Cash to deploy

[absolutezero]

On the Re-Nationalisation discussion, I have been agonising over what to do about my HYP's overweighting in the utility sector.
In the end I sold SSE and UU.
I have now reduced my utility exposure to just 4% of my portfolio given the potential risks involved in holding these shares.

I'm now left with the (nice) position of having cash to deploy into new HYP shares. I'm open to new holdings or ideally topping up in ones I already own.
TUK020 suggested I start a new thread (this one) and see what people think. I quite like to know what other people's portfolios look like so thought maybe others will be like me.
The usual caveats apply. Nothing anyone says will be taken by me to be personalised advice and I sink or swim on my own decisions.

I have categorised the shares into sectors. I know people will get into discussion on whether they agree with these (Sky, Travel and Leisure? SGE, software?) but these are the sectors I think of them as best fitting. After Banks it starts getting a bit subjective.

The only things I'm not looking to buy are armaments (BAE Systems etc), anything *too* dependent on the State (Carillion(!), Royal Mail or Capita etc) or public transport (First, National Express etc).
Yields for new shares should be 4% or greater (or it's not a HYP), listed on the UK exchanges and preferably large cap (FTSE350 or very top end of AIM).



I recently swapped GSK for AZN I'm worried by GSK's dividend.

The obvious points are:
the large weightings in Other Financial (a range of companies that didn't suit their own descriptor so they are a bit of a motley crew)
and Travel/Leisure (but I expect the Sky holding will become cash by the end of the year as a result of the Fox/Disney etc bid)
and the low weightings in others.
I'm happy holding more than one share in a sector to reduce specific company risk.

Any thoughts are very welcome.
My current inclination is to probably recycle the cash into LAND/PHP, RSA/AV., BT.A and RIO

[tjh290633]

I'm with you on your two heavyweight sectors, and you might like to subdivide the "other financial" group.

My current inclination is to probably recycle the cash into LAND/PHP, RSA/AV., BT.A and RIO

I'm not too keen on RSA, but otherwise I'm sure that you could do worse.

TJH

[moorfield]

Yields for new shares should be 4% or greater (or it's not a HYP), listed on the UK exchanges and preferably large cap (FTSE350 or very top end of AIM).



I recently swapped GSK for AZN I'm worried by GSK's dividend.

That's a shame, absolutezero. I'm on the other side of your trade, filling boots with GSK on a yield of 6.2% into my own HYP, as a replacement for the now-defunct CLLN.

Had you read GSK's results before acting on your worries?

The Board intends to maintain the dividend for 2018 at the current level of 80p per share, subject to any
material change in the external environment or performance expectations. Over time, as free cash flow
strengthens, it intends to build free cash flow cover of the annual dividend to a target range of 1.25-1.50x,
before returning the dividend to growth.

https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/investors/quarterly-results/

I don't think you need collect any more stamps TBH, but if you feel the need WPP on 4.5% is one you don't hold. Otherwise I'd suggest a top up of RDSB, BP. or LGEN - all > 5.5% ish.

[idpickering]

Hi absolutezero, thanks for putting up your HYP for all to see. I'm with you in the desire to see other's HYPs. You have a fine looking HYP there, and as for purchases/top ups, I'm with the other guys and their suggestions. It is a shame you dropped Glaxo, I hold both Astra and them, in fact I topped up my Glaxo holdings yesterday. I'm not sure you need any more newbies tbh.

Ian.

[TUK020]

Hi Absolutezero,
I have recently topped up IMB, LGEN, & NG, all of which seem to be at opportune prices, and I hope on a decent and sustainable yield.
I understand your worries about utilities, but consider NG to be the safest of the bunch for multiple reasons (US exposure, less likely to receive political interference/nationalisation than the energy suppliers).
The other sector that I would consider at the moment is Oil, but I am already fairly well invested in RDSB & BP.
tuk020

[idpickering]

Hi absolutezero, thanks for putting up your HYP for all to see. I'm with you in the desire to see other's HYPs. You have a fine looking HYP there, and as for purchases/top ups, I'm with the other guys and their suggestions. It is a shame you dropped Glaxo, I hold both Astra and them, in fact I topped up my Glaxo holdings yesterday. I'm not sure you need any more newbies tbh.

Ian.

I should add, for what it's worth, I also topped up my Imperial Brands and Lloyds holdings yesterday too.

Ian.

[flyer61]

LLOY, LGEN, AV. and PNN.

Both LGEN and AV. are both going great guns and I am optimistic that AV. will make a special dividend payment this year. There appears to be no real effort by any political party to sort out the nefarious UK pension industry it is plain sailing for these two. I wouldn't touch SLA - it's management smacks of RBS....what is it with Scottish based Companies....

LLOY for the prospective yield.

PNN, I realise you have been whittling down your Utilities but the slightest hint that Corbyn won't get in then this sector will fly. In the meantime 5% plus dividend at a low entry point. NG worth a look as well.

GSK will cut the dividend in 2019.

If you can be bothered the US has a vast array of quality companies that might help you on your way.

[absolutezero]

Thanks all for the comments.

Idpickering
I'm nosey. I like seeing what other people have got.
I was interested in TJH290633's holdings in the 'Knee Jerk' thread.

Moorfield.
I was quite a fan of GSK and held it for a bit but the results last week put me off and the Investors' Chronicle's review of it was very negative - which further added to my disposal of it.
The drug Advair (a big chunk of their income) will be under pressure from generics once the patent runs out and they don't have a decent pipeline of new drugs coming through.
A dividend cut seems likely as their free cash flow has dropped and debt risen alarmingly (£1.2bn in 2005 to £14.2bn now, as the IC's Mr Bearbull puts it 'mostly because the company boosted EPS by buying in shares when trading failed to deliver').
Their Chief Exec seems more interested in the toothpaste and mouthwashes side of things than the drugs so it's seemingly slowly turning into a Unilever type entity rather than a pharma company. Mr Bearbull again "When corporate PR breathlessly tells us Poligrip is one of the divisions 'global power brands' you know something isn't entirely convincing".

The problem I have is I think I have enough insurers, banks and oils.
Bit more AZN perhaps? Or maybe some REITs?
Decisions decisions.

[idpickering]

Hi absolutezero, you're welcome. Maybe a bit more AstraZeneca is the way to go for you then. As for REITs, you've got my pick in the sector already, that being British Land. Regarding GlaxoSmithKline, I'm very much in favour of splitting the company up, as per Neil Woodford's view I believe. Meanwhile, the divi's very nice ta.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Ian.

[absolutezero]

So in the end I topped up three of my smallest holdings:
LAND at 4.6%
S32 at 5.4%
DLAR at 4.0%.

I also treated myself to a new holding:
TATE at 5.0%

Still got a bit of cash left in the account and will combine that with February's dividends and see what I fancy at the start of March.

[moorfield]

Moorfield.
I was quite a fan of GSK and held it for a bit but the results last week put me off and the Investors' Chronicle's review of it was very negative - which further added to my disposal of it.

I'd be wary of what Mr Bearbull has to say for himself. Looking at your highest weighted sectors I'd suggest you have plenty else to worry about than GSK in terms of what could not contribute to your overall income. For starters - SLA, GNK, IGG have all been in the news this week for the wrong reasons (massive drawdown of funds, a hostile takeover, and stricter margin regulations on customers, respectively).



Feeling (even more) put off yet?

[monabri]

Moorfield.
I was quite a fan of GSK and held it for a bit but the results last week put me off and the Investors' Chronicle's review of it was very negative - which further added to my disposal of it.

I'd be wary of what Mr Bearbull has to say for himself. Looking at your highest weighted sectors I'd suggest you have plenty else to worry about than GSK in terms of what could not contribute to your overall income. For starters - SLA, GNK, IGG have all been in the news this week for the wrong reasons (massive drawdown of funds, a hostile takeover, and stricter margin regulations on customers, respectively).



Feeling (even more) put off yet?

GNK hostile takeover..I haven't seen that one?

GKN ?

[pds2008]

"There appears to be no real effort by any political party to sort out the nefarious UK pension industry it is plain sailing for these two. I wouldn't touch SLA - it's management smacks of RBS....what is it with Scottish based Companies...."

Thanks for the input - does anyone else share the RBS analogy with SLA? I always felt the management were more conservative and less likely to hide issues affecting financial performance. I believe they will ride out this week's news about Lloyds pulling their business as there is long term ability with this company.

I'll ignore the pithy statement regarding Scottish Companies - especially given recent Carillion, Capita, Provident, etc etc news

[monabri]

I was going to post something along the lines of '" I didn't realise the Scottish borders extended down as far as Wolverhampton?".

I don't think one can bring nationality into it and it wouldn't be too difficult to wag a finger at many a company "south of the border".

As for SLA, who knows? I held shares in SL before the merger and I topped up after. Sooner or later one of the CEOs will have to step down as " There can be only one! (*)"


(*) Connor MacLeod - " Highlander" (1986).

[absolutezero]

I'd be wary of what Mr Bearbull has to say for himself. Looking at your highest weighted sectors I'd suggest you have plenty else to worry about than GSK in terms of what could not contribute to your overall income. For starters - SLA, GNK, IGG have all been in the news this week for the wrong reasons (massive drawdown of funds, a hostile takeover, and stricter margin regulations on customers, respectively).



Feeling (even more) put off yet?

I'm not too worried now as I don't have a huge holding in any one particular company or sector - which was not the case when I held UU and SSE.
Company specific risk is, to a lesser or greater extent, something you just can't avoid.
I don't see the SLA/IGG thing as an existential threat (but should the dividend get canned or the share price drop too much then they'll get a good looking at).
The 'other financial' are a diverse bunch splitting into something like broker services and wealth management so I'm not too worried there.

[moorfield]

GNK hostile takeover..I haven't seen that one?

GKN ?

Indeed. My Bad. Sorry about that.

[Gengulphus]

The obvious points are:
the large weightings in Other Financial (a range of companies that didn't suit their own descriptor so they are a bit of a motley crew)
and Travel/Leisure (but I expect the Sky holding will become cash by the end of the year as a result of the Fox/Disney etc bid)
and the low weightings in others.

On the Travel & Leisure sector, I would basically split it into two, which can roughly be described as "Travel" and "Leisure". More precisely, I would divide companies between the two depending on whether they're largely dependent on non-discretionary spending, such as commuter travel, or on discretionary spending, such as going out for the evening. That does also tend to go hand-in-hand with the likelihood of more government/political interference than just straight regulation/taxation (much more likely for non-discretionary travel companies with their dependence e.g. on rail franchises), and with the likelihood of being dependent on cultural shifts (much more likely e.g. for pub companies with their dependence on popular attitudes towards alcohol).

Basically, that's because I see very little in common between how e.g. Stagecoach and Greene King make their money, and what risks they face in continuing to do so. Remember that diversification isn't primarily aimed at totally eliminating risks - that's unachievable for a share investment strategy - but at getting a portfolio affected by a balance of different risks, so that what one loses on the swings tends to be mitigated by gains on the roundabouts, and vice versa. So what one wants from diversification is companies that are affected by significantly different risks - and since the purpose of using sectors for a HYP is basically to help keep track of its diversification by grouping companies that face very similar risks together in sectors, sectors that group companies facing very different risks together aren't IMHO really fit for HYP purposes.

Note that my separate "Travel" and "Leisure" sectors are only loose, shorthand descriptions. If one doesn't keep that in mind, one gets some very grey areas, for example whether a cruise ship operator is "Travel" or "Leisure" - it seems to match both pretty well! On the discretionary vs non-discretionary spending issue, it pretty clearly falls into the discretionary category, which means I count it as a "Leisure" company. Also, remember that it's what a company largely does that matters. For example, I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if Stagecoach didn't run some 'outings' - bus and train journeys designed for people to go on to enjoy the places they visit rather than because they actually need to visit them. That's discretionary spending - but Stagecoach's main business is routine bus and train services for routes people actually need to travel, e.g. to commute to work, and so is non-discretionary spending, and so Stagecoach is a "Travel" company as far as I am concerned.

One other observation is that your classification of Sky as a Travel & Leisure company strikes me as interesting. It would normally be classified as a Media company, but I can certainly see the argument that it fits into Leisure as I see it - its products and services are certainly discretionary spending and it generally fits the "leisure" description just as well as a pub company or a theme parks company would. I can also see one fairly major distinction, in that its products and services largely depend on owning intangible assets that are expensive to produce in the first place but very cheap to copy - unlike beer, for example! That does produce some different risks - e.g. a greater vulnerability to piracy, a lower vulnerability to raw material price increases. There is also a greater overlap with the Telecoms sector than other Leisure companies have... Whether all of that amounts to a full sector distinction IMHO is something I'll need to think more about! (I'm not saying I agree with or disagree with - the point of saying this is that you've given me food for thought rather than to say you're right or wrong...)

I'm happy holding more than one share in a sector to reduce specific company risk.

Just to be clear, since it isn't immediately apparent from what I say above, so am I. The reason is that while a mixture of risks from companies in different sectors is better than one merely from different companies in the same sector, since it contains a variety of both company-specific and sector-specific risks rather than just of company-specific risks, that doesn't mean that a mixture of company-specific risks is valueless. And sector diversification does tend in practice to run out of steam somewhere in the 15-to-25-sectors range (there are more sectors, of course, but not all sectors contain reasonable HYP candidates) so at approaching 40 companies, you're basically bound to either have more than one company in a sector or to start adding clearly non-HYP companies.

There is an associated trap, though, of letting the amount of company diversification distract one from the issue of maintaining a good level of sector diversification. It's a trap I fell into around a decade ago, in the lead up to the financial crisis: I let my HYP acquire too many companies in the financial group of sectors (BANKS, INSURANCE and OTHER FINANCIAL as you describe them) - somewhat over 30% of my HYP was in them at its peak. And they are all affected by some particular risks shared by all financial companies - risks that actually happened in the financial crisis - and as a result, my HYP's income dropped by about a third. That's not as bad as some experienced (I've seen people report income drops by up to about a half) but it's worse than it need have been (which I estimate is probably an income drop of about a quarter, due to general economic risks that happened and can't be effectively diversified because essentially all companies are vulnerable to them).

With your weighting in that financial group of sectors totalling 28%, I would be rather uncomfortable about it. Not necessarily to the point of selling anything from it, but I would avoid topping up anything in the three sectors concerned until it was at least below 25%, and I would prefer 20%. And in that connection, the Pharmaceuticals sector does strike me as one that is quite lowly represented in your HYP and is a good candidate for holding more than one share in - sure, GlaxoSmithKline has some company-specific risks that AstraZeneca doesn't, but AstraZeneca almost certainly also has some company-specific risks that GlaxoSmithKline doesn't - and in any case, the company-specific risks taken by having a few percent in either or both are IMHO a lot less severe than the general financials-specific risks taken by having approaching 30% in financials.

Gengulphus

[absolutezero]

The obvious points are:
the large weightings in Other Financial (a range of companies that didn't suit their own descriptor so they are a bit of a motley crew)
and Travel/Leisure (but I expect the Sky holding will become cash by the end of the year as a result of the Fox/Disney etc bid)
and the low weightings in others.

On the Travel & Leisure sector, I would basically split it into two, which can roughly be described as "Travel" and "Leisure". More precisely, I would divide companies between the two depending on whether they're largely dependent on non-discretionary spending, such as commuter travel, or on discretionary spending, such as going out for the evening. That does also tend to go hand-in-hand with the likelihood of more government/political interference than just straight regulation/taxation (much more likely for non-discretionary travel companies with their dependence e.g. on rail franchises), and with the likelihood of being dependent on cultural shifts (much more likely e.g. for pub companies with their dependence on popular attitudes towards alcohol).

Basically, that's because I see very little in common between how e.g. Stagecoach and Greene King make their money, and what risks they face in continuing to do so. Remember that diversification isn't primarily aimed at totally eliminating risks - that's unachievable for a share investment strategy - but at getting a portfolio affected by a balance of different risks, so that what one loses on the swings tends to be mitigated by gains on the roundabouts, and vice versa. So what one wants from diversification is companies that are affected by significantly different risks - and since the purpose of using sectors for a HYP is basically to help keep track of its diversification by grouping companies that face very similar risks together in sectors, sectors that group companies facing very different risks together aren't IMHO really fit for HYP purposes.

Note that my separate "Travel" and "Leisure" sectors are only loose, shorthand descriptions. If one doesn't keep that in mind, one gets some very grey areas, for example whether a cruise ship operator is "Travel" or "Leisure" - it seems to match both pretty well! On the discretionary vs non-discretionary spending issue, it pretty clearly falls into the discretionary category, which means I count it as a "Leisure" company. Also, remember that it's what a company largely does that matters. For example, I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if Stagecoach didn't run some 'outings' - bus and train journeys designed for people to go on to enjoy the places they visit rather than because they actually need to visit them. That's discretionary spending - but Stagecoach's main business is routine bus and train services for routes people actually need to travel, e.g. to commute to work, and so is non-discretionary spending, and so Stagecoach is a "Travel" company as far as I am concerned.

One other observation is that your classification of Sky as a Travel & Leisure company strikes me as interesting. It would normally be classified as a Media company, but I can certainly see the argument that it fits into Leisure as I see it - its products and services are certainly discretionary spending and it generally fits the "leisure" description just as well as a pub company or a theme parks company would. I can also see one fairly major distinction, in that its products and services largely depend on owning intangible assets that are expensive to produce in the first place but very cheap to copy - unlike beer, for example! That does produce some different risks - e.g. a greater vulnerability to piracy, a lower vulnerability to raw material price increases. There is also a greater overlap with the Telecoms sector than other Leisure companies have... Whether all of that amounts to a full sector distinction IMHO is something I'll need to think more about! (I'm not saying I agree with or disagree with - the point of saying this is that you've given me food for thought rather than to say you're right or wrong...)

I'm happy holding more than one share in a sector to reduce specific company risk.

Just to be clear, since it isn't immediately apparent from what I say above, so am I. The reason is that while a mixture of risks from companies in different sectors is better than one merely from different companies in the same sector, since it contains a variety of both company-specific and sector-specific risks rather than just of company-specific risks, that doesn't mean that a mixture of company-specific risks is valueless. And sector diversification does tend in practice to run out of steam somewhere in the 15-to-25-sectors range (there are more sectors, of course, but not all sectors contain reasonable HYP candidates) so at approaching 40 companies, you're basically bound to either have more than one company in a sector or to start adding clearly non-HYP companies.

There is an associated trap, though, of letting the amount of company diversification distract one from the issue of maintaining a good level of sector diversification. It's a trap I fell into around a decade ago, in the lead up to the financial crisis: I let my HYP acquire too many companies in the financial group of sectors (BANKS, INSURANCE and OTHER FINANCIAL as you describe them) - somewhat over 30% of my HYP was in them at its peak. And they are all affected by some particular risks shared by all financial companies - risks that actually happened in the financial crisis - and as a result, my HYP's income dropped by about a third. That's not as bad as some experienced (I've seen people report income drops by up to about a half) but it's worse than it need have been (which I estimate is probably an income drop of about a quarter, due to general economic risks that happened and can't be effectively diversified because essentially all companies are vulnerable to them).

With your weighting in that financial group of sectors totalling 28%, I would be rather uncomfortable about it. Not necessarily to the point of selling anything from it, but I would avoid topping up anything in the three sectors concerned until it was at least below 25%, and I would prefer 20%. And in that connection, the Pharmaceuticals sector does strike me as one that is quite lowly represented in your HYP and is a good candidate for holding more than one share in - sure, GlaxoSmithKline has some company-specific risks that AstraZeneca doesn't, but AstraZeneca almost certainly also has some company-specific risks that GlaxoSmithKline doesn't - and in any case, the company-specific risks taken by having a few percent in either or both are IMHO a lot less severe than the general financials-specific risks taken by having approaching 30% in financials.

Gengulphus

I've always thought the sector names are a bit odd. Like my holding in DLAR is 'industrial', which I sort of get but ultimately it's a pretty unique (in the UK at least) secure printing business. 'Industrial' to me is something like a steel works or an engineering company.

I hadn't thought of the idea of discretionary vs essential spending and I like that idea a lot.
Further to this, Sky strikes me as definitely a discretionary spend.
If anything happened to it (likely with the bid I suspect) then I'd be considering ITV instead, yield dependent.
Is ITV a leisure company? Yes. It makes 'entertainment'. As does Sky. Is it a media company? Yes. As is Sky. I see TV companies as similar to cinemas and football companies in more the entertainment business than media. I.e. Leisure.
But again, no right and wrong. Just plenty food for thought.

I'm definitely bothered by my weightings towards finance in its various forms. A lot of this has come from big growth in the likes of HSBA and IGG, both of which are yielding nicely at the moment. But these don't face the existential threat the utilities probably do under a new government.

GSK. I'm still fairly sure the dividend is going to get the chop sooner or later (probably sooner) and it's seemingly turning into a toothpaste company rather than a proper pharma company. See Bearbull's comment about Poligrip!

[Gengulphus]

I've always thought the sector names are a bit odd. Like my holding in DLAR is 'industrial', which I sort of get but ultimately it's a pretty unique (in the UK at least) secure printing business. 'Industrial' to me is something like a steel works or an engineering company.

Not quite certain where you've got that from. The London Stock Exchange has it in "Support Services" - see http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exch ... ml?lang=en, about halfway down the page in the right hand column. And that seems a fair classification to me, "Support Services" being basically a sector for companies that offer a service to other organisations rather than individuals, and secure printing being very much such a service (obviously it can be wanted by individuals, and doubtless De La Rue would be willing to supply it to an individual if the price and volume were suitable, but that would be very much an exception rather than their normal type of business).

Fair enough as far as it goes, that is. The problem IMHO with "Support Services" as a good sector for HYPers to use isn't that it misclassifies companies, but that it doesn't classify them enough, and so ends up lumping together very different companies. For example, Carillion, MITIE and De La Rue are all classified as being in the "Support Services" sector, and even all in its "Business Support Services" sub-sector - but while I can certainly see quite a bit of read-across from Carillion's fatal problems to MITIE's hopefully-non-fatal ones, I really can't see any from Carillion to De La Rue...

GSK. ... it's seemingly turning into a toothpaste company rather than a proper pharma company. ...

Interesting - a change I hadn't spotted. Some data from its last six annual reports (the segment information is presented differently before that - might well be matchable to the current format, but it would be more work, and probably not really worthwhile), and calculated by me from its results for 2017 (we're in the awkward gap between the results and the more comprehensive annual report):


So yes, it's clear that there was a noticeable shift from pharmaceuticals to consumer healthcare about three years ago. However, it looks to me more like a step change some way into 2015, so that 2015 was partially affected and 2016 and 2017 fully affected, than like a continuing shift. Would need to do some digging into just what happened then to make certain of that - but not a priority for me at present. And in any case, its turnover is still over a half pharmaceuticals and just barely over a quarter consumer healthcare - and I'd regard the vaccines turnover as much more similar to the pharmaceuticals turnover than to the consumer healthcare turnover. In particular, customers and regulations for pharmaceuticals and vaccines have a lot in common...

So I think GlaxoSmithKline is still a long way from being mainly a consumer healthcare company.

Also, your descriptions "toothpaste company" and "proper pharma company" are basically spin - using a more dismissive description of one alternative than of another basically tries to influence one's audience in favour of the second without actually arguing for it. And my spin detectors are on high alert when analysing companies - there's so much of it in annual reports! - and my immediate reaction to detecting that type of spin is to look at it in detail to see whether there is any real argument against the dismissively-described alternative...

So, what is actually wrong with GlaxoSmithKline having a significant minority of its business in consumer healthcare? I can't really see anything much - as HYPers, we want diversification...

There is the aspect of making simple sector classification a rougher approximation than it at first appears - regarding GlaxoSmithKline as just a Pharmaceuticals company rather than the better approximation of being about 3/4 Pharmaceuticals, 1/4 Personal Goods makes one's impressions about its levels of diversification with other Pharmaceuticals and Personal Goods companies somewhat misleading. But that sort of issue is very common among the very big companies that largely make up HYPs - for instance, Unilever is classified as Personal Goods, but a better approximation would be 1/2 Personal Goods, 1/2 Food Producers. Not all of them - AstraZeneca is a pretty pure Pharmaceuticals company, for example - but I suspect restricting one's HYP to such companies would be very limiting. The alternatives to that are more detailed analysis of the sectors each company is in, which will give a more accurate picture of one's HYP's sector distribution but involve quite a lot of checking up on the details of what each company's activities are, using the publicly-available sector classification and accepting its inaccuracies, or hybrids such as mine: I use the publicly-available sector classification, but with some adjustments of my own to mitigate its worst inaccuracies (such as subdividing Support Services).

I.e. if that's what one regards as being wrong with GlaxoSmithKline having a significant minority of its business in consumer healthcare, I think it's merely the top of a non GlaxoSmithKline-specific 'iceberg' of a problem, namely how accurately one should try to examine one's HYP's diversification and how much effort one should put into doing so...

Gengulphus

[monabri]

From the CEO...

"Ms Walmsley said GSK had been “very clear in its framework of prioritisation”. Investment in preparing for the next wave of growth, in particular in its pharma business, was its first priority"

and

"further investment in GSK’s vaccines division."

Her next priority was “return to shareholders” (*) and only then would come large-scale M&A

https://www.ft.com/content/ee0872c6-0bf ... ca06376bf2

and

"GSK set for record sales as Emma Walmsley fires up drugs pipeline"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/201 ... -pipeline/



(*) my favourite bit!


p.s. maybe there will be a new minty fresh toothpaste too, who knows?