Gsk Share Discussion Threads

[tradermichael] 06/8/2015 08:37

Do you reckon we'll see that 'Special Dividend' if Pfizer steps in? ...... ;0)

[nw99] 06/8/2015 08:04

Bid speculation again and quadruple bottom on the chart

[nikesh] 06/8/2015 05:10

DRUGS giant GlaxoSmithKline rose 18p to 1419p amid speculation several overseas predators are considering a takeover move.

express.co.uk

Now, this would make this a great year if a takeover happened!

[racg] 06/8/2015 01:57

Ok and you rebance occasionally or not?

[anhar] 05/8/2015 22:21

Individual cos only, no funds or VCTs etc. All equal weighted so that new additions or top-ups are made only up to the average value as it stands at the time. Of course they don't stay equal weighted as share prices fluctuate.

[racg] 05/8/2015 19:10

Anhar, just out of interest,(tell me to mind my own business, if you wish), but do you have a selection of shares and IT and infrastructure companies VCTs etc or is it only individual co's and do you weight everything the same say 100 of £y each?

[davr0s] 05/8/2015 18:41

Providing the company is fundamentally sound I invest on price action and volume and this seems to have broken back north now on good volume - so looking pretty good for the media term IMHO

[deanforester] 05/8/2015 18:26

The thing that anhar has worked out, is that dividends power growth of capital. If you want a high total return, then looking for growing dividends is a good way of achieving it, and tends to give better results than aiming for capital growth, ignoring dividends.

Capital values fluctuate wildly, whereas dividends in general tend to grow steadily. Not always, as Tesco and RSA, to take but two examples, testify. What sort of TR are you aiming for? Would something in the mid-teens satisfy you? Over what period do you measure it? Let's see some figures about what your approach has given.

[greenpastures2] 05/8/2015 17:06

I agree with you anhar about TMF but not with your denigration of total return. Growth companies do not pay dividends because they have a better use for the cash- namely investment. Just look how Microsoft and Qualcomm appreciated in value during their growth stage They are now paying dividends because they cannot invest all the cash they have hoarded. Apple will have to decide what to do with its cash pile soon I would think.

One problem that I see with companies that have gained reputations as solid dividend payers such as Shell is that when they go through periods where cash flow is not sufficient to fund dividends they then go and borrow to do it. I think Tesco was in this situation too. Its income was not sufficient to cover investment and dividends and it was basically borrowing to pay the dividend.

[tournesol] 05/8/2015 14:51

Anhar

"...Your mistake is to think that most HY shares go wrong..."

No. I never said that.

The only person here making irrational generalisations without any supporting evidence is you. You are saying that capital values do not matter, when it is obvious to anyone that they matter just as much as dividends.

"...most go right, in time and that's both on income and capital...."

Make your mind up. You have said repeatedly capital growth is not important, now you are claiming that your investment strategy delivers it. Which is it?

I think that what you probably mean to say is that selecting stocks which pay good dividends provides you with both a good dividend stream and decent capital growth. In other words with a good total return. Nobody here would argue with that.

But what you are actually saying is that TSR is not important - which is equivalent to saying that capital losses are not important which is arrant nonsense.

[racg] 05/8/2015 13:32

Anyway look GSK holding good
Though everything is up to be fair.

[anhar] 05/8/2015 12:59

Actually fund is equity unrestrained, rather than equity income (I was mixing that with woodford). Which would actually support the popular view.

Okay. All I know is that I have done alright long term by going against that popular view. Just my experience and I hope that your approach works for you. I never buy funds.

My view is not universal, I know that some growth shares or funds will perform, just as some income shares or funds will not. But as a generalisation, taking a contrarian view to the popular one has worked for me.

[anhar] 05/8/2015 12:47

It may be "non rational" to you to focus exclusively on income but it works for me. You are not considering reality, just inventing things to suit your argument such as:

...Clearly it does you no good at all to receive a dividend of 6% whilst suffering a capital loss of 6%.

There is no reason at purchase to assume that such a share will suffer a 6% loss or any particular figure of capital movement including profit. You know that capital losses and profits fluctuate constantly and thus so does the useless (for me) measure of TR. Even if after purchase it shows a capital loss of 6% now, that might be anything in a week, a year, ten years, forever. Why worry about one point in time in that way? I don't.

Not that I care about capital movements but in the real world, capital losses in my port are the minority long term. What does happen is that on balance and over time, the port delivers both a good income and growth too. Some shares in it don't but mine is a portfolio approach and it has worked overall despite duds, which is what matters to me. In fact only the income matters to me but as a side effect, as I've said, it so happens that it has produced growth too.

... Such situations end up with massive capital losses which segue into dividend suspension/reduction. There are many examples of this...

Agreed some do but not all, not even most, in my structured port approach, not in my experience. Your mistake is to think that most HY shares go wrong, in fact the reverse is the case, most go right, in time and that's both on income and capital. I don't buy any old HY shares, they have to pass my simple filters and fit the port diversification requirement.

...it is of course your right to stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen to people with more sensible views but you are not doing yourself any favours by behaving in that manner.

As I said it works for me. I didn't start my strategy yesterday, it is decades old. That's when I gave up listening to "people with more sensible views" and found my own way.

[dr biotech] 05/8/2015 12:45

Actually fund is equity unrestrained, rather than equity income (I was mixing that with woodford). Which would actually support the popular view.

[tournesol] 05/8/2015 12:41

Anhar

You keep banging on about the unimportance/irrelevance of capital values and the primary importance of dividends. Your investment philosophy is simply non-rational.


TSR takes into account both dividends and share price movements.

If a high yield stock maintains its capital value and delivers a yield of X%. Then its TSR is X%

If a growth stock pays no dividend but delivers share price growth of X% then its TSR is X%.

There is no rational basis to prefer one of these over the other. They both achieve exactly the same outcome.


If you ignore capital value then you run the risk of investing in companies where the divi yield is X% but the share price falls by Y%. In such cases what is effectively happening is that dividends are being partly/wholly funded by declining capital.

Clearly it does you no good at all to receive a dividend of 6% whilst suffering a capital loss of 6%. Or even worse where capital losses exceed dividends.


Such situations end up with massive capital losses which segue into dividend suspension/reduction. There are many examples of this.


Iy is of course your right to stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to listen to people with more sensible views but you are not doing yourself any favours by behaving in that manner.

[anhar] 05/8/2015 12:38

Total return is not for me because it involves constantly measuring and chasing gains which is not something I do. I found, personally, that chasing gains was a losing proposition. I know a very small minority of traders can profit from that, but it is only a small minority which doesn't include me. Most will end up like I did a long time ago, losers.

I changed to income investing under a structured strategy and it is much easier, provided you have the extreme patience required. And it works for me. A lot of private investors would find it too boring but as far as shares are concerned, boring is beautiful I've found. Excitement is excruciating.

[racg] 05/8/2015 12:28

Guess you don't hold Berkshire Hathaway or Amazon then Anhar? Your investment model is fine but not something I would follow necessarily, why are you so determined to denigrate a total return methodology? Really, makes no sense to me, especially with the recent increasing taxation of a high income strategy courtesy of Gideon. Anyhow, keep on banging on about how yield is the only thing and that it brings capital gains too - the market will carry on its merry own way regardless.

[anhar] 05/8/2015 12:21

..They have done well for me over the last couple of years (standard life equity income unrestrained has done particularly well)...

Which supports my point regarding the inaccuracy of the popular view (which you expressed yourself !), that high income means low growth.

[tompion] 05/8/2015 12:09

1st malaria vaccine receives positive scientific opinion from EMA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mosquirix to be used for vaccination of young children, together with established antimalarial interventions.

The European Medicines Agency's [EMA] Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has adopted a positive scientific opinion for Mosquirix (_Plasmodium falciparum_ and hepatitis B vaccine), for use outside the European Union (EU).

The malaria vaccine Mosquirix, also known as RTS,S/AS01, was submitted to EMA under a regulatory procedure (Article 58) that allows EMA to assess the quality, safety and efficacy of a medicine or vaccine and its benefit-risk balance, although it will not be marketed in the EU. This means that EMA can help facilitate access to new medicines for people living outside the EU.

Mosquirix is intended for use in areas where malaria is regularly found, for the active immunisation of children aged 6 weeks to 17 months against malaria caused by the _P. falciparum_ parasite, and against hepatitis B. After decades of research into malaria vaccinations, Mosquirix is the 1st vaccine for the disease to be assessed by a regulatory agency.

The CHMP highlighted in its opinion that Mosquirix is for use in line with official recommendations that take into account the risk of _P. falciparum_ malaria in different geographical areas and available malaria control interventions. These recommendations will be defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and regulatory authorities in the non-EU countries where the vaccine would be used.

As in all Article 58 procedures, the CHMP worked closely with other experts, including from WHO and regulatory authorities from the relevant countries. In its assessment, the CHMP applied the same rigorous standards as for medicines to be marketed within the EU.

[dr biotech] 05/8/2015 11:22

I spent my early years investing in risky biotechs (hence the avatar) with no turnover but hopes of growth. It didn’t end well. As I got older I’ve taken less risks and its done better for me. More recently I have mostly jacked in the individual shares and bought funds instead. They have done well for me over the last couple of years (standard life equity income unrestrained has done particularly well).

I find the TMF articles largely dull and repetitive and as if they are written to template. Three or four anodyne paragraphs with little thought or detail. Still their opinion is as valid as any.

[anhar] 05/8/2015 10:57

Different needs for different people. My general requirement is to grow my investments so that I have a substantial wad in around 10 years when my son goes to uni/buys a house/etc. I look for a balance between growth and income - just think its sensible to have some shares that are established low growth business and others that pay little but will hopefully make it up in capital growth.

Fair enough, I made my wad a long time ago, partly due to my strategy which, despite my efforts to ignore that aspect and just chase income, has done quite well on gains and partly due to making a decent income when I was working from which I could invest substantially over the years.

I just don't believe that common view of the inverse relationship for shares between income and growth, ie. that low income means high growth and vice versa. I've found the reverse to be true. High income, provided it's done in a structured approach, actually delivers good growth too though that's not why I do it.

[anhar] 05/8/2015 10:49

I think most TMF articles are rather poor in their analysis of companies. I don't pay any attention to anybody's opinions on shares but I still like to read stuff about equity investing and I don't rate TMF writers these days.

They've changed hugely since the early days when they were a refreshing radical approach to investing with original writers. Now they're just crowd followers with little original to say and not very good at saying it. Ironically they used to criticise what they called the "wise", ie. the investment establishment and now they are no better than that themselves.

Some of their discussion boards can be interesting, though even on those there is a lot of garbage written by ill informed naïve people so you have to be selective, but the actual articles are of poor quality in the main, in my view.

[dr biotech] 05/8/2015 10:45

Different needs for different people. My general requirement is to grow my investments so that I have a substantial wad in around 10 years when my son goes to uni/buys a house/etc. I look for a balance between growth and income - just think its sensible to have some shares that are established low growth business and others that pay little but will hopefully make it up in capital growth.

[tradermichael] 05/8/2015 10:41

Yes, and decades ago when Glaxo 'merged' with Wellcome, the new entity was supposed to be worth 2200p. What happened there, then? Now, virtually all the old Wellcome sites have been closed and despite several more mergers and acquisitions, the market capitalisation/price languishes at 60% of original projections.

[zzaxx99] 05/8/2015 10:36

The trouble with that TMF article is that it could have been written 5 years ago, when GSK were boasting about their product "wall". 5 years later, with several late stage failures over the last 12-18 months, we're still on the verge of major growth.

Is the company better balanced now? Well, maybe. Will this set of drugs have any better luck than the last lot? Who knows?

I'm been back in for 5 or 6 weeks, but watching carefully.