Gsk Share Discussion Threads

[tradermichael] 05/8/2016 13:24

Gbh: I keep a spreadsheet and update it constantly with my trades. Then for the annual tax return I simply attach it with the form and put a summary as notes.

Remember, you can offset gains against looses in a given financial year, and you can carry losses forward if unused.

[andyadvfn1] 05/8/2016 13:22

OkThanks for that. Never heard of it before. If joint account assume can double amounts?

[tradermichael] 05/8/2016 13:21

Correct, you have to complete a Capital Gains form for the HMRC if your gains from disposals exceed £11,100 or if your total disposals exceed 4 x the annual exemption amount which is 4 x £11,100 (i.e. £44,400).

[gbh2] 05/8/2016 13:16

Maybe I'm the only one that take notice of it:

IF you disposals add up to more than 4 times the current CGT amount then one has to fill out the SA108 whether you make a profit or not during the financial year.

Example: Regardless of whether you make a profit this financial year if you sell shares worth more than £44,400 then you have to submit a SA108 (which is a pain and the reason I'm asking)

[andyadvfn1] 05/8/2016 13:02

CGT= capital gains tax ?4x= Aussie lager!Put them together an what have you got?Seriously no idea what 4xCGT is

[gbh2] 05/8/2016 12:56

Off topic so hope you don't mind me asking if anyone other than me, falls foul of the 4x CGT rule regarding disposals more importantly do you do anything about it??

[tradermichael] 05/8/2016 12:55

GSK first entered the bioelectronics field in 2012 and since then has invested $50m into six start-up bioelectronics businesses via a specific fund. The furthest advanced of these is SetPoint Medical, which has developed an electronic implant that has successfully reduced symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis by stimulating the vagus nerve, which runs from the brain to the abdomen.

Alphabet - then Google - also moved into bioelectronics in 2012, when it embarked on a project to put computing inside a contact lens. This 'smart contact lens' has since been sold to Swiss pharma group Novartis, which is developing the technology so it will enable people with diabetes to monitor themselves continuously by measuring the glucose in their tears.

[losos] 05/8/2016 11:57

Minerve - "I would like to understand your rationale in this opinion. Please explain."

My 'rationale' is simple, when I say it's "OK" what I am really saying is that if someone wants to do that then it's their decision. There must be millions of pages of text books and other stuff advising against holding just one stock.

I don't ever try to give advice on these forums, and actually I couldn't agree with you more, keeping ones money is much harder than making a few quid on a trade.

I guess I am more of cynic than you and don't really care much about my fellow humans, in fact I often think I like my dogs more than most people ha ha.

[minerve] 05/8/2016 11:04

I don't see the point in selling at the moment. The £ could fall further over the next few months and GSK is at a turning point where it seems to have managed, or is managing, the potential patent cliff. If the oil price starts to fall again, and RDSB and BP eventually start to cut dividends, GSK would probably be the first obvious beneficiary; many are seeing $50/barrel as a ceiling rather than a bottom - there is a limit to how many assets you can sell to pay your dividends, you cannot continue like that forever. I still, at present, see potential for more upside than downside.

[toffeeman] 05/8/2016 10:05

Hi Sal

Surely there is no point in selling unless you have a switch which will give you a superior return going forward?

[salpara111] 05/8/2016 09:57

Well, I have reset my sell limit order to 1700 from 1770 as we appear to have met a wall around the 1700 level.
I will be very happy to exit at 1700 as I bought at 1400 less than a year ago and have pocketed the chunky divi.

[tim 3] 03/8/2016 13:53

Most ways of investing work sometimes and am glad TM has done well but Minerve is spot on imo, not putting all your eggs in one basket and having a diversified portfolio is a fairly basic investment principle.Even with big comapnys like gsk you never know for certain whats going on internally or what might be round the corner,if we did we could all be rich ;)

[badtime] 03/8/2016 12:46

WB MIN..haven't seen you around for a bit ..agreeing with A must be a first :)

[minerve] 02/8/2016 11:53

Losos

"Minerve made me smile when he asked "is his wife and children happy" well you have told them haven't you :-) "

I don't need to because I am running a sensible and diversified investment policy!

"For a PI one huge holding is OK"

NO IT IS NOT! IT IS FOOLISH AND STUPID!

What makes you an expert/experienced to form that opinion?

I have been managing a personal multi-milllion pound portfolio for two decades and I am telling you that I KNOW THAT IS THE CASE! I have seen TraderMichael's come and go like the weather. I have seen millionaires return to benefit street - seriously. It is one thing to make money and it is magnitudes harder to keep it.

I would like to understand your rationale in this opinion. Please explain.

[losos] 02/8/2016 11:25

TradetMicheal - Thanks for posting that summary of bioelectronic medicine, sounds complicated but potential obviously huge if they get it right.

Minerve made me smile when he asked "is his wife and children happy" well you have told them haven't you :-) For a PI one huge holding is OK, but I couldn't see me doing it !!!

[alphorn] 02/8/2016 10:55

As Sir Paul Girolami said about Zantac if you have all your eggs in one basket you had better be sure that it is a good basket. ;))

[minerve] 02/8/2016 10:47

I generally agree with anhar's view.

Shares are all about risk management. You have to learn about how not to lose money, before what return you make, if you want to manage a large portfolio over a long-time with steadily capital appreciation.

You have to know and judge in advance what would make a company fail. I don't mean lower revenue etc.. I refer to economic conditions, markets etc.

Diversification does seem negative when you have found a good company with good returns. The trouble is everyone jumps on board which increases volatility/risk and should bad news happen unexpectedly you lose - and you lose significant capital - which takes time to catch back up to where you were. If you lose 50% of a share's value you need to make a 100% return in a new share just to get back where you started.

The last 7/8 years have been very good for markets driven by continual monetary easing in interest rate reductions and quantitative easing - it is unlikely to be the same over the next decade. Diversification and stock selection will become more important and more affective on your portfolio.

GSK is a good stock to have money in because it does have inherent diversification in that each of its main divisions could be FTSE 100 companies in their own right. The market cap is massive.

However, to just run one stock is a fool's game and only should be done with money you can afford to lose.

Of course, it is TraderMichael's money he can do what the hell he wants with it - as long as his foolishness doesn't become a social burden to us all. He might be happy with what he does but is his wife or children - do they understand the risks he is taking with their future? Putting all your eggs in one basket is madness and is driven by greed which we all must resist to be good investors.

I am all for freedom of ideas if they make sense, and discussion, but please let us not congratulate foolish action.

[anhar] 02/8/2016 09:43

any thoughts on who the next ceo will be?

Since nearly all CEOs are just about irrelevant and ridiculously overpaid for it too, it hardly matters.

A diversified portfolio generally just means diversifying returns away

That's too general because you have to consider risk as well if you look at it logically.

Assuming we're talking about big caps then at one extreme, the smallest possible port of one share is obviously more risky than, say, a ten share or more diversified one. By risk here I mean over time the chance of bad stuff happening like cutting or suspending dividends, the capital value going nowhere or declining or even going bust.

Investors have to decide the level of risk they are willing to take against the potential rewards but it is inaccurate to say merely that diversifying a port means diversifying rewards away. A one share or very low diversified port may easily do even worse.

And with a one share, how do you know that you've picked a good one? Many big cap shares over ten years or whatever have trashed GSK. Look at tobaccos for example. In fact GSK has been a poorish performer and not at all a great example of the benefits of a one share job. I'm pretty sure it has done worse on total return than many diversified portfolios, even professional funds such as some generalised Investment Trusts which have done as well or better with a vastly lower risk.

I continue to hold GSK in my income port and will do so until its yield falls to the FTSE, (which is at a price of about 2,100p right now) or forever, but it is far from being the best performer I hold, though I care little for capital performance. It's done ok on divs, which are the only reason I hold shares at all, but even there it's far from the leader.

I don't agree with it but understand people willing to take the huge risk of staking all on just one share, but to claim that diversifying is somehow a bad idea is just wrong.

[alphorn] 02/8/2016 09:30

Sounds like a small step to robotics if they can mimic nerve patterns.

[tradermichael] 02/8/2016 07:24

For clarification, bioelectronic medicine uses miniaturized, implantable devices to alter and control electrical signals in the human body. These could be electrical signals that flow to your lungs to determine tension in your airways. By controlling these signals researchers hope to help people with asthma, for instance. The tiny devices, which wrap themselves around nerves to control the electrical signals, could also be used to fight diabetes and arthritis. Kris Famm, vice-president of GSK's Bioelectronics R&D and president of Galvani Bioelectronics, says Galvani would focus on "peripheral" diseases as they represent a "broad opportunity with many diseases." What about neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's? "I'm sure other players in this field will seek to address neuropsychiatric disorders and central nervous system neural modulation," says Famm. "That comes with a big challenge of having to deconvolute the circuits in the brain and knowing exactly what to address. It is many orders of magnitude more complex than being able to selectively modulate the signals near an end-organ."

[losos] 01/8/2016 13:29

Lancasterbomber - "GSK teams up with Alphabet for bioelectronics venture"

Sounds good, I wonder what 'bioelectronics' really means ha ha.

[lancasterbomber] 01/8/2016 09:56

Just in from FT
GSK teams up with Alphabet for bioelectronics venture

[tradermichael] 01/8/2016 08:49

If you simply invest £100K at a 5% yield, and reinvest all of the dividends, then your portfolio will be worth £163K after 10 years.

10 years ago, GSK had a price of 1500p. Today, (the price being 1700p) a £100K investment is worth £113K.

So, even without trading, £100K revalues to £176K. If you couple that with frequently trading the big swings (as I do), you can see how GSK can be a sound investment, if you have the nerve to sit it out and trade on the way.

[tradermichael] 01/8/2016 08:28

Good comment ..... and that sums it up for me! .....;0)

[bonio10000] 01/8/2016 08:26

A diversified portfolio generally just means diversifying returns away