Gsk Share Discussion Threads

[bountyhunter] 29/7/2015 12:31

Returns to shareholders

GSK expects to pay an annual ordinary dividend of 80p for each of the
next three years (2015-2017).
GSK also plans to return approximately GBP1 billion (20p per share)
to shareholders via a special dividend to be paid alongside GSK's Q4
2015 ordinary dividend payment.
Any future returns to shareholders of surplus capital will be subject
to the Group's strategic progress, visibility on the put options associated
with ViiV Healthcare and the Consumer Healthcare joint venture and
other capital requirements.
Quarterly dividends
The Board has declared a second interim dividend of 19 pence per share
(Q2 2014: 19 pence per share).
Payment of dividends
The equivalent interim dividend receivable by ADR holders will be calculated
based on the exchange rate on 29 September 2015. An annual fee of $0.02
per ADS (or $0.005 per ADS per quarter) will be charged by the Depositary.
The ex-dividend date will be 13 August 2015 (12 August 2015 for ADR
holders), with a record date of 14 August 2015 and a payment date of
1 October 2015.

[careful] 29/7/2015 12:28

a good solid set of results issued at midday.
good forward guidance.
this spike is justified.

[badtime] 29/7/2015 12:28

I like spikes in that direction

[bountyhunter] 29/7/2015 12:18

bit of a spike !?!

[hpcg] 29/7/2015 12:17

My research has extended as far as the share price. I guess first impressions are slightly better than anticipated?

[essentialinvestor] 29/7/2015 11:43

Good luck folks.

[blueledge2] 29/7/2015 11:34

Just to add. My approach is similar but if the shares are having a bad time such as GSK right now then I automatically reinvest at the lower price.If riding high then I don't.

[anhar] 29/7/2015 11:20

Anhar

"My wholly income based, non-total return, strategy has worked for me over a long period."

utter tosh

if you pay no attention to total return then you can't determine the success or failure of an investment strategy so your statement is meaningless

if you receive dividends of X% over a period but lose 2X% of capital then your strategy is a failure

I judge my success or failure on whether my income has increased adequately over the years, because that is my aim. It has. That may be different from your measures but it isn't "tosh" just because you use TR.

Using TR as a measure, which effectively means trying to win from capital gains rather than divis, is probably why the majority of small investors of the kind seen around ADVFN and other forums, lose money or make very little.

Dividends are relatively reliable and unrisky, capital is relatively unreliable and risky. This dictates how I invest. Whilst the returns from successfully trading the latter are much higher than the former, hardly anyone, me included, is skilled enough to do so. In contrast income investing needs much less skill but huge patience.

And as I think I've pointed out previously, my capital actually hasn't done badly either but that is not why I invest the way I do. I do so only to derive income and would not invest in shares at all if they provided zero or only a very low income.


anhar, this is not to say what you do is wrong for you, but you will be in a tiny minority.

Yes I accept that. But I don't mind it at all. Never been a crowd follower and as I say above, the crowd lose money on trying to trade shares for gain.



@Anhar

Do you tend to reinvest dividend into the company paying it?

No. If I have any cash left over after living expenses I decide myself where to reinvest it. I don't automatically stick divis back into the originating share because that may not be the best choice. I have a large port and other shares may be more attractive when I get to reinvest.

[hpcg] 29/7/2015 10:48

How can total return not be the most important metric for a large number of investors, in fact the overwhelming majority of working people? The other widely followed approach is wealth preservation. In either case avoiding capital loss is pretty key. anhar, this is not to say what you do is wrong for you, but you will be in a tiny minority.

[tradermichael] 29/7/2015 09:54

GlaxoSmithKline is expected to announce Wednesday a net profit of £803 million as of the second quarter, a decrease of 13% compared to £921 million recorded in the same period from 2014.

[stevenrevell] 29/7/2015 08:46

Usually 12

[blueledge2] 29/7/2015 08:43

What time are these results?

[blueledge2] 29/7/2015 06:15

Director dealings in shares during May was not encouraging.

[tournesol] 29/7/2015 01:53

Anhar

"My wholly income based, non-total return, strategy has worked for me over a long period."

utter tosh

if you pay no attention to total return then you can't determine the success or failure of an investment strategy so your statement is meaningless

if you receive dividends of X% over a period but lose 2X% of capital then your strategy is a failure

[hiriam007] 28/7/2015 19:49

@Anhar

Do you tend to reinvest dividend into the company paying it?

[greenpastures2] 28/7/2015 17:58

It is my view anhar. No one is forced to follow it but I reckon it is better to buy a share where there is a prospect of increasing profits and cash flow than to focus on yield. One argument in favour of dividend paying companies is that a dividend is paid in cash and thus forces a high degree of financial discipline.

However, as we can see with GSK and Royal Dutch Shell too I think big companies can sell assets and use the proceeds to support paying dividends. Even worse some companies even borrow to pay dividends.

[anhar] 28/7/2015 17:44

So you made a bad trade by your standards. Fair enough, we all do that, but a single instance with its particular chosen dates and figures says nothing about a strategy. How do you know GSK (or any share) won't work out over say 20 years?

My wholly income based, non-total return, strategy has worked for me over a long period. Thus the "baloney" comment may illustrate the single case you've experienced as a TR investor but all I'm saying is that it is not general. It is wrong to state that TR is all that counts. It may be for you, maybe for a lot of people, but it is not some sort of investing rule.

Strategies and aims vary, you know that.

[tournesol] 28/7/2015 17:30

Anhar

"...it is certainly not total return that really counts. It is income that really counts..."

That is pure baloney I'm afraid.

I bought GSK at £15 and today it's about £13.30 so my capital is down by £1.70 per share. If I get a divi of 6% that is 80p. For any rational investor that is a poor outcome. It will take 2 years' worth of divis just to make up for the capital loss. If 6% divis continue but capital value does not recover then in 4 year's time I'll be a mere 3% up in total return terms. Which will indisputably represent a poor outcome.

[anhar] 28/7/2015 17:21

Don't get too hooked on yield hiriam. It is total return that really counts...

That's just your view, not some sort of invariable rule to follow.

Why shouldn't an investor be too hooked on yield and ignore total return? That's what I do and it has served me well for many years, but it does need to be followed within a structured approach as I do. Not just any old HY shares held for any old period.

I don't care about capital movements and hence I don't care about total return. The only reason I invest in shares at all is for income. If the capital does well too, then fine, but it's not why I invest and it is certainly not total return that really counts. It is income that really counts, for me anyway.

I appreciate that I'm in a minority of one here but crowd following has never been my thing.

[4spiel] 28/7/2015 15:21

There is only a problem with dividends when a company cannot afford to pay them ! The previous poster highlights some companies whose dividends are certainly less easy to pay if none of them are in distress. The amazing thing about GSK is why it's so cheap when it has an abundance of cash to pay!

[greenpastures2] 28/7/2015 15:13

Don't get too hooked on yield hiriam. It is total return that really counts. No point buying yield at the cost of capital. I own both gsk and azn but I am not sure I would buy them now.

I bought GSK in 2010 at the price it is now again. Is Witty's strategy going to pay off. I bought AZN the morning the Pfizer deal fell through and I have a small paper loss. I have to hope that the AZN's directors confidence on oncology drugs in the next few years is justified.

A lot of these high yield stocks have disappointed- Sainsbury, Tesco, Centrica, Royal Dutch Shell in addition to GSK. When interest rates start to go up that could be another hurdle for them.

[hiriam007] 28/7/2015 14:36

I would like to thank everyone for their comments.

They were all very helpful. I must say the 6% GSK yield is very enticing but I think I will go 50 50 GSK and Azn. That way I get approx 5% yield on combined holding which is great and I spread my risk a little.

Once again, many thanks and I hope the shares do well for us all.

[essentialinvestor] 28/7/2015 12:00

Depends on your timeframe, the lower risk strategy would be to await
tomorrow's announcement and then make a decision - if you intend to buy
and hold for a number of years then buying today or tomorrow is unlikely
to make a lot of difference.

This could pop or drop on results, no one knows in advance.

[revell40] 28/7/2015 11:54

Is this worth buying today I'm new to this I've been watching it for a while any advise from a experienced investor ta