Skip to content
Axe Capital logo Axe Capital Trading News

UBS Called Novo Nordisk a 'Value Trap.' Here's the Other Side of That Argument.

2026-10-09 02:15 •Reuben Gregg Brewer •The Motley Fool Positive Axe Cap view: Selective •Rates•Equities•Capital Returns•Healthcare •NVO•LLY

Axe Cap view

Is Novo Nordisk a Value Trap or a Patient Investor’s Play?

While UBS warns against Novo Nordisk’s near-term challenges, its solid dividend and R&D could pay off down the line.

UBS calls Novo Nordisk a value trap, favoring Eli Lilly’s near-term growth in GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. That’s a fair take if you’re chasing quick wins. Lilly’s pipeline is broader, and it’s leading the race now. But Novo Nordisk isn’t a dead horse yet. It still owns a strong first-mover position in GLP-1s, and its 4.7% dividend yield offers a cushion for patient investors. In South Africa, this plays into USD/ZAR risk — a drug sector selloff could weigh on the rand given global risk sentiment, but long-term stability with dividends remains attractive. If you’re comfortable waiting 5 to 10 years for Novo Nordisk’s turnaround, it’s worth watching. The risk? Lilly could widen its lead or new competitors might erode GLP-1 dominance faster than expected. this is just our opinion and not financial advice

How I would invest

Trim exposure to Novo Nordisk for now, focusing on Lilly if you want growth. Hold Novo only if you’re aiming for income and long-term payoff. Watch USD/ZAR for risk signals tied to biotech sector shifts.

What I would watch
  • NVO
  • LLY
  • USD/ZAR
What could go wrong
  • Eli Lilly extending market lead longer than expected
  • Sudden GLP-1 competition from new entrants
  • Rand volatility impacting offshore investment returns
How strongly I feel

5/10

UBS analyst Michael Yee labeled Novo Nordisk a value trap, favoring Eli Lilly's growth prospects in the GLP-1 drug market. However, the article argues that while Eli Lilly currently leads, Novo Nordisk's strong R&D capabilities and 4.7% dividend yield make it a potential long-term turnaround story for patient investors willing to wait 5-10 years for recovery.

Our take is based on reporting first published by The Motley Fool.

Read the original story