, conceptually, and financially) for many loyal and long-standing fans of the Prancing Horse to stomach.

Ferrari Luce cost chart
Sherwood News

Latest Stories

Sherwood Media, LLC and Chartr Limited produce fresh and unique perspectives on topical financial news and are fully owned subsidiaries of Robinhood Markets, Inc., and any views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of any other Robinhood affiliate, including Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, Robinhood Securities, LLC, Robinhood Crypto, LLC, Robinhood Money, LLC, Robinhood U.K. Ltd, Robinhood Derivatives, LLC, Robinhood Gold, LLC, Robinhood Asset Management, LLC, Robinhood Credit, Inc., Robinhood Ventures DE, LLC and, where applicable, its managed investment vehicles.