Yes today's Tempus column . Glaxo , Dixons , Marstons all div play tips to buy .
I added GSK at 1275 p as I had been planning to . The others are bombed out but still exposed to U.K. Consumer so not for me till Brexit gets sorted .
LONDON (Alliance News) - Australian regulators are to take local units of pharmaceutical giants GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Novartis International AG to court over misleading representations in the marketing of pain relief products.
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission alleges GlaxoSmithKline Healthcare Australia Pty Ltd and Novartis Consumer Health Australasia Pty Ltd had made "false or misleading" representations with regard to their Voltaren Osteo Gel and Voltaren Emulgel products.
The ACCC claims GSK and Novartis had marketed the Osteo Gel product as being specially formulated to treat osteoarthritis conditions and it was more effective than Emulgel to treat those conditions.
The ACCC found Osteo Gel was being sold at a "significant price premium" to Emulgel in supermarkets. The ACCC explained the recommended retail price for a 150 grammes of Osteo Gel was AUD28.99 compared to AUD25.99 for Emulgel.
In some stores, however, the Osteo Gel was selling at AUD7.50 - or 33% - more than the Emulgel equivalent.
The two products, however, are "identically formulated" the ACCC explain. Both products contain the same active ingredient: diclofenac diethylammonium gel 11.6 milligrams per gramme. This active ingredient, the ACCC add, acts in a "non-specific manner to reduce local pain and inflammation wherever it is applied."
"We allege that consumers are likely to have been misled into purchasing Osteo Gel thinking that it is different to Emulgel and more effective for treating osteoarthritis conditions, when this is not the case", ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.
"In fact," Sims added, "the product has an identical formulation to Emulgel, and both products are equally effective in treating not only osteoarthritis, but also a range of other pain conditions."
"We allege GSK and Novartis engaged in a deliberate commercial strategy to differentiate the products in a way that was likely to mislead consumers," Sims said.
"The alleged conduct is particularly concerning, given the significant penalties handed down by the court against the makers of Nurofen for what we consider to be similar conduct," Sims concluded.
Nurofen-maker Reckitt Benckiser PLC was fined AUD6 million in 2016 after the ACCC pursued the FTSE 100-firm for misleading customers after marketing its identical products for different conditions with different prices."
Now how the he ll did Brussels, with all its regulatory and investigatory machinery, miss that.
Yes thought I'd partially explained my logic, such as it was. I had just exited some US trades and had some cash on hand that I was looking to deploy and saw GSK at 1280 and thought it was worth another go.
Some other thoughts in my mind at the time were:-
1. The recent UBS upgrade, I'm sure that their analysis will have been more thorough than mine !
2. Share price has had some better days, made it to 1341 on tuesday, £ rise knocked it back ?
3. The 6.2% yield.
More recently it has occurred to me that, provided that the dividend is maintained, I can afford this to go to 1200 over the next year without loss. Surely it must have bottomed by then ?.
Still not a conviction buy and I have only committed just over half of the size of the holding that I sold.
lotcangorong - hi
Divi is good - but for how long?
Net debt is high - and rising
Working capital is negative (now 4.3 times what it was a year ago!)
Dividend cover is 0.23!
I bought at 1200 (long time ago) and have been happy with the good dividend that they say will last into 2018, so will continue to hold for a while to see what happens in next 3 months.
What' going to change in 'a couple of years'- a takeover perhaps?
Wow 1/3 of GSK EBIT dependant on HIV treatments, that sounds like a troubling metric to me. I guess all those affected need to take the treatments for the rest of their lives though - so a good earner. Sounds like without HIV GSK would be in real trouble !!!. Funny old world.
Share price did well today, no doubt based on the upgrade. Be interested to see how it does from here.
Bit of a back-handed upgrade really - in short, outlook not great, but this is now in the price... and the divi is probably safer than the market thinks, they probably won't hit their target for cash cover for years, but they can cut back on capex, and don't worry too much about the impact of buying Pfizer's consumer health biz - they can't afford it!
Anyway, edited highlights below:
"We upgrade GSK to Buy as we believe concerns of continuing earnings decline and the dividend sustainability are now over-done. Things will likely get tougher for GSK's earnings before they get better with 2018 showing a decline and no growth 2019 on our estimates. Over this time horizon OPEX increases, Advair generic erosion and increasing competition in HIV (ViiV) coincide. But GSK should then emerge from its earnings plateau. Uncertainty around the ViiV trajectory does justify a discount to the sector but we believe the valuation now reflects that (10% discount on '19 PE). Against market belief the dividend looks secure in our view and investors should be rewarded with two years of 80p before there is an opportunity to decide whether there is gold at the end of the rainbow (2019E 3-year PEG of 2.2x v sector average of 2.6x). Our estimates change slightly due to phasing of respiratory revenues and a reduction in other operating income. We upgrade to Buy, PT 1,550p
... We estimate GSK's HIV business ViiV accounts for c1/3 of group EBIT. The division has been the main growth engine but that will change as competitor Gilead re-enters the HIV integrase inhibitor market in 2018 taking new patient share from GSK's Tivicay/Triumeq franchise. Given GSK's EBIT dependency on ViiV, this uncertainty requires a discount to the sector in 2019 on realistic earnings base. At 13x we believe that is now priced in - a good starting point when looking at GSK as a bond proxy...
... GSK has set itself a long term 1.25-1.5x target FCF dividend cover which it will not reach in the next few years on UBSe. Substantial negative consensus earnings revisions have reinvigorated the debate as to whether GSK will cut its dividend. We disagree. We think GSK can increase cash flow generation, likely via higher CAPEX discipline and therefore consider the dividend secure ...
... Including the contingent liability of £8bn that GSK has on its balance sheet for the potential Novartis put in the Consumer JV, the company's net debt/EBITDA hovers around 2.5x leaving limited debt capacity if we assume that 3x is a barrier. Of course the market then jumped back to the assumption that the dividend is even more at risk but the numbers just don't tally, in our view. With c£9bn in EBITDA we believe GSK doesn't have the balance sheet to pull off a teens billion transaction and even cutting the dividend by 1⁄4 would do little (~£1bn in additional financing capacity), in our view..."
"GSK is a falling knife - can it be caught here?How the mighty have fallen!Â LSE:GSK:GlaxoSmithKline has been one of the major global pharma companies for some years, but with uncertainties caused by the possible changes to the US Obamacare regime ..."
Taken my lumps and exited. 1300 was my line in the sand, stop loss triggered a bit early. As per my policy, not a big holding for me so damage not too serious.
Maybe this will recover but I have my doubts. Drugs take a lot of time to develop and looking at the product pipeline (Phase 3 & US) I thought it looked very thin in terms of things in the latter approval stages. Many items were HIV related, which has surely got to be a shrinking market ?. Yes I realise the developing world needs this stuff but they havent got the cash to pay for it............
And the other big business area vaccines, well thats £200-£300 a time for something people only need once isnt it eg Shingles (although admittedly for a large community in some cases). At least with cancer treatments they tend to be big ticket items or things people have to take long term.
Savage drop after the results looked to me to driven by fears of a dividend cut, which though they have set their face against this short term remains a possibility in a year or so. So a negative in terms of a long term hold.
So while I may have got it all wrong (I'm not a bio-chemist after all !) I have decided to put my money elsewhere.
Have doubled up at 1297p xd because I agree with those who think there is a more than a reasonable chance GSK will hold the dividend, and if so the shares are undervalued.
Having known in a previous life the chairman, Philip Hampton, this accountant would have looked very carefully at the divi when he arrived, when he was FD at Lloyds he wanted to cut the dividend and probably left because they didn't.. There was another opportunity to cut the dividend on the change of CEO, so highly embarrassing for SIr Philip if the divi is not held. Nobody has a crystal ball but overall I sense its more likely to be held than not. I also think he would not sanction acqusitions at the wrong ie too high a price, another current market fear.
Thanks to Terry Smith's spot on criticism of GSK accounting I sold higher up, but at c1300p and FWLIW this now looks to me as if the odds are stacked in one's favour.
If only the sage LKH could give us the benefit of his views, the silence from him is very sad.
GlaxoSmithKline has filed a supplemental new drug application with the US Food and Drug Administration for the use of Trelegy Ellipta (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol). The application is for an expanded indication for the maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction and reduction of exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Approval of this sNDA means FF/UMEC/VI could be used by physicians to treat a wider population of patients with COPD who are at risk of an exacerbation and require triple therapy. GSK president, R&D, Patrick Vallance, said: 'Data from GSK's landmark IMPACT study provide important information on the efficacy and safety of these molecules combined in a single inhaler and the benefit they can bring to appropriate patients when delivered as a triple combination therapy. 'We have moved swiftly to file these data with the FDA.' Story provided by StockMarketWire.com
OK, some good comments there re the dividend question, thanks. I had not read the Q3 earning call transcript. I note the phrase: "The Board intends to maintain the dividend FOR (my emphasis) 2018........" I was aware of TO 2018 - now it appears to be to 2019 (other things being equal), which implies the price crash resulting from a severe dividend cut might be averted for at least one further year.
Today's RNS suggests Juluca approval marks a significant step forward in HIV-1 treatment, more signs that GSK is getting some things right in the way it conducts its core business, hopefully a sign of things to come.
Juluca® (dolutegravir and rilpivirine) approved in US as first 2-drug regimen, once-daily, single pill - a complete regimen for the maintenance treatment of virologically suppressed HIV-1 infection
John C Pottage, Jr, MD, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer, ViiV Healthcare, commented,
"The FDA approval of Juluca marks an important milestone in our commitment to deliver innovative advances in HIV care by providing new treatment options that challenge the traditional approach to care. This is the start of a new era in HIV treatment. We are delighted to be able to provide the first 2-drug regimen to physicians and people living with HIV in the US, to support the reduction of long-term ART exposure as they receive life-long treatment for their chronic condition."
ViiV Healthcare, the global specialist HIV company, majority-owned by GlaxoSmithKline, with Pfizer and Shionogi Limited as shareholders, today announced that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved Juluca, indicated as a complete regimen for the maintenance treatment of HIV-1 infection. This is for adults who are virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL) on a stable antiretroviral (ART) regimen for at least six months with no history of treatment failure and no known substitutions associated with resistance to the individual components of Juluca. GSK said that Juluca is the first 2-drug regimen (2DR) comprising dolutegravir 50mg (ViiV Healthcare), an integrase strand transfer inhibitor and rilpivirine 25mg (Janssen Therapeutics, Division of Janssen Products LP), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. At 8:23am: (LON:GSK) GlaxoSmithKline PLC share price was -4.75p at 1298.25p Story provided by StockMarketWire.com
"... Back to GSK: IMO the biggest issue for current holders is whether GSK maintains the dividend beyond 2017/2018 ... if the dividend is cut, the share will absolutely sink. Is GSK like RDS (which maintained its dividend throughout its financial issues despite inadequate FCF) or like the many coys that have cut dividends recently?"
Bringing it back to the dividend question, my views haven't changed since my post on the issue some weeks back - so if it's of any interest, I repeat that commentary below (with a couple of asides, irrelevant to this debate, edited out for brevity):
Perusing the discussion history on here I am reminded about my own positive thoughts on the shift in GSK's dividend policy back in July - refocusing on FCF rather than EPS, and targeting FCF cover of 1.25-1.5x (albeit "over time")... all sensible and appropriate stuff IMHO.
That policy was explicitly reiterated with recent Q3 results (FYI I quote it word for word at the end of this post). Given what I see as a "progressive" (in more ways than one!) policy, it is a pity indeed the CEO fluffed the messaging the other day - she was either badly prepared or badly briefed (or both), and either is inexcusable for what will remain an issue of key concern.
It is interesting, perhaps pivotal, that the only explicit conditions set for NOT paying another 80p DPS next year are "external environment" and "performance expectations". Nothing on investment requirements (ie. needing to fund a big deal), nor the CEO merely deciding she has inherited too big a divi...
I think they will continue to pay it, they have made their bed... it may even grow eventually, and the recent improvement in FCF is perhaps significant here. But it won't be until 2019 earliest, and possibly not even then... Whether they SHOULD continue to pay it is quite another matter! But EW is not the first UK "blue chip" CEO to inherit a chunky divi which they quickly come to realise is more generous than it should be... and will not be the last!
RETURNS TO SHAREHOLDERS
"GSK expects to pay an annual ordinary dividend of 80p for 2017.
GSK recognises the importance of dividends to shareholders and aims to distribute regular dividend payments that will be determined primarily with reference to the free cash flow generated by the business after funding the investment necessary to support the Group's future growth.
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."
And one cribbed from this week's Economist. Think the FT may have read the Economist over the weekend, allegedly:
"Britain has some reasons to be optimistic about the future of its science industry. The pharma business depends more than most on research and development (see chart), which in turn depends on centres of academic excellence such as Cambridge, Oxford and London, which are not going anywhere for now. Britain still ranks ahead of other European countries for the amount of biotech venture-capital investment that it receives.
Yet its contribution to manufacturing supply chains could dwindle. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, a trade group, says that if progress on post-Brexit arrangements is not made by December, an increasing number of pharma firms will activate costly no deal contingency plans to avert problems in the supply of medicines. AstraZeneca, an Anglo-Swedish company, and Eisai, a Japanese one, have already started to duplicate their testing and approval procedures elsewhere in Europe, in order to ensure access to the EU market after 2019.
Eisai says the work is costing many millions of poundsmoney that it notes will offer no gain to patients. Pascal Soriot, the boss of AstraZeneca, says his company has an entire team working on Brexit contingency plans. Another large European pharmaceutical business with facilities in Britain says it is on the cusp of making a decision to move activities out of the country. GlaxoSmithKline, Britains largest pharma firm, will start spending on contingency plans from the end of the year.
Some companies based outside Britain are looking at ways to avoid passing their products through the country, in order to sidestep the costs and delays they might encounter should Britain leave the EUs single market and customs union. Many drugs sold in continental Europe are primarily made in Ireland and then sent through Britain, where they are packed, tested, given marketing authorisation and released. Tommy Fanning, head of biopharmaceuticals at IDA Ireland, which promotes foreign investment in the country, believes that this British bridge to Europe could collapse if no deal is struck.
Continental Europe, too, has cause for concern. On November 9th the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, a trade group, issued a warning to Brexit negotiators. Just under half the groups member firms expect delays in the trade of medicines if Britain and the EU fall back to trading according to the rules of the World Trade Organisation. Over 2,600 medicines are at least partly manufactured in Britain, which supplies 45m packs of medicine to other EU countries every month, while 37m come in the other direction. Any Brexit settlement which disrupted these flows would be a bad prescription for patients on both sides of the channel."
For sure a Hard Brexit is going to cost GSK a lot more than one where at least UK remains in Free Trade Zone / customs Union. Thousands of medicines are part manufactured in UK, part in EU.
Also important that mutual recognition of medicine approvals continues.
" Emma Walmsley, chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, warned last month that Britains departure from the EU was now involving real costs, as she said the company was now constructing new testing facilities across Europe." [Contingency preps. for Hard Brexit]
Looks to be the thin end of a duplication wedge; possibly >£100-mn cost tag.
"The announcement that Europes drugs regulator will move to Amsterdam after Brexit provided long-sought clarity for its 900 staff currently in Londons Canary Wharf. But to the pharmaceutical industry it was a reminder of how many critical issues remain unresolved just 16 months before cross-Channel collaboration over medicines regulation and patient safety looks set to end. For pharmaceutical executives in the UK, the challenge will be to unpick decades of integration, throwing up issues not just for British patients but for those all over the continent.
The first problem is administrative. According to the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, UK-based companies hold the marketing authorisations, or licences, for about 2,400 medicines across the EU. After Brexit, and after the European Medicines Agency moves to Amsterdam, it will have to transfer these licences to another member state to allow the drugs to continue to be sold across the EU. Guido Rasi, executive director of the EMA, on Tuesday insisted that the agency had already prepared plans to divide the workload currently undertaken by the UKs national regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, among the other member states. The bill for relocation will amount to about 400m, since the EMA does not have a break clause on its London headquarters.
Unpicking something as complex as this and putting it together again in less than two years is nigh on impossible Steve Bates, of the BioIndustry Association The MHRA, one of the most respected of all national regulators, currently undertakes about 30 per cent of the work to assess and inspect medicines across Europe One in five EMA staff may not choose to move to Amsterdam, according to internal surveys, Mr Rasi acknowledged, signalling that the industry as a whole must prepare to duplicate infrastructure in the UK and EU. If we would like to avoid problems in terms of the supply of medicines and shortage of medicines they will have to do all the necessary steps in order to make sure we are not confronted with that situation, he said. For industry, this means planning for a no-deal Brexit even as it continues to hope that arrangements can be agreed that will allow for continuing mutual recognition on medicine approvals.
Then there is the wider problem of avoiding disruption to cross-EU drug supply chains. Nathalie Moll, director-general of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, pointed to a recent survey of her members that revealed more than 2,600 products are partly manufactured in the UK.
Each month, the UK supplies 45m packs of medicine to the EU and European Economic Area countries and imports more than 37m packs in the other direction. Should the UK wind up falling back on World Trade Organisation rules, 45 per cent of EFPIA members expect trade delays, according to the survey. WTO rules would also theoretically leave any medicine created after 2010 subject to tariffs. Industry leaders, not just in the UK but the rest of Europe, have been spelling out the consequences to their own member governments, and national regulators, in an attempt to galvanise continuing future co-operation. Steve Bates, chief executive of the BioIndustry Association, which represents biotech and
games - hi,
My view is that the divi will be cut during next year.This is based on GSK saying it is safe until then (I believe Witty made that commitment some while ago), but is under threat because GSK isn't covering the divi with earnings and has a significant debt position.
I reckon 1,200 will be reached and I will be out before the divi is cut. However it has been a nice earner while it lasted!
I have actually done quite well out of trading GSK, and other large, high yielding shares (e.g. Utilities, Vodafone, Lloyds, Tobaccos, Insurance Cos.) Elephants don't gallop, but they do wander around quite a bit, and my method, has simply (and my chartist friends would be appalled at my ignorance of their basics) been to buy when the share price looks as if it is around a recent low, then look at a recent high which is 5-10% up on where I've bought, place a limit order and almost forget it. If it takes a couple of years, I've had the dividend to compensate, and if it happens sooner so much the better. I've actually just been reviewing my success with this methodology, and most trades make around the equivalent of 10 - 20% p.a. Over the last 10 years the record has made me the equivalent of 17%; and most importantly I've only had one loser (Tesco) My best trade was a Glaxo one making 6.5% in 8 days in April 2014 - equivalent to over 1000% p.a.
So the only reason this strategy has not made me rich is because I wasn't rich to start with, so didn't have enough funds to speculate.
Though I rather enjoyed reading lost&confuseds Brexit posts, I concur that at least a few BBs have been swamped over the years by off-topic posts of no investment merit whatsoever concerning the pertinent company/fund.
Brexit has greatly exacerbated this tendency.
Westminster itself suffers from the Brexit agenda crowding out all manner of other business, mainstay or potential; much critical to the medium and long term health of the UK.
Now I'm at it too!
So, in an attempt to divert back on topic, a simple observation:
To the extent the business/wealth 'cohort' deem Brexit a malady, for the UK economy, businesses and assets thereof, Sterling has depreciated accordingly.
It's acted like an economic safety valve.
Since the 'Fear of Brexit' took hold ~autumn 2015, the £ depreciated substantially against virtually all other major currencies, notwithstanding a modest revival over recent months.
As GSK [in common with great majority of Ftse100 companies] earns most of its revenue outwith the UK and can be regarded as more of a $ earner than £, its share price has benefited considerably from this depreciation.
Recently however, the appreciation of the £ v $ [in particular] has presented the sp with a modest headwind.
Whither the wind from here?
Well your guess is as good as mine.
Even say Blighty teeters on the edge of a 2018-20 recession going forward, it may be that such a scenario is already priced in; ditto say some passably tolerable rapprochement with the Euromeisters. And political blunders are hardly a British preserve.
Now, is Walmsey genuine about a Pfeizer consumer goods unit bid or is she just feigning to keep the Novartis guys on their toes?
"Please can we keep this BB for proper views on GSK prospects?"
I would have thought that GKN's prospect in the UK are inextricably linked to Brexit just like so many other global companies who are becoming peed off with the partisan bickerings of the privileged few orchestrating this fiasco.
Whether you voted for or against isn't the issue when it comes to GKN. Business in general favoured membership with open borders and the status quo retained. Brexit has piled up additional considerations and is mainly negative for any business such a GKN. They don't care if the people taking their drugs living in the UK are from the EU, Africa or the Indian sub continent or from anywhere else for that matter. There is nothing positive for multinationals to come from these changes, on the contrary. These changes represent layers of uncertainty and administration they could well do without.
When you look at a flat map of the earth it's no mistake that Europe is in the centre because when these familiar images were fixed Europe was the centre of commerce in the world. And, the UK was empirically right at the heart. No longer is that the case and we have been floundering about for decades now trying to convince ourselves that we are more than the sum of our parts. We squandered North Sea Oil revenues whilst the Norwegians built the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world at the same time. Mainly Labour but the Conservatives as well poured money down the drain for political reasons delaying hard decision necessary to ensure the long term strength of our economy. That should come as no surprise because all political parties exist primarily, if not exclusively to get elected, remain in power for as long as is sensible and to promote their agenda at the expense of everything else.
We place our faith in those we believe have our best interests at heart but history tells us they seldom do. Time will show the true players in this giant ferking mess to be disingenous scoundrels with a gift for obfuscation whose limited business acumen has left us where we are now. They have single handedly created a situation where Labour would have to do something almost unbelievably stupid to fail to win the next election.
Was it really worth leaving the EU to get 10 years of unreconstructed trotskyist government which could well tear down all of the economic reforms which have been so hard won over the last few decades? We all laugh at France and its strangled unionised economy well,10 years from now with 'luddite' Labour I suspect we are heading straight back to those days in the 70's when we were the mirror image of France today. Young idealistic voters can't remember the last dose of disastrous socialism and they will vote Labour whilst the elderly are more conservative. You do the maths!
Sadly, many of the ill informed racist and bigoted people who swung the vote (oh, you don't think 4%+ voted how they did for the wrong reasons!!!) will not live to see the consequences of their action or another centralist or right leaning government.
Our future has been left in the hands of id10ts with cognitive dissonance who will plough on trying to dig this dreadful situation 'out of a hole' whilst the world looks on laughing at the EU creating multiple situations where every decision put before member states becomes an exercise in herding cats which is exactly what they want.
"Will probably sell out if it falls below my buy-in price."
Jar - It took a while to breach the 1300 level after falling rather rapidly from 1722.
Nots sure there is enough belief that the divi is sustainable and I guess many are or have been selling on the back of Woody's decision (rightly or wrongly).
Below 1200 looks entirely possible doesn't it?
Games -- AZN is precariously high also for it's falling ROCE and hidden extra accounting practices.
I agree. Back to GSK: IMO the biggest issue for current holders is whether GSK maintains the dividend beyond 2017/2018 - no one ever got rich trading GSK: they hold for the solid dividend and if the dividend is cut, the share will absolutely sink. Is GSK like RDS (which maintained its dividend throughout its financial issues despite inadequate FCF) or like the many coys that have cut dividends recently?
Apologies if this has been covered on this BB a thousand times already....
Noticed this BB is moving towards a Brexit battleground!
I've been monitoring Lloyds bank as a possible investement and as part of this process looking at their BB. The majority of posts there are simply a way by which pro and ant Brexit individuals post their views which simply replays the same old arguments ......... again & again etc!
This is sometimes linked (tenuously and often ignorantly), to the possible impact on the share, but has got so bad, I now don't look at the BB any more (if you want to see how bad it is - go and see for yourself).
Please can we keep this BB for proper views on GSK prospects?
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.