Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2120
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:40 am
- Has thanked: 1053 times
- Been thanked: 860 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
They’re mostly listed on the NYE, so I can’t easily see the figures for most, but comparing GSK to SNY and ROG (which have EU listings), I’d say it may be to do with gearing. Inc pension, GSK is 211%, SNY 45%, ROG 58%. Doesn’t explain AZN though, at 206%.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2158
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:37 am
- Has thanked: 485 times
- Been thanked: 1504 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
GrahamPlatt wrote:They’re mostly listed on the NYE, so I can’t easily see the figures for most, but comparing GSK to SNY and ROG (which have EU listings), I’d say it may be to do with gearing. Inc pension, GSK is 211%, SNY 45%, ROG 58%. Doesn’t explain AZN though, at 206%.
Any debt is taken care of by EV/EBITDA. That's why it is a standard measure for comparing companies within the same peer group. I have no interest in analysing the pension deficits for comparison purposes.
All the best, Si
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
- Has thanked: 2244 times
- Been thanked: 594 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
The thing I'm most worried about currently regards GSK, is the lack of information regards the planned split. I've not had much time to *really* trawl their website, but all I can see on the subject is within a single embedded graphic announcing "on track to deliver two exciting new companies".
Whilst I accept that the details will be CCI, surely they should now have teams in place, working on branding, figuring out which offices/locations are involved in whichever of the two divestures. And given that firms typically shed staff when they merge (synergies), how are GSK planning on cost-effectly duplicating the previously synergised admin et al resources when they split?
Perhaps they have this in hand. But where are the announcements of the form "Jane Smith and Fred Bloggs" are heading up the such-and-such teams, i.e. those people required to process the (probably immense) amount of details which will be required in partaking in this venture.
Thinking about all this, does make me worry about my holding.
Matt
Whilst I accept that the details will be CCI, surely they should now have teams in place, working on branding, figuring out which offices/locations are involved in whichever of the two divestures. And given that firms typically shed staff when they merge (synergies), how are GSK planning on cost-effectly duplicating the previously synergised admin et al resources when they split?
Perhaps they have this in hand. But where are the announcements of the form "Jane Smith and Fred Bloggs" are heading up the such-and-such teams, i.e. those people required to process the (probably immense) amount of details which will be required in partaking in this venture.
Thinking about all this, does make me worry about my holding.
Matt
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
- Has thanked: 765 times
- Been thanked: 1179 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:The thing I'm most worried about currently regards GSK, is the lack of information regards the planned split. I've not had much time to *really* trawl their website, but all I can see on the subject is within a single embedded graphic announcing "on track to deliver two exciting new companies".
Whilst I accept that the details will be CCI, surely they should now have teams in place, working on branding, figuring out which offices/locations are involved in whichever of the two divestures. And given that firms typically shed staff when they merge (synergies), how are GSK planning on cost-effectly duplicating the previously synergised admin et al resources when they split?
Perhaps they have this in hand. But where are the announcements of the form "Jane Smith and Fred Bloggs" are heading up the such-and-such teams, i.e. those people required to process the (probably immense) amount of details which will be required in partaking in this venture.
Thinking about all this, does make me worry about my holding.
Matt
Makes me wonder if their gameplan really is a trade sale of the consumer arm, and all this is a preamble to set up an auction
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
- Has thanked: 2244 times
- Been thanked: 594 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
TUK020 wrote:TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:The thing I'm most worried about currently regards GSK, is the lack of information regards the planned split. I've not had much time to *really* trawl their website, but all I can see on the subject is within a single embedded graphic announcing "on track to deliver two exciting new companies".
Whilst I accept that the details will be CCI, surely they should now have teams in place, working on branding, figuring out which offices/locations are involved in whichever of the two divestures. And given that firms typically shed staff when they merge (synergies), how are GSK planning on cost-effectly duplicating the previously synergised admin et al resources when they split?
Perhaps they have this in hand. But where are the announcements of the form "Jane Smith and Fred Bloggs" are heading up the such-and-such teams, i.e. those people required to process the (probably immense) amount of details which will be required in partaking in this venture.
Thinking about all this, does make me worry about my holding.
Matt
Makes me wonder if their gameplan really is a trade sale of the consumer arm, and all this is a preamble to set up an auction
At first I was going to reply, what do you mean?
But I'll take a guess. Do you mean "trade sale of the consumer arm" i.e. all the BUs that do the toothpastes, mouthwashes, nicorette etc. and divest themselves of them? Then the "New GSK" (which is an incredibly unimaginative name!!) will remain to do the R&D and the drugs, vaccines etc.?
Matt
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 7:41 am
- Has thanked: 765 times
- Been thanked: 1179 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:TUK020 wrote:TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:The thing I'm most worried about currently regards GSK, is the lack of information regards the planned split. I've not had much time to *really* trawl their website, but all I can see on the subject is within a single embedded graphic announcing "on track to deliver two exciting new companies".
Whilst I accept that the details will be CCI, surely they should now have teams in place, working on branding, figuring out which offices/locations are involved in whichever of the two divestures. And given that firms typically shed staff when they merge (synergies), how are GSK planning on cost-effectly duplicating the previously synergised admin et al resources when they split?
Perhaps they have this in hand. But where are the announcements of the form "Jane Smith and Fred Bloggs" are heading up the such-and-such teams, i.e. those people required to process the (probably immense) amount of details which will be required in partaking in this venture.
Thinking about all this, does make me worry about my holding.
Matt
Makes me wonder if their gameplan really is a trade sale of the consumer arm, and all this is a preamble to set up an auction
At first I was going to reply, what do you mean?
But I'll take a guess. Do you mean "trade sale of the consumer arm" i.e. all the BUs that do the toothpastes, mouthwashes, nicorette etc. and divest themselves of them? Then the "New GSK" (which is an incredibly unimaginative name!!) will remain to do the R&D and the drugs, vaccines etc.?
Matt
Correct Matt. Apologies for the confusing language. Rump prescription pharma company divests OTC businesses.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
- Has thanked: 2244 times
- Been thanked: 594 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
TUK020 wrote:TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:TUK020 wrote:Makes me wonder if their gameplan really is a trade sale of the consumer arm, and all this is a preamble to set up an auction
At first I was going to reply, what do you mean?
But I'll take a guess. Do you mean "trade sale of the consumer arm" i.e. all the BUs that do the toothpastes, mouthwashes, nicorette etc. and divest themselves of them? Then the "New GSK" (which is an incredibly unimaginative name!!) will remain to do the R&D and the drugs, vaccines etc.?
Matt
Correct Matt. Apologies for the confusing language. Rump prescription pharma company divests OTC businesses.
Don't worry about the apologies! I can be very slow at times.
Perhaps they are indeed waiting for suitors. They could certainly do with sexing up their firm-split plans. Because Simoan has his answer - markets hate uncertainty.
Matt
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2158
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:37 am
- Has thanked: 485 times
- Been thanked: 1504 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:Because Simoan has his answer - markets hate uncertainty.
Matt
That's not an answer, it's just a lazy cliché. What the market doesn't like has nothing to do with the demerger. No company is going to announce full details of that type of large corporate action and leave themselves a hostage to fortune twelve months before it happens. It's only right that they wait until the market conditions and the appetite for an IPO are clearer much nearer the time. I have no idea what your concern is.
All the best, Si
Last edited by simoan on March 6th, 2021, 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4872
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
- Has thanked: 4906 times
- Been thanked: 2142 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Moderator Message:
Ok team, this episode wasn't very edifying. I've left deleted anything that seems even vaguely personal. Please stick to your arguments and respect each other. Thanks - Chris
Ok team, this episode wasn't very edifying. I've left deleted anything that seems even vaguely personal. Please stick to your arguments and respect each other. Thanks - Chris
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
- Has thanked: 2244 times
- Been thanked: 594 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
My assumption is that statements such as these:
To reflect the different stages of the product life-cycle of certain respiratory products and to ensure consistency of reporting for the sales of products with similar levels of strategic focus, the reporting of Relvar/Breo Ellipta along with the smaller Incruse Ellipta and Arnuity Ellipta product sales will with effect from the first quarter of 2021 be reported under the "Established Respiratory" section of our "Established Pharmaceuticals" category. Product sales of Trelegy Ellipta, Nucala and Anoro Ellipta will continue to be reported within the "Respiratory" category.
are the kind of noise which might be expected when a firm such as this one undertakes the machinations involved with planning a demerger:
https://www.investegate.co.uk/glaxosmit ... 30019683T/
Matt
To reflect the different stages of the product life-cycle of certain respiratory products and to ensure consistency of reporting for the sales of products with similar levels of strategic focus, the reporting of Relvar/Breo Ellipta along with the smaller Incruse Ellipta and Arnuity Ellipta product sales will with effect from the first quarter of 2021 be reported under the "Established Respiratory" section of our "Established Pharmaceuticals" category. Product sales of Trelegy Ellipta, Nucala and Anoro Ellipta will continue to be reported within the "Respiratory" category.
are the kind of noise which might be expected when a firm such as this one undertakes the machinations involved with planning a demerger:
https://www.investegate.co.uk/glaxosmit ... 30019683T/
Matt
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
- Has thanked: 2244 times
- Been thanked: 594 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Whilst I don't have my eye on the ball as much as I'd like, GSK seems to have had some mixed news of late:
Some bad news on Zejula, and Blenrep but possibly good news on a Covid vaccine.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-11/
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-07/
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-10/
The first two (Zejula and Blenrep) pieces don't sound too promising, however it's possible that they represent only a small part of their overall pipeline (I wouldn't really know), so I'm wondering if at the current price of £13.23 and a DY=6.5%, they are at a decent place for a top up.
Any views on here?
thanks Matt
Some bad news on Zejula, and Blenrep but possibly good news on a Covid vaccine.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-11/
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-07/
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-10/
The first two (Zejula and Blenrep) pieces don't sound too promising, however it's possible that they represent only a small part of their overall pipeline (I wouldn't really know), so I'm wondering if at the current price of £13.23 and a DY=6.5%, they are at a decent place for a top up.
Any views on here?
thanks Matt
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8498
- Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
- Has thanked: 1563 times
- Been thanked: 3460 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:Whilst I don't have my eye on the ball as much as I'd like, GSK seems to have had some mixed news of late:
Some bad news on Zejula, and Blenrep but possibly good news on a Covid vaccine.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-11/
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-07/
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-10/
The first two (Zejula and Blenrep) pieces don't sound too promising, however it's possible that they represent only a small part of their overall pipeline (I wouldn't really know), so I'm wondering if at the current price of £13.23 and a DY=6.5%, they are at a decent place for a top up.
Any views on here?
thanks Matt
Assuming DY=6.5% means dividend yield of 6.5%, isn't the current GSK dividend 56.25p (cut from 80p - dividend data figure)?
More on the dividend recently announced here ( I must read it myself ).
viewtopic.php?p=543052#p543052
("and the expected dividend for 2023 converts to 56.5p per new ordinary share rounded up.")
The "yield on offer" is thus 4.27%.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 16629
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
- Has thanked: 4343 times
- Been thanked: 7536 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
monabri wrote:TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:Whilst I don't have my eye on the ball as much as I'd like, GSK seems to have had some mixed news of late:
Some bad news on Zejula, and Blenrep but possibly good news on a Covid vaccine.
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-11/
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-07/
https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 022-11-10/
The first two (Zejula and Blenrep) pieces don't sound too promising, however it's possible that they represent only a small part of their overall pipeline (I wouldn't really know), so I'm wondering if at the current price of £13.23 and a DY=6.5%, they are at a decent place for a top up.
Any views on here?
thanks Matt
Assuming DY=6.5% means dividend yield of 6.5%, isn't the current GSK dividend 56.25p (cut from 80p - dividend data figure)?
More on the dividend recently announced here ( I must read it myself ).
viewtopic.php?p=543052#p543052
("and the expected dividend for 2023 converts to 56.5p per new ordinary share rounded up.")
The "yield on offer" is thus 4.27%.
But all of this is irrelevant to whether or not GSK is a suitable candidate for a top up. The dividend is after all (or should be anyway) a consequence of decent results, not a cause of them. I look upon GSK as a bit like BP when comparing the two leading companies in their sector. It is clearly a large player in the pharma sector but has a lot of baggage and seems to be accident prone. I would much prefer to top up Astrazeneca but who knows?
Dod
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2158
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:37 am
- Has thanked: 485 times
- Been thanked: 1504 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
GSK does look reasonably cheap again but it's difficult to know how much of the Zantac litigation is factored in to the current price, and therefore I see no reason to increase my holding. Perhaps the sell-off has been overdone? For me, I have no way of knowing and there's no need to buy a company with such a cloud hanging over it. Plenty more fish...
If you look outside the UK then there are some better value pharmas IMO. I did a comparison between GSK and the wider Pharma sector a couple of years ago (can't remember where I posted it! perhaps I should update it?) and that identified Amgen as looking anomalously cheap on fundamentals, so I bought some in a couple of tranches. The turnaround there has been positive and I'm happy to say it's up 27% this year - one of only 6 of my US holdings showing a positive return YTD. I realise the dividend yield at 2.7% is probably too low for some but it has been increased for more than 10 years, and at a CAGR of 11% for the last 5 years. Having said all that, it is now at an all-time high price, so maybe I should consider a top slice!
All the best, Si
If you look outside the UK then there are some better value pharmas IMO. I did a comparison between GSK and the wider Pharma sector a couple of years ago (can't remember where I posted it! perhaps I should update it?) and that identified Amgen as looking anomalously cheap on fundamentals, so I bought some in a couple of tranches. The turnaround there has been positive and I'm happy to say it's up 27% this year - one of only 6 of my US holdings showing a positive return YTD. I realise the dividend yield at 2.7% is probably too low for some but it has been increased for more than 10 years, and at a CAGR of 11% for the last 5 years. Having said all that, it is now at an all-time high price, so maybe I should consider a top slice!
All the best, Si
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8498
- Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
- Has thanked: 1563 times
- Been thanked: 3460 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
simoan wrote:GSK does look reasonably cheap again but it's difficult to know how much of the Zantac litigation is factored in to the current price, and therefore I see no reason to increase my holding. Perhaps the sell-off has been overdone? For me, I have no way of knowing and there's no need to buy a company with such a cloud hanging over it. Plenty more fish...
If you look outside the UK then there are some better value pharmas IMO. I did a comparison between GSK and the wider Pharma sector a couple of years ago (can't remember where I posted it! perhaps I should update it?) and that identified Amgen as looking anomalously cheap on fundamentals, so I bought some in a couple of tranches. The turnaround there has been positive and I'm happy to say it's up 27% this year - one of only 6 of my US holdings showing a positive return YTD. I realise the dividend yield at 2.7% is probably too low for some but it has been increased for more than 10 years, and at a CAGR of 11% for the last 5 years. Having said all that, it is now at an all-time high price, so maybe I should consider a top slice!
All the best, Si
Here...
viewtopic.php?p=384732#p384732
( coincidentally noticed it today whilst "GSK browsing").
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2158
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:37 am
- Has thanked: 485 times
- Been thanked: 1504 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
monabri wrote:simoan wrote:GSK does look reasonably cheap again but it's difficult to know how much of the Zantac litigation is factored in to the current price, and therefore I see no reason to increase my holding. Perhaps the sell-off has been overdone? For me, I have no way of knowing and there's no need to buy a company with such a cloud hanging over it. Plenty more fish...
If you look outside the UK then there are some better value pharmas IMO. I did a comparison between GSK and the wider Pharma sector a couple of years ago (can't remember where I posted it! perhaps I should update it?) and that identified Amgen as looking anomalously cheap on fundamentals, so I bought some in a couple of tranches. The turnaround there has been positive and I'm happy to say it's up 27% this year - one of only 6 of my US holdings showing a positive return YTD. I realise the dividend yield at 2.7% is probably too low for some but it has been increased for more than 10 years, and at a CAGR of 11% for the last 5 years. Having said all that, it is now at an all-time high price, so maybe I should consider a top slice!
All the best, Si
Here...
viewtopic.php?p=384732#p384732
( coincidentally noticed it today whilst "GSK browsing").
Thanks! Yes, very embarrassing... I forgot I started this thread Si
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8498
- Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
- Has thanked: 1563 times
- Been thanked: 3460 times
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2158
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:37 am
- Has thanked: 485 times
- Been thanked: 1504 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
monabri wrote:shhhh! You'd have gotten away with it..it's a quiet Sunday afternoon!
I've found the spreadsheet so will try and populate it before the end of the day so all details are correct as of Fridays close. I'll then post it so we can all take a look and compare GSK with its peers. The first thing that stands out is that GSK is a smaller company (as we know) but cheaper than it was back in Feb 21. Re: Amgen it's clear the increase in share price is purely because of improved profitability rather than multiple expansion - nice!
All the best, Si
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
- Has thanked: 2244 times
- Been thanked: 594 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
simoan wrote:monabri wrote:simoan wrote:GSK does look reasonably cheap again but it's difficult to know how much of the Zantac litigation is factored in to the current price, and therefore I see no reason to increase my holding. Perhaps the sell-off has been overdone? For me, I have no way of knowing and there's no need to buy a company with such a cloud hanging over it. Plenty more fish...
If you look outside the UK then there are some better value pharmas IMO. I did a comparison between GSK and the wider Pharma sector a couple of years ago (can't remember where I posted it! perhaps I should update it?) and that identified Amgen as looking anomalously cheap on fundamentals, so I bought some in a couple of tranches. The turnaround there has been positive and I'm happy to say it's up 27% this year - one of only 6 of my US holdings showing a positive return YTD. I realise the dividend yield at 2.7% is probably too low for some but it has been increased for more than 10 years, and at a CAGR of 11% for the last 5 years. Having said all that, it is now at an all-time high price, so maybe I should consider a top slice!
All the best, Si
Here...
viewtopic.php?p=384732#p384732
( coincidentally noticed it today whilst "GSK browsing").
Thanks! Yes, very embarrassing... I forgot I started this thread Si
Just put it down to having a senior moment!
Back on the subject of GSK. I was just looking for a few defensive "dividend" shares for a SIPP, Mel has started. The dividends being needed to keep any quarterly fees under control while it grows, since it will not receive a great deal of cash initially. So the idea is merely that this is a share we already have some of in the other accounts.
Other ideas I had included LGEN, and possibly BAE. I'm now less sure about including GSK.
Matt
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2158
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:37 am
- Has thanked: 485 times
- Been thanked: 1504 times
Re: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
TheMotorcycleBoy wrote:simoan wrote:Thanks! Yes, very embarrassing... I forgot I started this thread Si
Just put it down to having a senior moment!
Back on the subject of GSK. I was just looking for a few defensive "dividend" shares for a SIPP, Mel has started. The dividends being needed to keep any quarterly fees under control while it grows, since it will not receive a great deal of cash initially. So the idea is merely that this is a share we already have some of in the other accounts.
Other ideas I had included LGEN, and possibly BAE. I'm now less sure about including GSK.
Matt
If it was a rare senior moment, I could laugh it off, but since I retired I’ve found they have become less rare! Such is life in the slow lane These days only my investing activity stops my brain from switching off completely!
On your other point, I’d try to avoid tax and fees from effecting your normal investment process too much, and I’d be wary of changing my investment criteria for that reason alone, particularly if what you’re aiming for is capital appreciation.
All the best, Si
Return to “Stocks and Share Dealing Discussions”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests