Industry Notes / Pharma / Chapter 16 of 20 · Thesis cards

Why Switzerland and Denmark

Soil explains the start; the end is proximity to the US profit pool

1. 1

   Odd output density

   <1%

   Population vs China

   vs

   CHF 13 bn

   Roche 2024 R&D (21.6% of sales)

   Home markets are single-digit shares of revenue—born global.

   Comfortable domestic demand is globalization’s enemy (Japan’s counterexample).

2. 2

   Upstream picks the drug type

   Switzerland: dyes → small molecules/antibodies; Denmark: slaughter/fermentation → insulin → peptide GLP-1.

   Novo’s GLP-1 is a century of protein engineering, not a lucky therapeutic pick.

3. 3

   Foundations lock control

   ~77%

   Novo foundation votes

   vs

   ~28%

   Cash-flow rights

   Buys R&D patience and slows short-term correction—the 2024–2026 collapse is the downside.

   Patient capital raises odds of being right long-term and slows fixes.

4. 4

   What China can copy

   Upstream spillover, MRCT, talent clusters—high; patient capital—medium; patent arbitrage and small-home forced globalization—closed and reversed.

   China more likely grows global R&D/manufacturing platforms than Roche/Lilly-style brand giants.

Two countries under 1% of China’s population still carry a slice of global innovative-drug profits. Of five factors, China can copy upstream spillover and clinical standards—not early patent arbitrage or small-country forced globalization.

Source：罗氏 / 诺和诺德基金会与年报披露；调研正文第 4 章国家土壤归因

Research notes, not investment advice.