Gsk Share Discussion Threads

[alex1621] 02/5/2021 21:07

Simpleton who compares apples with pears. Oh dear indeed.

[spud] 02/5/2021 20:58

Oh dear...... :-(spud

[alex1621] 02/5/2021 19:59

It's not the same market, and it's not the same products ... it's the same sector. AZN are in different markets. It's not a like for like comparison. It's a differentiated product business, not a commodity product business.

[spud] 02/5/2021 19:50

Ok. So explain the AZN overachieve? Same market same product synergies.

spud

[alex1621] 02/5/2021 19:39

You do know. It would be no different ... because some events are simply out of a manager's control. Like a cruise ship CEO ... or a restaurant owner ... or a cinema operator ... during a pandemic.

[spud] 02/5/2021 19:11

I haven't a clue. What I do know is that he would have been proactive in pipeline investments and not relied on a single earner. spud

[alex1621] 02/5/2021 19:06

If Pascal Soriot took over GSK in early 2020 would Shingrix sales be as high or higher than 2019?

[spud] 02/5/2021 18:45

So how come AZN has just reported superb figures in their latest report while GSK just blame shifted?

I’ll give you a clue : Pascal.

spud

[alex1621] 02/5/2021 18:36

GSK has been hit by Covid, like many other businesses. So consumer, vaccines and pharma have underperformed. If the pandemic had not arisen the numbers would have been much better. So it's transitory, not a long term trend. The failure with Sanofi added to the negative sentiment. This too shall pass.

[markbelluk] 02/5/2021 18:31

Only a fool would think this is sinking. Its just not been steered well at all

[whatsup32] 02/5/2021 18:24

A sinking ship ain’t worth as much as a floating .

Whatsup:)

[spud] 02/5/2021 17:36

A rudderless ship ain't worth as much as one that is able go where it's pointed....spud

[alex1621] 02/5/2021 16:07

But 100 billion implies a 48% upside.

[alex1621] 02/5/2021 16:00

Sorry, billion. But given time EW might get there.

[watfordhornet] 02/5/2021 14:13

Ha - with Emma's performance it may be that 50 million is more likely.She is giving it a good go

[cwa1] 02/5/2021 14:05

£50M cap for each would be an impressive shrinkage of the company's worth even by the current management's standards :-)

[abdullla] 02/5/2021 13:36

Is it million cap or billion cap ?

[beckers2008] 02/5/2021 13:05

If Elliot are American based they do not have to declare unless they reach/pass 5%.

[alex1621] 02/5/2021 12:54

One interesting snippet from the Sunday Times article was the idea that both businesses post split would be valued around £50m cap, so £100m cap holding. Quite an uplift from today's share price

[daneswooddynamo] 02/5/2021 11:20

You are right, expect loads more as Elliott keeps stoking it

As for the disclosure issue, doesn’t matter how Elliott owns its stake, it has a duty to declare once it believes it to be over 3 percent. And there is also a provision in the Companies Act for GSK to serve notice on a party to disclose its holding whatever the level. Used to be a 212 notice now I think renumbered but provision is the same. And you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as the FT article came out GSk would have served one and you can keep serving one as far as I am aware

[whatsup32] 02/5/2021 10:03

My understanding was that ultimate holder ‘once they know their holding is above 3% they were obliged to notify regulator.

Otherwise anyone can instruct 100 banks to buy 1% of the target company and not notify anyone .

I’m not an expert , merely questioning

[williamcooper104] 02/5/2021 09:45

If they've bought it via total return swaps then the only obligation would be on the banks on the other end of those swaps to notify their holdings (they will buy the stock to hedge their position) The trade will be split over a few banks, so no need for anyone to notify anything