Gsk Share Discussion Threads

[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

[redips2] 28/7/2015 11:19

Fwiw I have 60/40 GSK /AZ . I also concur with anhar's investment strategy .

[anhar] 28/7/2015 11:07

Whatever happens, happens. I don't base my decision to continue holding an existing share on divi forecasts or CEO's etc. so I'll continue to hold GSK, as I have done for some years, until my strategy takes me out of it.

The only reason I mentioned all this was in response to a reader asking about GSK or AZN or both, as a new investor, so I was giving my view as if I was going in now on income grounds.

[essentialinvestor] 28/7/2015 10:59

It depends on the CEO, new CEO = strategic review and a cut in the dividend.

That will lead to a rapid re-rating imv.

Andrew has approx 9 months left for his strategy to begin to show results.

[anhar] 28/7/2015 10:54

anhar

I think you are being much too rose tinted in your view...

I agree they never followed through on the original special.

But I don't see why I'm taking a rose tinted view on this. All I'm saying is that I believe that the current GSK divi plans, even though changed substantially from the original, are more reliable than the usual external analysts' divi projections used to produce forecast yields for any company.

"More reliable" does not in any way mean guaranteed, I do appreciate that as I said earlier. It's just a relative view. And on that view, GSK is very much superior to AZN as an income share at present. Longer term, who knows?

I've held GSK for years and will continue to do so in line with my approach until its yield matches the FTSE100, or forever, whichever comes first.

[essentialinvestor] 28/7/2015 10:51

I have freed up some cash in case an opportunity presents itself tomorrow.

Not brave enough to take a position pre results which may mean a missed opportunity.

Results are usually 12.00 from memory?.

[tournesol] 28/7/2015 10:47

anhar

I think you are being much too rose tinted in your view.

I bought into GSK at a time when the company itself had stated that it intended to pay a large special dividend.

It subsequently decided NOT to do so.

In effect it is holding back the funds that were to provide the special divi to underwrite the regular divi over the next few years. That's a serious blow to investors like me who bought on the basis of the enhanced yield provided by the special divi that had been announced.

What it indicates is that GSK gives undertakings that are unrealistic and are subsequently abrogated. That's a really bad characteristic for a management team.

If the share price had not retreated I'd have sold as soon as the above situation emerged. As it is I'd sell tomorrow if the share price recovered a bit. I'm only hanging on in hopes that we've reached the bottom and/or might fall prey to a bid.

[anhar] 28/7/2015 10:26

Depends what you are seeking.

In my case for example as an income investor, GSK is by far the better share in the drug sector. With an 80p div predicted by the company itself for 2015, it yields a forecast 6.00% at 1,333p and they have said the same 80p will be paid for the next two years. Plus they plan to pay a further 20p special for 2015 which makes an additional 1.5% yield for this year.

AZN is forecast by external analysts to pay 280¢ for 2015 which right now is equal to 179.8p for a forecast yield of 4.29% at 4,188p and the same again for 2016.

The GSK forecasts are more dependable because the company itself has said so rather than outside analysts, but no divis are ever guaranteed.

So clearly, but purely from an income view, GSK is a lot more attractive.

As for capital values, I take no interest in that so have no idea where they might be headed. Other than knowing they are both in drugs because I need to diversify my holdings, I stop there and have little interest in what they do.

[tournesol] 28/7/2015 08:29

I'd second the 50-50 approach

[hiriam007] 27/7/2015 23:14

Ty for your help Essential.

[essentialinvestor] 27/7/2015 22:21

You beat me to it M )

[essentialinvestor] 27/7/2015 22:20

AZN is the pure pharma play hiriam, GSK with vaccines and consumer healthcare
is a more broadly based business.

Expectations with GSK are low and sentiment is pretty dire,
so if news is better than expectations there could be more
short term upside with GSK - they are capable of disappointing yet again
of course.

You could always buy a smaller amount of both and hedge your bets.

AZN longer term is mainly a play on the commercialisation of their oncology products and if these can match the ambitious revenue targets outlined.

[hiriam007] 27/7/2015 22:10

Ty Minerve. Appreciate it.

[minerve] 27/7/2015 22:08

I would go 50/50 and I have pretty much done it that way. Glaxo yields higher with questions marks over its capability to continue the dividend. Astra delivers a smaller yield but has the potential for quick gains if the Pfizer interest comes back.

[hiriam007] 27/7/2015 20:44

I'm going to open a small investment in pharmas. I was wondering whether to go 50% GSK, 50% AZN or 100% GSK.

Would appreciate it if anyone had any views on the matter. Obviously I am aware that any such opinion is not investment advice.

Ty in advance.

[elmfield] 27/7/2015 19:42

I think that depends on the wider market, not sure.
Have to buy sometime!

[essentialinvestor] 27/7/2015 09:51

Inflexion point nearing for the share price IMV, whether there is one more plunge to
come first I can't call.

[cyberian] 27/7/2015 09:41

Fair and quite balanced comments in the Weekend FT and Sunday Times, regarding GSK...the company needs to convince the market that it's new strategy will start to give clear evidence of the benefits intended, The £3 billion in cost cuts will help, but both articles suggests that it will be the planned Autumn R & D day that will be the one where the emphasis on future growth/prospects will be critical. The FT provides a list of the major pharma review of "In the pipeline", which has GSK heading the list with 258 (number of products), Novartis 245, Roche 234, Astra Zeneca 222, Johnson & Johnson 204, Merck 199, Pfizer 199, Sanofi 184, Takeda 130, and Eli Lilly 119. The results on Wednesday may give an early indicator as to the progress on this front...we will just have to see. Anyway, on balance it seems that expectations for this year are already priced-in and hopefully we may get a surprise on the up-side?

[essentialinvestor] 27/7/2015 09:14

Yes from a corporate reputation context it's badly needed good PR,
and will hopefully make a significant contribution in the fight against
this disease.

[tompion] 24/7/2015 10:54

A useful vaccine given reasonable efficacy in children and, hopefully, the first of a series of malaria vaccines with increasing efficacy over the next decade. For GSK - it just gets brownie points as it won't make a profit from the vaccine.

[ianood] 24/7/2015 07:50

From their website:
GSK’s malaria candidate vaccine, Mosquirix™ (RTS,S), receives positive opinion from European regulators for the prevention of malaria in young children in sub-Saharan Africa
24 July 2015
Issued: London, UK

WHO will now assess how the world’s first malaria candidate vaccine might be used alongside other tools to prevent malaria
GSK announced today that the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has adopted a positive scientific opinion for its malaria candidate vaccine MosquirixTM, also known as RTS,S, in children aged 6 weeks to 17 months. Following this decision, the World Health Organization (WHO) will now formulate a policy recommendation on use of the vaccine in national immunisation programmes once approved by national regulatory authorities.

RTS,S, which was developed in partnership with the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI), is the first candidate vaccine for the prevention of malaria to reach this milestone. While other vaccines tackle viruses or bacteria, RTS,S has been designed to prevent malaria caused by the Plasmodium falciparum parasite, which is most prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In 2013, there were an estimated 584,000 deaths from malaria with around 90% of these occurring in SSA, and 83% in children under the age of five in SSA.1

The CHMP scientific opinion is a key step in the regulatory process toward making RTS,S available alongside existing tools currently recommended for malaria prevention. The positive opinion for young children was based on the review of data assessing the candidate vaccine’s safety, efficacy and quality. Clinical data submitted for CHMP assessment were mainly from a phase III clinical trial programme involving more than 16,000 young children that was conducted by 13 African research centres in eight African countries (Burkina Faso, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Tanzania).

Data from this trial programme demonstrate that over the first 18 months following three doses of RTS,S, malaria cases were reduced by almost half in children aged 5-17 months at the time of first vaccination and by 27% in infants aged 6-12 weeks. At study end, four doses of RTS,S reduced malaria cases by 39% over four years of follow-up in children, and by 27% over three years of follow-up in infants.2 In areas of the highest malaria burden, more than 6,000 clinical malaria cases were prevented over the study period for every 1,000 children vaccinated.2 The efficacy of RTS,S was evaluated in addition to existing malaria control measures, such as insecticide treated bed nets, which were used by approximately 80% of the children and infants in the trial.

Sir Andrew Witty, CEO of GSK said: “Today’s scientific opinion represents a further important step towards making available for young children the world's first malaria vaccine. While RTS,S on its own is not the complete answer to malaria, its use alongside those interventions currently available such as bed nets and insecticides, would provide a very meaningful contribution to controlling the impact of malaria on children in those African communities that need it the most. The work doesn’t stop here and GSK remains committed to investing in R&D for malaria vaccines and treatments to find more ways to tackle this devastating disease.”

Dr David C. Kaslow, Vice President of Product Development at PATH said: “Today marks a significant scientific milestone for the long-standing partnership to develop a vaccine, yet several more steps remain before a malaria vaccine might reach the young children in Africa who most need protection against this deadly human parasite. PATH will continue to work with GSK and other partners to ensure that the evidence is available, as soon as possible, to support informed decision-making on those remaining steps.”

GSK has committed to a not-for-profit price for RTS,S so that, if approved, the price of RTS,S would cover the cost of manufacturing the vaccine together with a small return of around five per cent that will be reinvested in research and development for second-generation malaria vaccines, or vaccines against other neglected tropical diseases.

Next steps

Following the CHMP positive scientific opinion, two of the WHO’s independent advisory groups, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization and the Malaria Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) will now jointly review the evidence base for RTS,S and make a joint policy recommendation for how it might be used alongside other tools to prevent malaria in the event the vaccine candidate is approved by national regulatory authorities in SSA. The WHO has indicated that such a policy recommendation may be possible by end of this year.

Following the WHO policy recommendation, GSK will also submit an application to the WHO for pre-qualification of RTS,S. WHO pre-qualification involves a scientific assessment of the quality, safety and efficacy of any new vaccine proposed for introduction in WHO Expanded Programme on Immunization. A pre-qualification decision is used by the United Nations agencies and other large scale public procurement agencies to help inform vaccine purchasing decisions.

Once a WHO pre-qualification is granted, GSK would then apply for marketing authorisation in countries in sub-Saharan Africa on a country-by-country basis. These regulatory and policy decisions would, if positive, enable countries to begin implementation of RTS,S through their universal immunisation programmes.

Both a WHO policy recommendation and WHO pre-qualification are requirements for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to support eligible African countries introducing RTS,S into local immunisation programmes supported by UNICEF.

[philo124] 24/7/2015 07:32

News out not showing.

[anhar] 23/7/2015 15:16

...Often on the Daily Bulletins they will say GSK rose today on a buy recommendation from eg Micky Mouse.

These reasons are almost wholly spurious. Most market moves in larger caps have no reason, just the balance of buy and sell, but those who write this stuff have to fill space. The reason there is no reason is because trading in big caps is almost all pro such as pension funds etc. and the small guy is irrelevant. Each pro will normally have a different reason for buying or selling and the net effect is no reason.

Again it's the small investors who frequent these boards and similar places who think there must be a reason for every move. Overwhelmingly there isn't.