Gsk Share Discussion Threads

[minerve] 21/9/2016 14:42

Not currently holding here. Wait and see if a second wave of the Hilary effect hits sentiment if she beats the mega-fit buffoon (😂) to the presidency.

[minerve] 21/9/2016 14:37

TraderMichael20 Sep '16 - 08:34 - 13172 of 13198

" A degree in Modern Languages and Classics .... a career in cosmetics ...... just what you need to head up a world-leading pharmaceuticals, vaccines and healthcare company. "

Nothing wrong with that at all. Leading pharmaceutical companies are looking for talent outside of normal avenues. I know this for a fact having visited many top universities recently. Warwick University has actually started a new liberal arts degree to attract humanities students etc.. in part due to request from pharmas and other blue chips looking for someone different who can think different. Medical students all think the same way and talk the same way, and of course they would do, they have all had identical training. Many classical students are extremely clever and end-up as some of our best talent in GCHQ etc..

Vocational learning is so dated and only applies to certain niches nowadays.

[essentialinvestor] 21/9/2016 13:08

Andrew was effectively shown the door,
and he is replaced by the head of CH, oh my.

AW read how the pharma industry was going to develop like a book,
he has been validated.

My own take is the last China scandal was probably his undoing,
he will be a very big loss to GSK,
appreciate others may see it differently.

[anhar] 21/9/2016 12:38

Out of interest I've checked the directors' remuneration for 2015.

Andrew Witty, CEO, received a total of £6.661m including all share schemes and benefits etc. He wasn't even the highest, that was "Chairman, Global Vaccines" Moncef Slaoui on £7.324m. Poor old Simon Dingemans who is the FD, or Chief Financial Officer as they now call it, got only £3.166m.

Grotesque.

GSK isn't the only offender of course, all major companies pay this kind of money but don't need to. It's all part of the cosy club which none of them have the guts to break because these people would then be cutting their own financial throats, even though the companies would save millions.

But you don't expect directors to put the company's interest before their own. Whatever next?!

[losos] 21/9/2016 11:45

Anhar - "They'd probably get an even better calibre of person by offering a modest salary because there would be far more people available at that level with the necessary skills - which are essentially just PR anyway and they don't matter much as I've said."

Ha ha, you may well be correct on this.

Also, as gbh2 has said, it's more than likely the FD is key to large company success or failure.

There are some big decisions and some shaking up to be done, if Ms. Walmsley can do it then that's great, if not then the board will have to replace her.

Badwood - Realistically no chairman, or any board member is EVER going to say "we offered the job to XYZ and he(she) rejected our offer" one would hope that "a robust and timely search" has meaning 'tho I concede that it does sound a tad PC ha ha.

[gbh2] 21/9/2016 09:50

FDs are the key directors these days.

[anhar] 21/9/2016 09:29

Losos: ...I think I'm right in saying that there is no evidence that female CEO's are any better (or worse) than their male counterparts...

I think I'm right in saying that there is no evidence that the great majority of CEOs are of any importance at all.

Just ridiculously overpaid suits, men or women it's all the same.

Which big company will have the guts to offer a genuinely reasonable salary to their CEO? Let's say £100,000 a year which is a tiny proportion of what these people earn now but still a very good income by general standards. They always justify the obscene overpayment by claiming they need to pay millions to get the right calibre of individual.

Rubbish.

They'd probably get an even better calibre of person by offering a modest salary because there would be far more people available at that level with the necessary skills - which are essentially just PR anyway and they don't matter much as I've said.

[quepassa] 21/9/2016 09:01

Personally, I give Ms. Walmsley the benefit of the doubt.

Lots of experience. The L'oreal background is not to be underestimated.

But I sincerely hope that she grabs the Company by the scruff of the neck, gives it a real shaking up, fires half the Board and gets rid of half the existing management, stamps her own personal mark all over the company and brings in a lot of new blood to fire GSK up again.

Witty stabilised it. Now Walmsley must rocket from that launch-pad.

If she doesn't cut the mustard, she won't last long.

ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[alphorn] 21/9/2016 08:15

She may indeed be the right person but IMO there should have been full disclosure of the Chairman's position.

[tradermichael] 21/9/2016 08:10

I'm not interested in 'correctness', and I'd rather have seen an MBA with pharmaceutical background. Somehow modern languages and classics, and a career in cosmetics doesn't match the role for me.

[gbh2] 21/9/2016 07:17

The media are making a lot of noise about the GSK being the first, I still feel there's a element of PC involved.

[tim 3] 20/9/2016 23:59

Agree sounded like management BS to me too.

[badwood] 20/9/2016 22:25

Chairman suggests that they did execute a robust and timely search for the right candidate.

What a meaningless and pitiful statement. As a minimum 'a robust and timely search' should be taken as a given. We would hardly expect the chairman to say we executed a cursory and ill timed search for a candidate. It's like saying we produce reliable products. Unless you were perverse you would hardly go out of your way as a company to produce unreliable products. What the consumer wants to know is how reliable is the product. Similarly, as shareholders we want to know what were the criteria the candidates were judged on and how well they matched that criteria. And was the chosen candidate the first choice ? Perhaps the first choice turned Glaxo down.

[quepassa] 20/9/2016 21:38

Doc,

Thank you for your response.

There does seem to be good logic behind this idea.

The CEO designate is not new to M&A.

Time will tell.


ALL IMO. DYOR.
QP

[losos] 20/9/2016 18:11

Trader Micheal thanks for pointing me to the GSK web site, Yes the chairman may well have a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda ha ha.

As you rightly said todays steady rise might be more down to the pound weakening against the dollar.

So as always we wait and see how things shape up, I think the 'market' does care, but not about the gender of the CEO more about the results she is achieving or not achieving!!!

[dr biotech] 20/9/2016 15:55

I think a split is perfectly possible. Traditionally the reason that this hasn't happened is because of the argument that the consumer care provides steady income for the more volatile pharma side. With the move towards more vaccines which are more predictable it would make more sense to have dedicated companies.

[tim 3] 20/9/2016 15:22

Pound dropping again (under $130 again) main mover of this post brexit imo.

[tradermichael] 20/9/2016 14:15

Looking at the steady price climb today (but not a spike), does the 'market' care?

[tradermichael] 20/9/2016 14:13

losos: the chairman's comment on the selection process (mentioned by cyberian) is from the GSK website, under Press Releases.

I suggest that the Chairman has another agenda:

Sir Philip Hampton, GSK’s chairman, is leading a government-commissioned review into increasing the number of women senior executives at Britain’s top companies. Part of the plan is to get more women into senior management positions who can go on to lead Britain’s biggest companies.

[losos] 20/9/2016 13:05

cyberian - "but the Chairman suggests that they did execute a robust and timely search for the right candidate"

I think I'm right in saying that there is no evidence that female CEO's are any better (or worse) than their male counterparts. But statistacily adding potential female candidates does certainly inprove the chances of picking the right person.

Where was it that the chairman made the statement you quoted ? was it in the annual report ? Sadly I don't have time to read all these things 'tho I would like to.

[cyberian] 20/9/2016 10:41

Appointment quite worrying, but the Chairman suggests that they did execute a robust and timely search for the right candidate...if I were Witty, I would be pretty displeased as the current evidence suggests that he had made all the right moves/changes. The company is now in a much stronger position with a more balanced mix than ever before, but maybe she (the CEO designate) will surprise.

[tradermichael] 20/9/2016 10:10

What sense does it make anyway, to promote the Head of Consumer to run the whole group?

She wrote this when she was having doubts about joining GSK from l'Oreal:

"It was too risky. New industry, new company, new culture and a major career acceleration. Am I really qualified?"

Good luck, Emma - you'll certainly be challenged by this one ..... ;0)

[zzaxx99] 20/9/2016 10:04

If GSK were going to divest the consumer business, it doesn't make a lot of sense to promote the head of consumer to lead the whole group.

[quepassa] 20/9/2016 09:41

Doc,

Do you really think that's a possibility?

Thank you.

QP

[dr biotech] 20/9/2016 09:07

might be whats required if you are going to split the pharma from the consumer healthcare.