Reconsidering Abbott Labs (ABT) And AbbVie (ABBV)

Abbott Laboratories: A company I loved

At the beginning of this year, Abbott Laboratories (ABT) completed the spin-off of its branded pharmaceutical business. This business is now a separate publicly traded company, calling itself AbbVie Inc. (ABBV). I have long been a fan of Abbott Laboratories as a diversified health care company with operations in medical devices, diagnostics, branded pharmaceuticals and nutrition among other businesses. It’s been in business since 1888 and it’s been increasing its dividends for 40 years. Think about this: Abbott has paid 352 consecutive quarterly dividend payments since 1924! Before the company split, it was attractively valued, yielding over 3% and had an attractive balance sheet. Earnings had been growing at a healthy clip for as far back as I could track. There just wasn’t much to dislike here. It was one of my largest positions, and rightfully so.

It was because of my extremely favorable view on the business that I had fully anticipated keeping both sides of the business after the spin-off. I knew that Abbott Laboratories (ABT) would keep most of the highly attractive portions of the business and AbbVie (ABBV) would go off and maximize the drug and pipeline side. The company felt the different sides of the business could operate more efficiently separated and the market would reward the move through a more appropriate (higher) valuation on the separate businesses. I was inclined to agree.

The split

However, now that I have the two companies in my portfolio I have to look at them as they are: two separate companies. I can no longer wax nostalgic about the old Abbott Laboratories and what a fantastic company it was. Those days are gone and there are now two different companies in its place.

The new Abbott Labs (ABT)

The new Abbott Laboratories (ABT) keeps everything but the proprietary pharmaceutical business. This includes nutritional products, diagnostics, medical devices and established pharmaceuticals (branded generics). This is really, in my opinion, the more attractive side of the old business. I think there is plenty of growth here, and the company has always been outstandingly managed. 70% of sales are outside the U.S. due to their exceptional geographical diversification, with a full 40% coming from emerging markets like China, India and Brazil. The main problem with the new ABT is that the yield is a lowly 1.71%. This is far below what I’d consider an acceptable yield for a new investment.

Basically, if I were looking for an investment with “new money”, or fresh capital, ABT would not really be in the running due to the extremely low yield. I look for 3% when I can get it, but generally 2.5% is about as low as I go. What’s important to consider is that whether this is a new investment with fresh capital or an old investment matters not, as I’m still yielding 1.71% on the capital invested with the new ABT. Unfortunately, that’s not something I’m totally comfortable with.

A new company: Abbvie Inc. (ABBV)

The newly formed spin-off business now known as AbbVie Inc. (ABBV) is a research-based pharmaceutical company. The great thing with ABBV is that since they were spun-off from a well-known and mature pharmaceutical side of a large company in ABT, they already have a large stable of successful drugs and a strong pipeline behind that. It currently yields 4.39%. What’s not to like? Well, actually quite a bit. The major problem with ABBV is that one particular blockbuster drug, Humira, accounts for 50% of their revenue. Humira is an absolute stunner of a drug, one that’s been incredibly successful for Abbott Labs. It is mainly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and is the world’s best selling autoimmune drug.

But the success that ABBV has out of the gate with a gigantic drug like this could also be its greatest weakness. AbbVie faces a patent cliff with Humira at the end of 2016, so the pipeline needs to be cooking right now to make up for what will probably be relatively large revenue losses. While Humira sales won’t go away completely just because it goes off patent, this will cause large sales disruptions. There doesn’t appear to be anything of blockbuster status in the pipeline currently. Great yield with this company, but I don’t generally invest with pure play pharmaceutical companies in general due to patent cliffs and other inherent issues with these businesses. You’ll notice I don’t currently hold positions in companies like Pfizer Inc. (PFE) or Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY). ABBV could be particularly risky due to the large amount of revenue it counts on from one specific drug.

Where I stand now

I haven’t decided to sell off my two separate positions yet, but am considering it currently. I was absolutely enamored with Abbott Laboratories (ABT) of old, and it was one of my favorite companies to buy on dips. It was a perennially undervalued company (before the spin-off announcement) with a great yield and solid operations. Looking at the two new companies as separate, individual components I just don’t see the same level of attractiveness or quality. Frankly, I wish ABT would have stayed whole as one company. I now have one high quality, diversified health care company with a yield that’s way too low for my comfort zone and one research-based pharmaceutical pure play that has half of its revenue coming from one drug. It’s unfortunate that I find myself in this situation. I may have to sell both sides and redeploy my capital into another opportunity that I find more compelling.

What do you think? Are you keeping both companies? Selling both? Keeping one? Why?

Full Disclosure: Long ABT, ABBV

Thanks for reading.

Photo Credit: Abbott Labs


  1. says

    DM – I agree with your analysis. I have never owned Abbot, but it was not for lack of interest. It was never at a price where I wanted to jump in, and I already owned Novartis, which has been a great performer for me since I purchased it in early 2012. I have nonetheless kept Abbot on my watch list, but like you I am concerned about the concentration in a single drug. I may yet make a purchase down the road, but if I do I suspect it will be ABBV and not ABT.

    • says

      Dining on Dividends,

      Thanks for stopping by.

      NVS is also a fantastic stock, and a company that operates much like the old ABT with pharmaceuticals, diagnostics and the like. The annual dividend is about the only thing that turns me off about this stock. Fantastic company though.

      ABBV is attractive mainly for the high yield, but that high yield may have trouble remaining sustainable if significant revenue disruptions manifest themselves through the loss of patent protection on Humira. It remains to be seen just how large of an event that will be. Still a few years off.

      Best regards.

  2. says

    ABT might be a bit like PSX. It starts out low and then ramps up really fast. While I wouldn’t have bought PSX, since it got split off of COP, I’ve been happy to own it. I’m not going to sell it unless it’s dividend growth starts grinding to a halt. So maybe ABT will work similarly, and I’m often too nice to stocks.

    ABBV (named by the same people who came up with Qwickster I’m guessing) is a bit worrying. I’ve got a very similar opinion as you do about research based pharma companies. The patent cliffs, the reliance on blockbuster compounds, and the current trend towards mergers and consolidation are all things that keep me away.

    If ABBV doesn’t replace Humira with another compound, or several, there are going to be problems. I would anticipate layoffs, maybe a dividend cut, and possibly acquisition. I can see Pfizer buying them up.

    If I owned ABT and ABBV I would probably keep them where they are and watch them. I don’t think I would make any new investments into either one at this point. Although once ABT’s dividend gets towards the 3% mark, I’d consider looking into it as an investment.

    • says


      Spin-offs like ABBV and PSX generally do well for shareholders. I don’t remember the exact article, but I remember reading one a while back that showed that spin-offs like this generally benefit shareholders. PSX has definitely gotten off to a nice start, and not just the capital appreciation but the already large dividend increase.

      I agree with your thesis regarding pure play pharma companies. Patent cliffs and the reliance on blockbuster drugs can result in a bit of seesaw performance, and the R&D needed to constantly fund a strong pipeline can hurt FCF by way of high CAPEX.

      I may indeed keep them where they are. I do not plan any further fresh capital going into either name, and am rather tilting towards selling them if given the choice between selling and buying.

      Thanks for adding that. Great stuff and I generally agree.

      Best wishes!

  3. says

    DM, as far as ABBV I thing two or three weeks ago they announced a new dividend payout and it was down to 40 cents per share, which equals to around 1.6% yield as well, or am I missing something? For the similar reasons I already got rid of my stake in ABT and ABBV. Why tying capital in a stock which yields 1.7% when I can relocate to a company which will provide me with 3 or more per cent yield? As a dividend investor I do not care how brilliant the company is as long as it doesn’t pay a dividend. I might be interested in ABT or ABBV when they get to pre-spinoff yields and dividend growth.

    • says


      ABBV pays out a $0.40 quarterly dividend currently, for an annualized total of $1.60. Based on the current share price (as of today’s closing) of $37.32, that’s an effective yield of 4.29%.

      “I might be interested in ABT or ABBV when they get to pre-spinoff yields and dividend growth.”

      Well, they actually do have pre-split yield when combined. The two entities combine to pay the same dividend that the old ABT did as one company. So, a dividend growth investor that was invested in ABT before the spin-off has not lost any yield on the investment. The dividend remained the same, and actually got a boost right before the split.

      As far as growth, only time will tell. I suspect ABT will be able to fuel much greater dividend growth than ABBV will.

      Take care!

  4. says

    DM, to your point, the lack of a solid pipeline and dependence on 1 megahit blockbuster could really send your dividends off a cliff, especially if it makes up 50% of the companies revenue.

    Patent cliffs are one of the reasons I’m a little negative on big pharma (including JNJ) right now. Novartis is probably one of the only big pharma companies I like, because I perceive that as having a solid pipeline and therefore being able to crank out profits and dividend increases for the medium term.

    The process of identifying a compound and bringing a drug to market is a little too hit and miss in my view. Frankly, given drug development and FDA approval timelines, if they don’t have something solid in the pipeline right now then between times to test, trial, approve and market the next “blockbuster”, its unlikely Humara revenue will be replaced in the medium term.

    I would argue that its for these reasons that the spin off occured, likely because the pharma part of the business was dragging the remainder of Abbot down in terms of valuation, and Abbot new they had to cut it loose.

    • says


      I agree with you on NVS. A very solid company that operates like the old ABT when all is considered.

      ABBV does have a fairly decent pipeline, especially in regards to Hepatitis C treatments, but I don’t know enough about pharma to conclude that they truly have anything that will replace something on the level of Humira. Again, I don’t anticipate 100% loss of revenue with Humira due to a number of reasons (the fact that it’s a biologic, branded drugs are still premium), but the exact loss is an unknown. That uncertainty can be worrying.

      I agree with your last paragraph. The pharma was probably affecting Abbott’s overall valuation due to the uncertainty regarding Humira’s large role on the pharma side and so they jettisoned it as a separate operation to value the two sides independently.

      Take care!

  5. Anonymous says

    I agree about pharma, and used to work for one of the largest companies in the business. It is not only difficult to find effektive drugs you also have to go through the political and cumbersam process for approval, and then find out that duing the ten years you spent developing the drug the view on effect vs. Risk has changed once again. It is very difficult to run an efficient business under with that playing field. On the other hand when all goes your way it is highly rewarding both in the wider sence and in the monetary sence.

    • says


      Thanks so much for that information. Especially telling since you used to work for one of the big players.

      The long time line between the initial development stage and actually getting a compound to market must be really trying. I can’t imagine working on one product for years and years. Really incredible. I’m so used to working on very short-term projects (anywhere from an hour to a couple days – a week or so at most).

      Thanks for offering that perspective. I can’t even imagine how rewarding it must feel to work on something that long and actually see it begin to help people in everyday life!

      Best wishes.

  6. says

    My plans are to hold both, but not add new shares. I still have some love left for ABT, but the yield is too low to increase ownership right now. Sub 2% yield is the only thing I don’t like. I feel ABT is in a better longterm position after ditching Humira and imo the riskier side of the business. I want to at least give ABT a chance to show me some nice dividend growth.

    I do not like pure pharma companies, but will hold ABBV for the foreseeable future. I may unload it if I can find a suitable replacement in the healthcare sector. None of the healthcare stocks in my watch list currently meet criteria for a purchase (expect JNJ, but even JNJ is pretty pricey at the moment). I kind of feel Abbvie is a ticking timebomb. Losing patent protection on Humira could be potentially devasting!

    Another concern is that these stocks are in my taxable account and I do not want to realize almost 50% capital gains.

    • says

      Compounding Income,

      I still have some love for ABT too. I totally hear you on that one. Tough to get rid of it because I feel it’s still a pretty strong company.

      That last part also concerns me. I try never to worry about tax consequences, as a large tax bill simply means I made a lot of money, but still the thought of realizing the gains, harvesting the capital, paying the commission fees and then redeploying the capital into something else that may or may not be as promising going forward does scare me after you factor in all the costs that puts you behind the 8-ball right away.

      Best wishes!

  7. Ryan (Chicago) says

    I share your concern about the feast/famine nature of pharma companies — on whether their drugs are approved or not, when patents expire, etc.

    However, I also believe, with the aging population of the developed world, these companies as a whole will perform very well over the next few decades.

    It may be risky to pick one or two of them to invest in… but perhaps an overall winning strategy would be to buy a larger basket of these companies (perhaps in a targeted pharma ETF?)

    • says


      Great point there on the aging population of the developed world. Demographics certainly play a large role in looking at investments, and this is never truer than when looking into health care plays.

      Individual pure play pharmas can be risky due to the singular drug issue (like Humira with ABBV) and the pipeline concerns, and an ETF may solve this. I’ve just always gone the route of investing in a diversified health care company that has exposure to pharma (like old ABT, JNJ).

      Best wishes!

  8. Anonymous says

    took2summit here,

    i remember asking you before the spin-out what you would do, however the day of the spin-out i sold both positions as i liked old ABT but i hated but new abt and abbv for some reason. seems odd but i just couldnt get myself to like either of the 2 new companies.

    almost makes me question whether i should have owned it in the first place

    • says


      Glad to hear your perspective on it. I can certainly understand your reasoning behind selling, as the reasons for owning ABT in the first place are not necessarily there with the separate pieces.

      I don’t think owning ABT in its original form was a bad idea at all, and quite the contrary I was quite a fan of the business and would have loved to continue owning it and adding fresh capital on dips. The spin-off complicates matters a bit as I talked about above. We’ll see how it plays out.

      Take care.

  9. says

    I am currently holding a sizable position in both companies. I think that ABT will most likely move to increase their dividend to an acceptable level in the future. Even though Humeria will go off patent protection in 2016 I think that because of the difficulty in the manufacture of generic biologics the reduction in revenue may be very gradual. I am not planning to add to my position in the near future.

    • says

      Dividend farmer,

      Great point there about the manufacturing of a generic biologic. That does give Humira a slight advantage there. Even factoring in a generic version, I don’t think all hope will be lost. There will still be significant sales of Humira in its current branded form, just not to the same level as it is now. How much the patent cliff will affect sales is really an uncertainty, and it’s that uncertainty that worries me.

      ABT may indeed increase the dividend quite aggressively. The anticipated growth, especially due to the emerging market exposure, would help fuel dividend growth through EPS growth.

      I anticipate greater growth with the ABT side, and I think that’s where most of the attractive assets lie.

      Best wishes!

    • says


      Thanks for stopping by. I always appreciate your insight.

      I remember reading you had planned on holding both sides. Perhaps I should too. The “bar of soap” conundrum, if you will. The less handling of the portfolio, generally the better off one will be. I don’t want to over-think my portfolio, so that’s why I haven’t sold yet.

      I’d hate to get rid of such a long-time player, and one with what I believe is still attractive assets. I truly wish they would have stayed whole.

      Best wishes.

  10. says

    Well sincerely I got surprised and did not know what to do. I was about to sell ABT this week but postponed it to when I would find my reason to sell. Now I admit I was lazy and did not view it as you have just done. I guess I will sell ABT within this month and keep ABBV. Will recalculate next week the intrinsic values for both (I think it won’t be easy for ABBV). It is the weekend beginning now and feel really tired and lazy.

    My inner feeling tells me to sell both and forget about them.

    Have a nice long weekend.

    • says


      Well, make sure that no matter what you do (hold or sell) you’re completely comfortable with it. If the numbers aren’t there for you, and your gut is telling you to sell you could be on to something.

      Best wishes!

    • says

      yes, I took the time to look for numbers for ABBV in google finance. ABBV Price: 37,82 Graham number: 26,30 Book value: 9,91 Intrinsic value with Book value growth of 5% and 10 year treasuries of 1,85% = 27,92. with BV growth of 10 % Intrinsic = 35,88. Although the dividend yield is 4,40 % I will sell ABBV

      ABT Price:52,74 Graham number (square root( 22,5 *eps*book value)) = 39.55
      Intrinsic with BV growth of 5% = 28,24 I will sell also ABT

      Sorry but was too lazy yesterday to run the numbers. I only hope that I calculated the Bookvalue correctly for ABBV

      Have a nice long weekend.

  11. Anonymous says

    I also loved the the old ABT and I am going to hold both for a while. Don’t be to quick to pull the trigger on selling ABBV as these companies try every trick in the book to extend patent protection including , but not limited to different dosing, combining the drug with another drug to create a “new” drug and so on. Bad for consumers who pay through the nose but good for shareholders.

    • says


      Good information there. The Abbott of old was very friendly to shareholders and I have no reason to believe that won’t continue with the two separate companies. I’m just concerned that management’s friendly disposition will be limited due to certain factors, especially in ABBV’s case with Humira’s dominance on the revenue side.

      The more I look at the two companies the more I like ABT’s side of assets. I think it’s still a very attractive business with only the entry yield lacking currently. Perhaps some aggressive dividend raises could put them at the level (over 2.5%) that makes that side of the stock attractive again.

      Best regards!

  12. Anonymous says

    I waited until after the split to purchase 130 shares of ABT for $33.36/share because I didn’t want to own ABBV for the reasons you stated above.

    I’ve always thought ABT was a good value stock but pricey, and while I know I’m at a small loss position at this point, I plan to keep the shares for the long term because I’ve looked at the financials and business model and believe it’s a strong company that will continue to grow. I believe the yield can and will get back to the point it was at before the split.

    Just wondering on your perspective.

    • says


      You may very well be right about the yield getting back to the level before the split, which was around 3.1% or so if I remember correctly. The new ABT should be able to grow earnings at a very healthy clip, which of course means solid dividend growth if management stays committed to such. The first dividend raise will give us a glimpse into the future. If it’s a stodgy raise (less than 8%) than it may be time to reconsider things. With a yield this low I need to see extremely healthy growth of the dividend.

      ABT has very attractive assets, and the more attractive of the two separate companies in my opinion. Their international exposure is fantastic and the business is heavily diversified. They have all the tools necessary to succeed.

      Best wishes.

    • says

      Everyday Freethought,

      PSX has done exceptionally, if unexpectedly, well. I’m certainly pleased with not only the capital appreciation aspect, but also the fact that they appear dedicated to dividend growth right out of the gate.

      Best regards.

  13. Anonymous says

    I also had the old ABT, and considered it a core holding. Im a dividend investor, so I was concerned about the split. I was uncomfortable enough with it that I sold it before the split, and bought some other dividend stocks. At this point, neither parts of the split encourage me to dive back in.

    • says


      I don’t blame you for selling before the split. Certainly never a bad idea to book a profit if you feel uncomfortable with future prospects.

      It’s quite unfortunate really. I also considered ABT a core holding and it’s so sad to come to this fork in the road. I’m tempted to keep at least the new ABT portion because I still believe in the business, but that yield is stubbornly low. We shall see. If I was to book profits I’d probably just keep it in cash until some attractive opportunities become apparent.

      Best wishes!

  14. Anonymous says

    What’s up D. Mantra? Haven’t posted a comment for awhile but I’ve still been checking in now and then. Congrats on your 2012 goals and good luck w/ 2013. Hope you and your family enjoyed the Holidays and hope your job situation works out.

    Anyhow, I was strongly against the Abbott split and posted numerous comments on blogs stating as much. D. Monk wrote an article a few months ago where he pointed out JNJ’s diversification as one of reasons to invest in the company. JNJ’s combo of pharma, consumer and med devices makes for a strong business model and provides a compelling investment thesis for dividend investors.

    I think it’s instructive to contrast this with the way in which Abbott choose to deliberately destroy this model by splitting into two separate companies. Although this effort to “unlock shareowner value” was beneficial for stock traders, I think it undermined income investors’ thesis behind owning the stock.

    For that reason, I sold my position in ABT to purchase other dividend paying stocks while JNJ remains one of the core positions in my portfolio. Can’t really complain (I made a nice capital gain when I sold it a few months ago) but again I’m NOT a trader who wants to frequently buy and sell. I’m more interested in a business model that provides me w/ dividend income. Abbott used to fit that but sadly not anymore. The result of the split (a pure pharma play w/ a high but potentially more risky dividend and a more diversified healthcare model but w/ a paltry yield) only confirmed for me that my decision was the right one. So, it’s in the rear view mirror for me.

    With the gains, I bought positions in MCD, NSC and increased my positions in INTC and VOD.

    By the way, David Van Knapp wrote a couple of great articles on SA making a compelling argument why the Abbott split was bad for dividend investors. As w/ much of his other articles, good stuff.

    Take care.

    -Rock the Casbah

    • says

      Rock the Casbah,

      Hey, thanks for stopping by. Long time, no talk. Hope all is well with you as well!

      Thanks for giving me your thoughts on this. I’m leaning towards selling both sides right now, which saddens me. ABT was a company that I could certainly sleep well at night owning, even factoring in the Humira concerns (which were obviously present before the split).

      A piece of me, however, wants to hold on to them because if management runs these pieces well it could work out great for investors. Splits and spin-offs usually work out well for investors, and I’d hate to abandon ship so early on before there’s any clear visibility on the long-term view with the separate entities. I’ve taken that approach with PSX (wait and see) and so far it’s worked out.

      I’m going to have to dig deep on this one and really see how I feel about it. There’s certainly no rush (other than the market being a bit heated), so I don’t really have a timeline per se. I’ll continue to search my feelings and do further research to make a determination on which way to go. I may even end up selling off ABBV (I’m not a fan of pure pharma plays) and keep the ABT side. We’ll see.

      Again, thanks for stopping by and opening a line of discussion on this. Much appreciated!

      Take care.

  15. says

    As someone who works in healthcare I’ve seen a lot of Abbott supplies on our shelves over the years.

    If I owned Abbott, I would definitely sell ABBV at this point, after its run up, and keep an eye on ABT. 😉 There is a synergy that works with all components of a company, and splitting those parts loses that synergy. It’s like breaking apart a machine that was working well. I viewed Abbott as a great company as well, but I never ended up buying in. So I haven’t followed ABT as closely as you have.

    When companies split like this, in my opinion, it’s likely because one of their divisions is not profitable and dragging down profits and earnings. Companies do not make a move like this unless they absolutely need to. It would be like PepsiCo splitting its soft-drink and food-division into two. You already know which division is more profitable, obviously the soft-drink division. I would buy that company, but not the food division. 😉

    What you have to consider moving forward Mantra, is that 2 smaller companies have to compete much harder than they did as one large company. It makes both or once of those companies far more vulnerable to competition, and decreases the economic moat. You need to figure out which division is less profitable or was dragging down the earnings and profitability, and then consider selling that company. Then, keep an eye on the other moving forward. 😉

    The Dividend Ninja

    • says


      Thanks for stopping by.

      I appreciate your insight and opinions, especially seeing as how you work in the healthcare industry.

      From everything I’ve read ABBV was the ship that had to sail so that the new ABT could grow at a healthier clip. I don’t particularly agree with this decision, as I think, as you stated, certain synergies were in place that made both sides stronger. So, looking at it that way would lead one to believe selling off ABBV would be the prudent move. It’s a decision I would mostly agree with. ABT, as I said earlier, has the more attractive assets by far…but unfortunately also carries that low yield.

      The only thing keeping me invested is not wanting to jump off the ship so early before giving the individual companies/management teams time to become successful in their unique ways. The pipeline for ABBV could further develop and ABT will grow quickly if they are correct about the pharma side holding them back.

      We shall see. I’ve never really been so torn on an investment decision before. I’m usually quite decisive and particularly quick to act.

      Best wishes!

    • says

      I totally hear you Mantra. :) I’d feel the same way if one of my core positions changed fundamentally! But don’t fall in love with your stocks. Probably ABT is the one to keep here.

      In fact a few months back, the CEO of Liqour Stores NA (LIQ) resigned – no reason given. :) The new temporary CEO was some ex politicain I had no confidence in. This was a small-stock cap stock I loved for the income and its market reach here in western Canada and the U.S. I sold so quickly you have no idea, purchased Corby Distilleries (CDL.B), which I’ve been watching for 2+ years, and never looked back. :)

      The Dividend Ninja

  16. Anonymous says

    Interesting thoughts everyone !

    I own ABT and ABBV.

    Pipeline drugs are the Achille’s tendon of the pharm industry. I have read that a more recent defensive move of larger pharma has been to buy off smaller R & D pharma companies as a way to ensure new drugs.

    Novartis is a bit different than other companies as it has a large generic part to its company; a great buffer to the inherent weakness of a pharm company.

    Humira is a TNF inhibitor, part of the monoclonal antibody family of drugs. NOT at all easy for any generic company to venture into its mass production, in a cost effective way. Also, I agree with a comment above that drug companies are VERY clever at extending patent cliffs. As an MD I meet with drug reps frequently and could tell you many compelling stories. In the end the 2016 patent cliff is not as clear cut.

    Does anyone have info on the foreign tax implications of a spin off ? I am canadian and it looks like I will get dinged with tax on the ABBV part of the spin off.

    • says


      Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comment.

      Although the 2016 patent cliff may not be completely devastating in terms of revenue destruction, I still think relying on one product for 50% of your revenue is a problem. Especially when it’s one that is subject to so much scrutiny, potential issues and also upcoming generic competition, no matter how limited.

      It is because of this discomfort on my part that I’ll have to part ways with ABBV, unfortunately.

      Best wishes!

Join The Discussion!