Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

Second-quarter 2026 total revenue increased 5% year over year to approximately $13 billion. Growth portfolio revenue rose 14% to $7.6 billion, and legacy portfolio decline was partly offset by Eliquis, which grew 21% to about $4.5 billion. Gross margin was 71.4%, operating expenses were $4.1 billion, the effective tax rate was 16.5%, and diluted EPS was $2.04. Cash equivalents and marketable securities were approximately $11.5 billion as of June 30, and operating cash flow was about $3.4 billion. For 2026, management raised full-year revenue and adjusted diluted EPS guidance, kept gross margin/other income and expense/tax-rate assumptions unchanged, increased projected operating expenses slightly for prelaunch work, and now expects Eliquis revenue growth of 20% to 25% with total legacy portfolio revenue down 4% to 6%.

Chris Boerner said the quarter reflected disciplined execution, strong commercial performance, and continued progress in shifting the portfolio toward durable long-term growth. He emphasized that BMS is advancing a differentiated pipeline, with multiple pivotal readouts expected by year-end and more than 10 potential new medicines by the end of the decade. His tone was confident and strategic, repeatedly stressing financial flexibility, business development optionality, and the company’s ability to invest while returning cash to shareholders.

David Elkins highlighted broad strength in the growth portfolio and said results were boosted by Eliquis. He cited 71.4% gross margin, $4.1 billion of operating expenses, 16.5% tax rate, $11.5 billion of cash equivalents and marketable securities, and about $3.4 billion in operating cash flow, alongside $1.2 billion of debt paydown. He said the company raised full-year guidance based on first-half momentum, with slightly higher operating expenses tied to accelerated prelaunch work for iberdomide, mezigdomide, pumitamig, and support for the growth portfolio.

Analysts focused heavily on the timing slip for milvexian and the ADEPT Cobenfy program, asking whether slower event accrual or enrollment reflected any change in the underlying populations or study execution. Management said the delays were mainly due to slower-than-expected event accrual in event-driven studies and deliberate emphasis on trial quality in ADEPT, not a loss of confidence in the science; they said DMCs continue to endorse the milvexian study and that they remain confident in Cobenfy’s rationale. Questions also centered on what data strength milvexian needs for broad adoption, with management saying they want comparable efficacy to Eliquis plus better bleeding, and on business development, where management said they are selective and favor assets in therapeutic areas they know well with compelling science and economics.