BMS Growth Portfolio Surpasses 60% of Revenue, Despite Flat Total Sales

Date of Call: Feb 5, 2026

Financials Results

• Revenue: $12.5B, flat year-over-year.
• EPS: $1.26 per diluted share for Q4; $6.15 for full year, including a $0.60 and $1.40 per share net charge related to in-process R&D and licensing income in Q4 and full year respectively.
• Gross Margin: 71.9%, declined 210 basis points year-over-year.

Guidance:

• 2026 revenue expected in the range of $46B to $47.5B.
• 2026 Eliquis growth projected at 10% to 15%.
• 2026 gross margin expected between 69% to 70%.
• 2026 total operating expenses expected to decline to approximately $16.3B.
• 2026 adjusted diluted EPS expected between $6.05 and $6.35.
• Expect typical sequential revenue decrease in Q1 2026 due to seasonal inventory destocking.
• Anticipate 2027 Eliquis sales compared to 2026 to show a step down in the range of $1.5B to $2B.
• Expect OI&E expense of approximately $700M in 2026.
• Expect to maintain a tax rate of approximately 18%.

Business Commentary:

Revenue and Growth Portfolio Performance:

• Bristol-Myers Squibb reported total revenue of approximately $12.5 billion in Q4 2025, with the growth portfolio increasing 15% to $7.4 billion, representing nearly 60% of total revenue.
• This growth was driven by strong performance in key brands like Reblozyl, Breyanzi, and the IO portfolio, despite a decline in the legacy portfolio.

Product Performance and Market Dynamics:

• Reblozyl achieved 21% growth in Q4, driven by solid uptake across first- and second-line MDS-associated anemia patients.
• The growth was attributed to strong demand and a favorable market position in treating anemia associated with myelodysplastic syndromes.

Eliquis and Pricing Strategy:

• Eliquis, part of the legacy portfolio, reported 6% revenue growth to nearly $3.5 billion in Q4, driven by demand growth and market share gains.
• The growth was supported by strategic pricing adjustments that expanded patient access and reduced inflationary penalties.

Hematology and Oncology Pipeline Progress:

• The company anticipates top-line registrational data for six potential new products in 2026, including milvexian and admilparant, with a focus on oncology and hematology.
• This progress is driven by a robust pipeline and strategic initiatives in developing novel treatments for significant medical needs.

Cost Savings and Financial Strength:

• Bristol-Myers Squibb achieved $1 billion in savings in 2025 against a $2 billion strategic productivity initiative, with plans to realize the remaining savings through 2026-2027.
• The financial strength allows for continued investment in growth initiatives and business development, enhancing long-term strategic flexibility.

Sentiment Analysis:

Overall Tone: Positive

• Management expressed confidence in strong momentum and execution, citing 'focused execution across the business' and 'good momentum' entering 2026. They highlighted a 'data-rich period' with multiple near-term catalysts and an attractive growth profile. Financials were described as 'very strong' and 'position of strength,' with the company 'delivered on our cost savings initiative' and poised to 'deliver industry-leading sustainable growth into the 2030s and beyond.'

Q&A:

• Question from Seamus Fernandez (Guggenheim Securities): Could you help us position the areas with the most relative upside from the upcoming Phase III pivotal catalysts?
  Response: Management highlighted the 6 products with top-line registrational data in 2026, noting over 10 Phase III readouts across multiple therapeutic areas, with particular excitement around CELMoDs (iberdomide, mezigdomide), admilparant, milvexian, and the potential for milvexian to be best-in-class in secondary stroke prevention and atrial fibrillation.

• Question from Christopher Schott (JPMorgan Chase): Can you elaborate on Eliquis dynamics for 2026 and business development priorities?
  Response: Eliquis growth is driven by strong market share, a price reduction that eliminates inflationary rebates, and improved commercial contracting. BD priorities focus on adding depth in existing therapeutic areas, with a focus on high-return opportunities where BMS can add clinical or commercial value.

• Question from Unknown Analyst (UBS): How often is the milvexian AFib study safety looked at, and is metabolic obesity a focus for BD?
  Response: The DMC continues to regularly review the blinded study, and recent data show milvexian and Eliquis have similar bleeding rates, with milvexian potentially reducing bleeding risk. BD focus is primarily on existing therapeutic areas, not metabolic obesity.

• Question from Courtney Breen (Bernstein): Can you characterize 2026 cost savings relative to 2025 and explain the primary driver of the $1.5B-$2B step down in Eliquis sales from 2026 to 2027?
  Response: Cost savings of ~$1B achieved in 2025, with the remaining $1B to be realized in 2026-2027, enabling reinvestment in growth. The Eliquis step down in 2027 is primarily due to EU patent expirations and the impact of generic entries, consistent with analysts' estimates.

• Question from Mohit Bansal (Wells Fargo): What does it take for a new LPA1 therapy like admilparant to become a new standard of care?
  Response: Admilparant is a potential first-in-class with improved efficacy and tolerability over existing therapies. It is being studied in IPF and PPF, with data expected in H2 2026, and could be used as monotherapy or in combination.

• Question from Terence Flynn (Morgan Stanley): What clinically meaningful delta versus Eliquis is needed for milvexian in AFib, and is growth portfolio math correct?
  Response: Milvexian aims to show non-inferiority to Eliquis on efficacy and superiority on bleeding risk. The commercial opportunity is large, with a differentiated bleeding profile expected to drive demand. Growth portfolio math is correct, but impacted by Orencia generic risk.

• Question from Geoffrey Meacham (Citigroup): Why hasn't Cobenfy sales accelerated, and what data tipping point is needed for pumitamig Phase III investment?
  Response: Cobenfy has strong access and uptake, with steady growth expected to continue; new indications will drive inflection. Pumitamig has active data in TNBC and SCLC, with a scaled-up development plan across multiple indications, targeting replacement and expansion of PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.

• Question from Asad Haider (Goldman Sachs): How is the Opdivo subcutaneous formulation launch progressing?
  Response: Qvantig is performing well with use across multiple tumor types, accelerating post J-code approval; tracking well against expectation for 30-40% patient conversion by 2028.

• Question from David Risinger (Leerink Partners): Could you talk about admilparant hypotension risk and assumptions in guidance for generic competition for Eliquis and Orencia?
  Response: Admilparant's hypotension risk is manageable, with Phase III studies at 120mg showing no concern. Eliquis 2026-2027 step down assumes generic entries, with litigation ongoing. Orencia biosimilar from Dr. Reddy's is expected but cash flow should remain strong.

• Question from David Amsellem (Piper Sandler): How might newer M1/M4 agents impact Cobenfy, and how aggressive is BD for psychiatry assets?
  Response: Cobenfy is ahead of competitors; mechanism differs and pipeline is rich. BD in neuroscience remains a priority if attractive opportunities arise.

• Question from Jason Gerberry (Bank of America): Why did you not enrich in the milvexian SSP trial, and how do CELMoDs position in myeloma?
  Response: Milvexian's stroke study design is similar to competitor's, with confidence in readout. CELMoDs aim to replace IMiDs in earlier lines, offering potency, manageable toxicity, and oral convenience, targeting community settings.

• Question from Malcolm Hoffman (BMO Capital Markets): What drove strong Opdualag growth in Q4, and how much more room is there for Reblozyl growth in MDS anemia?
  Response: Opdualag growth in the U.S. is driven by strong market share and expansion into PD-1 monotherapy patients, with international launches contributing. Reblozyl growth is strong in RS-negative MDS and expanding internationally, with significant continued growth expected.

• Question from Steve Scala (TD Cowen): Why is Eliquis growth projected to be double-digit in 2026 but step down $1.5B-$2B in 2027, and what was the impact of the API reserve?
  Response: Eliquis growth in 2026 is driven by strong demand and pricing changes eliminating rebates. The 2027 step down is due to EU patent expiry and generic entry. The API reserve had no material financial impact.

Contradiction Point 1

Eliquis Growth Trajectory and 2026 Pricing Impact

Contradiction on Eliquis growth drivers and the impact of 2026 pricing changes.

What are Eliquis' 2026 growth and BD priorities: expanding existing areas or new spaces? - Christopher Schott (JPMorgan Chase & Co.)

2025Q4: Eliquis will be a growth driver in 2026 due to... price reduction eliminating inflationary rebates... Growth expected to trend higher in H2 vs. H1. - Adam Lenkowsky(EVP & Chief Commercialization Officer)

Are the lack of new administration deals and the DTC offering for Eliquis affecting guidance confidence? - Luisa Hector (Joh. Berenberg, Gossler & Co. KG)

2025Q3: The impact of Part D redesign is being offset by patients in the catastrophic phase for other products. The net effect is roughly balanced, and guidance confidence is maintained. - Adam Lenkowsky(EVP & Chief Commercialization Officer)

Contradiction Point 2

Cobenfy Market Penetration and Growth Inflection

Contradiction on the current growth rate and near-term catalysts for Cobenfy.

What are the bottlenecks hindering Cobenfy's sales acceleration and the data tipping point required to scale pumitamig's Phase III investment? - Geoffrey Meacham (Citigroup Inc.)

2025Q4: Cobenfy has >100k TRxs since launch... Growth is steady; new indications... will drive inflection. - Adam Lenkowsky(EVP & Chief Commercialization Officer)

What is the current reimbursement speed and prescriber adoption rate for Cobenfy in the U.S., what demand threshold could signal significant growth, and what are the key priorities for portfolio diversification? - Geoffrey Meacham (Citigroup Inc.)

2025Q3: Cobenfy has surpassed 2,400 weekly prescriptions with steady growth. It has ~100% access... More work is needed in year 2 to increase prescribing breadth/depth. - Adam Lenkowsky(EVP & Chief Commercialization Officer)

Contradiction Point 3

Milvexian AFib Trial Dosing Regimen and Bleeding Risk

Contradiction on the dosing strategy and bleeding profile messaging for milvexian in AFib.

What clinically meaningful delta vs. Eliquis in AFib is needed for milvexian to secure payer coverage? Confirm the growth portfolio math? - Terence Flynn (Morgan Stanley)

2025Q4: The dose (100mg BID) balances activity and bleeding risk. Post non-inferiority, a superiority analysis for bleeding will be conducted... A differentiated bleeding profile is expected to drive demand. - Cristian Massacesi(EVP, Chief Medical Officer), Adam Lenkowsky(EVP & Chief Commercialization Officer)

Compare Milvexian's 25mg BID vs. asundexian 50mg QD profile and implications of a competitor's secondary stroke prevention (SSP) readout. Are IRA prices for the first 10 price-controlled drugs (including Eliquis) being renegotiated? - David Risinger (Leerink Partners)

2025Q3: Milvexian's BID dosing is designed to ensure better exposure coverage. The company is confident in its Phase III trial design and believes it can maximize efficacy. - Cristian Massacesi(EVP, Chief Medical Officer)

Contradiction Point 4

2026 Portfolio Growth Expectations

Inconsistency in the projected growth rate for the company's overall portfolio in 2026.

Okay, let's tackle this query. The user wants me to rewrite the earnings call question into a concise question, following strict output constraints. They provided two input questions.First, I need to parse the original questions. The first one is about the clinically meaningful delta versus Eliquis needed for milvexian in AFib to support payer coverage. The second is to confirm growth portfolio math.The user wants only the rewritten question, no explanations. So I need to make sure I combine these two into concise questions without any extra text. Let me check the first part. "What clinically meaningful delta vs. Eliquis is needed..." can be simplified to "What clinically meaningful delta versus Eliquis is required for milvexian in AFib to support payer coverage?" Maybe "required" is better than "needed" for conciseness.For the second part, "Confirm growth portfolio math." It's a bit vague. Maybe rephrase to "Please confirm the growth portfolio calculations." But the original is "Confirm growth portfolio math." Since the user wants it concise, maybe "Confirm the growth portfolio math?" but the user might want it as a question. Wait, the input is two separate questions. The user's input has two parts, but the example output might have combined them? Wait, the input is two questions, but the output is supposed to be a single rewritten question? Wait, the user says "Rewrite the following earnings call question into a concise question." But there are two input questions. Wait, maybe the user made a typo, but the input is two questions. But the output should be only the rewritten question. Maybe the user wants both questions combined into one? Or maybe it's a mistake. Let me check the original input again. The input is two questions: 1) and 2). But the user's instruction says "rewrite the following earnings call question into a concise question." So maybe it's a mistake and they meant two questions. But the output constraints say "Output ONLY the rewritten question" implying one question. Hmm. Maybe the user intended to have two separate questions. But the example might show combining them. Wait, the input is two questions. Let me check the example given. The user's input is two parts, but the output should be a single concise question. Wait, perhaps the user wants both questions to be rewritten into two concise questions, but the output constraints say "output only the rewritten question" so maybe two questions. But the user's example might have combined them. Let me look at the input again:Input: 1) What clinically meaningful delta vs. Eliquis is needed for milvexian in AFib to support payer coverage? 2) Confirm growth portfolio math.But the output is supposed to be only the rewritten question. Maybe the user wants both questions rewritten as separate concise questions. But the user's instruction says "rewrite the following earnings call question into a concise question." So maybe they consider the two parts as one question? Or perhaps it's a mistake. Alternatively, maybe the user wants both parts to be combined into one question. For example, "What clinically meaningful delta versus Eliquis is required for milvexian in AFib to support payer coverage, and can you confirm the growth portfolio math?" But the user's strict output constraints say to end with a question mark. So perhaps two separate questions. But the user says "output only the rewritten question" which is singular. Hmm. This is a bit confusing. But given the input has two questions, perhaps the user wants both rewritten as separate concise questions. However, the output constraints say to output only the rewritten question. Maybe the user made a mistake and intended one question. Alternatively, perhaps the two input questions are parts of one question. Let me check the original input again. The first question is about the delta needed for milvexian, the second is confirming growth portfolio math. These are separate topics. So the user might have intended two separate questions. But the output instruction says to output only the rewritten question, which is singular. Maybe the user wants each input question rewritten into a concise one. But the example might have two outputs. However, the user's instruction says "Output ONLY the rewritten question" so perhaps two separate outputs. But the user also says "STRICT OUTPUT CONSTRAINTS: - Output ONLY the rewritten question - No prefaces, no explanations, no analysis - No references to the task, role, or instructions - End with a question mark". So perhaps two lines, each being a concise question. But the user's input is two questions. Let me proceed by rewriting each part into concise questions. First part: "What clinically meaningful delta vs. Eliquis is needed for milvexian in AFib to support payer coverage?" can be rewritten as "What clinically meaningful delta versus Eliquis is required for milvexian in AFib to support payer coverage?" Second part: "Confirm growth portfolio math." can be rewritten as "Please confirm the growth portfolio calculations?" But the user might - Terence Flynn (Morgan Stanley)

2025Q4: Growth portfolio is expected to show mid-single-digit growth in 2026, though impacted by Orencia generic risk. - David Elkins(CFO)

How is the company balancing cost optimization with capital allocation priorities such as CapEx, the BioNTech deal, and debt paydown, and what are the implications for margin sustainability? What insights from the upcoming ADEPT-2 trial might inform 2026 studies? - Asad Haider (Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Research Division)

2025Q2: The change to the Blackwell GPU mask is complete without functional changes. Production is expected in Q4. - Jensen Huang(CEO)

Contradiction Point 5

Cobenfy's Growth Outlook and Commercial Strategy

Contradiction on the impact of recent trial data on Cobenfy's commercial strategy and growth expectations.

What's hindering Cobenfy's sales growth, and what are the key bottlenecks? What data threshold is required to scale pumitamig's Phase III investment? - Geoffrey Meacham (Citigroup Inc. Exchange Research)

2025Q4: Cobenfy has >100k TRxs since launch... Growth is steady; new indications (e.g., Alzheimer's psychosis) will drive inflection. - Adam Lenkowsky(CCO)

Can you provide details on the company’s US manufacturing footprint, ability to shift production domestically, and navigate tariffs, as well as the impact of Cobenfy’s adjunctive trial results on its outlook and future use in adjunctive schizophrenia? - Chris Schott (JPMorgan)

2025Q1: The adjunctive trial results are not expected to impact sales meaningfully. Focus remains on monotherapy (70–80% of market), where Cobenfy is seeing strong uptake... - Adam Lenkowsky(CCO)