Sequent 2.0 for vision 2025.

Change in dynamics in last 5 quarters has enabled them to aim big in next 5 years.

A thread of Concall excerpt discussing how seeds are sown for a strong future.
@unseenvalue

Mar, 2020:
Carlyle Acquiring stake gives them a strong backbone which enables them to think about entering US or China market and lot of other optionality.

Filed First injectable (Tulathromycin) for US market.

Initiated CDMO business (optionality)
June, 2020
Multi-year agreement with Zoetis to market & distribute their ruminant portfolio in India. Being Partner of Zoetis provides gloabl image & helps to acquire their CDMO customer in future.

CDMO is very niche initiative targeting only veterinary API customers.
Sep, 2020:
Acquired 40% of Provet (Turkey Subsidiary, extremely profitable business) making it a wholly owned subsidiary which will improve their bottomline.

Hired Stonehaven as consultant to become top 10 animal healthcare company, dreaming big.
Dec, 2020:
CDMO model initiated with one of the largest AH player, 2 products under execution.
March, 2021
Being aggressive in entering US market organically, Open to inorganic opportunity also.

In Brazil, Turkey & India getting into pet business. Depression is accepted as real disease and Adopting pet is becoming the trend. Already present in Europe with Pet business.
This hunger to grow topline faster and admitting about sacrificing margin in next 2 years is amazing.

Vision 2025 should be bolder & Bigger.

Would love to have major price dips over next 1-2 years as bottom line improvement won’t be very nice in short term.

More from Sequent

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?