I think the biggest problem is people failing to understand the difference between the EU and the countries of Europe who belong to it.
The EU doesn't export or import anything. They don't produce anything other than bureaucrats and they certainly don't represent the consensus view of the of the 27 states that belong to it. What they do have is a vested interest in absolutely ensuring that the UK exit the EU with the least favourable terms possible to deter any other countries from ever considering the same course of action. The EU only exists because of its members, so Country's leaving present and existential risk to what has become a giant leviathan of an organisation which has too much power over their member states: This isn't news, we all know that. The 27 other states people all know that as well.
27 countries will remain after our exit with varying levels of confidence in the EU. We however, made the fatal mistake of asking a largely ill informed population to decide on membership and then disingenuously loaded the gun with spurious issues such as immigration, NHS funding etc for them to base their decision on. To the the dulcet strains of Elgar's Nimrod, UKIP voters swung it with a narrow vote in favour of leaving.
I'm quite widely travelled in northern Europe and what I find fascinating when visiting countries like The Netherland and Germany is just how widely spoken english is by the younger generation. I have a daughter studying in Denmark at the moment. 40% of the students are from outside Denmark and her course is naturally taught in English. She is the only student in her group of friends who doesn't speak 2 or 3 languages. And no, they are not all from the far east. ALL of them are from european countries and understand english well enough to be taught engineering to degree level in what is a foreign language to them.
The English language used to be the very reason London was the financial capital of the world but the internet has created, in just one generation, children and young adults who have been incentivised to learn english to enjoy the overwhelming amount of content on sites like YouTube which is in english. Go to business centres in Paris, Frankfurt, The Hague, Copenhagen and many more and you will find that from the kid's in the street to the people working in Business you can just talk english to them and they will understand and change language without hesitation. Our natural advantage, the english language, has been eroded to the point of irrelevance in a generation. It is irrelevant because it is now ubiquitous.
Brexit will damage The City, it won't kill it. The steady trickle of bankers leaving isn't going to kill it. What will, in time, are the reports back from those bankers who have moved to other EU centres; you don't need to speak french german dutch everyone who you want to talk to speaks english right down to the person at the supermarket checkout. But why does that matter? Well if you take on board the widely held and respected figure that each senior banking job that goes from london has a negative knock on effect on100 other jobs in the capital you begin to see the domino effect this will have.
Its the budget tomorrow so it is worth considering why damaging London and denigrating its place in the world, through isolation is such a bad idea. If you take the amount of money the Treasury raises in tax from inside the M25 ring road around London it come to more than the next 38 cities in the UK added together. Yes that's right Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Manchester and all the others included in the next 38 cities. So damaging London and its unique place in the world in any way should worry all but the stupid and the wealthy who's inappropriate influence over the Conservative and UKIP party's have lead us to this lose/lose situation.
Why lose/lose? Well its really quite straight forward as the old saying goes, you can please some of the people........... and so o
I think that the U.K. voting to leave the EU is exactly that and those that bleat on about a "soft" Brexit / Norwegian solution are not helping the situation.
The truth is that May, Hammond and a few others in the cabinet voted to Remain. They are in a tight corner now and fear what might happen if the U.K. were just to stick two fingers up at the EU and walk away without making any offer of a payment to them or signing any trade deals with them. Well, let's do just that and see how long it takes the EU to start to propose a solution that is acceptable to US. After all we Do hold quite a few good cards, we import more from the EU than they export to us. There are large marketsin Europe e.g. the car industry in Germany and Italy in particular would wish to see a good deal and then you could add the wine industries of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany and a few others who would want to continue exporting the amount of wine they currently export to the U.K.
France, I guess, will always remain hostile as the French Government is permanently held hostage to their trade unions who will always demand that France (and its workers) come first and the rest of the world be ignored in any situation.
Unfortunately,I cannot see the UK Government just waking away without payment as it seems it would be the only way to make the EU negotiate (if that is the word) seriously. There is a big world out there that we could and should be able to deal with on a WTO basis, if necessary, all that is needed is for certain people to get off their backsides and start working on ensuring that we get as many trade deals signed as possible (OK, promises to put pen to paper the moment we officially leave the EU.)
Yes, there will be problems in the days, weeks and months after we leave but who is to say that there won't be problems of a similar nature if we cave in, pay the EU what they demand and agree any settlement that is decided by the EU rather than the U.K.
Many of the bureaucrats are busily engaged in what they see as protecting their jobs (and therefore their income) whilst those in Brussels are doing whatever they think is necessary to ensure that they personally do not fall off the gravy train.
This all seems to be more of a Catch 22 situation than even Jospeh Heller could have dreamt up!!
Many mainstay British companies are down at the moment. It is reflective on Brexit negotiations and confidence in whether these businesses can ride the consumerism storm. Conversely, US markets are rolling upward. BUT, in general profits are still up for British companies and Trump wants a free trade deal with the UK before the EU. So things should be looking up if EU's Barnier doesn't keep protracting a decent Brexit deal. Else we walk away and tell the EU Commission to get stuffed. Then what will they do when British business continues to trade as usual and the EU bureaucrats become irrelevant.
I am associated with a company that supplies materials involved with pre-clinical drug safety assessment. After a few years of business with GSK being on a downward trend it is now markedly increasing. Straws in the wind.
Confidence in the CEO is still poor. Direction appears to contradict what the City is expecting, e.g. selling off consumer or splitting up the monster into smaller ogres. Its a sham presently - a perfume expert ends up running consumer and then the board lets out the whole of pharma too the same when they are very different businesses. Poor decisions cause dealer uncertainty. The lack of sustainable direction causes dealers to walk away.
"Despite recent share price weakness, GSK retains its position as the UKs biggest pharma company. Just. The gap between GSK and Astra is now just £2.5bn, not much in the scale of things.
While Astra and Shire offer straight-up pharma exposure, GSK has a differentiated offer. It has a sizeable vaccines business and the consumer division, a joint venture with Novartis, includes brands from Sensodyne to Panadol and contributed 26% of revenues last year.
Many investors, including the likes of Neil Woodford, have tried to convince GSK to split. The departure of long-serving CEO Andrew Witty had been seen as a possible catalyst, but the new head, Emma Walmsley, has distanced herself from this possibility.
So, the consumer division looks like its here to stay. It could get bigger too. The new CEO has far from ruled out picking up assets from Pfizer and Merck, while Novartis has the option to sell its 36.5% stake in the joint consumer division to GSK by March next year.
But is this a bad thing?
The consumer business has seen solid growth in revenues and profitability in recent years. In fact, aside from the recently approved Shingles vaccine Shingrix and the HIV treatments in final stage tests, GSKs pharma pipeline is lagging a touch behind the others.
The new CEOs strategy is to narrow GSKs focus, and it has already shuffled away from 30 research programmes. In future, 80% of R&D spend is to be allocated between established divisions Respiratory and HIV/infectious diseases, and two potential growth areas: Oncology and Immuno-inflammation.
While well have to wait and see if we get results from the labs, pharmaceuticals cash flows in the here and now are weak. This means investors are likely grateful for the brand-led consumer portfolio, which is helping to support the dividend. The current prospective yield is 6%, while the shares trade on 16.9 times expected earnings."
Good evening IO (well it is here in South China) (didn't use your full nom-de-plume as when I did last time my post got refused, but when posted without it got accepted - very strange)
Anyway, yes. I understood what you were doing, and of course something worth knowing and relevant, but just thought I would change the subject line as they can go on sometimes for a long period of time, and sometimes these things seem self-fulfilling, I don't believe in tempting the devil (wonder if that word will get banned). So I wasn't criticising you.
However, I do think that GSK is s strong buy at these levels when you look around at whatever else is available to invest in, unless there is another election looming, but even then, with the possibility of a government that might want to nationalise many of the big hitters in the S/M, with little recompense, GSK is still one of the safer havens. IMHO
Agree, there were 6 different targets in my post but I might have focused on the latest one as dated 9th November and one that I had not seen such low numbers before, Don't get me wrong i am more keen to top on at these levels but was looking on the charts which areas stand out if we did see sub 13.00.
12.50 initially stood out to me if you looked on say a 5 year weekly which had been supported.
On a broader perspective as you say I had even looked further out where GSK might get down to in a partial asset purchase / dividend cut and looked on iii (since 93 weekly) and surprised to see as low as 10.00 ( but could even see the 10.75 area as mentioned by Soc Gen ) got so much support in the early 2003/4/08/09 so should one be looking to add to their position should not be surprised if we ever saw a range from 10-13. I would be looking to stage drip feeding in on various points.
Woodford on GlaxoSmithKline
He may run a whole portfolio built around so-called patient capital, but Woodford says he eventually lost patience in one company this year. That was Astras large-cap pharma counterpart GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).
At the same time Woodford first bought Lloyds, he dumped his stake in Glaxo, a stock he had held for more than 15 years. It came as Glaxo announced its long-serving chief executive, Andrew Witty would be replaced by Emma Walmsley.
Walmsley had previously run the companys consumer healthcare division since 2010 and Woodford slammed the decision as essentially a continuity candidate. For me, that was the opposite of what they should have done. I wanted Glaxo to vote for change, to vote for a different strategy, which I felt would deliver better value to shareholders going forward.
The fund manager said that strategy may emerge under Walmsley in time and noted the very interesting appointment of Hal Barron, formerly of Google-owned California Life Sciences, as head of R&D, made on Wednesday. Barron has a fantastic reputation, Woodford said.
I exited Glaxo because I lost confidence in the company embracing what I believe to be a better strategic vision. However, I will continue to monitor the situation and maybe in time Glaxo might be back in the portfolio if and when that does happen, he concluded.
Woodford on AstraZeneca
Woodfords largest portfolio holding currently is a company thats had a rocky 2017. AstraZeneca (AZN) saw its stock fall 17% in July when a clinical trial on its flagship Mystic cancer drug failed. Woodford described that as the market having a hissy fit. He remains confident that Mystic will work and receive a positive result from a further study in the first half of 2018.
Astra since made up most of that lost ground and currently sits just below the £50 mark. Thats still a 10% less than the £55 per share Pfizer offered for the company back in 2014. At the launch of Woodford's fund Astra shares were worth £43.
But Woodford is undeterred. What we argued then was we would make more money in the long term from Astra as an independent entity because we believe in Pascal Soriots transformation of the business.
The manager claims Astras pipeline is the most attractive of any pharmaceutical company around the world. The progression free survival Mystic trial was only one element of a whole portfolio that will drive the Astra story for years to come.
The company also gave an update on its generic version of GlaxoSmithKlines asthma treatment, Advair, for which it received a complete letter response from the US Food and Drug Administration back in May. Since then, Hikma has had constructive discussions with the FDA and has been able to clarify and address the majority of the questions raised.
However, it said on Thursday that there remains an outstanding issue regarding its Clinical Endpoint study.
We firmly disagree with the FDA's position and we are progressing with a dispute resolution process. We now expect this process to be completed in the first quarter of 2018, at which point we will update the market and provide further details on timelines.
Partner Vectura, which has formulated the drug and provided the puffer device for the Advair generic, said it and Hikma "remain confident in the approvability of our product" and "are committed" to bringing the drug to the market "as quickly as possible".
30% cash is decidedly flabby guys.
Over 20% myself; yet arguably more bearish than your allocations.
About 35% in Absolute Return funds.
Pretty much a substitute for corporate bonds which used to be a good % of TS assets but now zero as not only are Investment grades yields crushed but [risk and duration] spreads too.
How can 2 or 3% be regarded as "High Yield"?
The 5 AR funds I've diversified into exhibit widely varying performance.
This year the best returns ~11%, the worst -2%.
I was hoping for an average 5%; looking nearer 4%.
GSK seems to be delivering a 'free' dividend today.
Who knows, the sp may even have bottomed for 2017 at least.
Likewise have 30% cash and remainder split equally between corporate bonds and shares (GSK one of 7).
Waiting for the inevitable 'market correction' to get stock cheaper. Not tempted to buy yet!
''Cash balance has grown too fat; needs to work somewhere.''
You think you have a problem, I have just been reading about Warren Buffet, and his Berkshire Hathaway has an accumulation of 109 billion USD. They are talking about starting to pay a dividend, but that will come out of current cash flow, leaving the pile and the problem of what to do with it. Will see if I can find the web-page again.
GSK has returned to the TS portfolio after a few years absence.
After much prevarication, bought a modest 400 share initial stake today for 1344p.
Cash balance has grown too fat; needs to work somewhere.
Most stuff looks decidedly expensive.
At least GSK is on a 'discount' taking the price drop since its [decent] Q3 earnings release.
Is this simply because of the mooted purchase of Pfizer's Consumer Care unit?
Looking at the debt and cashflow, seems to me a dividend trim may well be in order in any event; there's barely any cover.
A trim I can swallow as it's already priced in.
The 80p divi. yields 5.95% for what I've bought.
Even 25% off still yields nearly 4.5%.
However a post Pfizer unit scenario may see a slash, say of ~50%; much more than the market is discounting right now methinks.
Besides a 3% divi. is too lean to justify holding these like a bond surrogate methinks.
But a risk it is, not a reality.
Other than this, the company looks in reasonable shape for the future and retains a lot of strong defensive attributes, which appeals to me at what seems to me an economic environment not far removed from perma-recession in developed economies.
But there are also some positives within that article:
Glaxo PLC is focused upon three main product areas, Vaccines, Consumer Health and Pharmaceuticals, which is a business model we like as it spreads the risk beyond pure pharmaceutical sales. (Contrary to Woody's view)
GSKs new product pipeline is strong, which delivered $1.4bn of new sales in Q1-17, representing growth of some 52% at CER.
Glaxos medicines are widely available in the US, mainly due to its competitive pricing strategy.
And, although listed as a weakness, I think the following comes across as a positive.
GSK s drug portfolio is continually being copied by generic competitors, but as recent news flow has shown, making efficacious copies of GSKs drugs is harder than it sounds, and is proving very expensive for some competitor firms.
It says '' In fact, its new drug sales (including respiratory) appear to be more than outpacing the loss in revenue from weaker Advair sales, as well as weakness in other mature therapies.''
That talks to me about more than percentages. I didn't think that it was a really well written article, but if the guy has that knowledge, which one would think so, having articulated it, then it seems quite meaningful to me.
Quote: ''However, following this rough patch, GlaxoSmithKline is looking to be among the quickest-growing Big Pharma stocks. Both Breo Ellipta and Anoro Ellipta are delivering rapid sales growth as a result of clearing their hurdles with insurers and physicians. Through the first six months of the year, Breo and Anoro grew sales by 69% and 67%, respectively, on a constant currency basis. In fact, its new drug sales (including respiratory) appear to be more than outpacing the loss in revenue from weaker Advair sales, as well as weakness in other mature therapies.
Glaxo is also benefiting from its majority ownership in ViiV Healthcare, which has developed some of the most popular HIV maintenance medicines, Tivicay and Triumeq. The company's HIV business may deliver around $5 billion in sales this year, with a growth rate that could be as high as 20% since there is no HIV cure.
Lastly, GlaxoSmithKline completely transformed its business in 2015 by swapping assets with Novartis. The three-part deal sent Glaxo's oncology division to Novartis in exchange for Novartis' vaccine division, minus influenza, along with nearly $9 billion in cash. Lastly, the duo formed a joint venture for their consumer health products division. The result has been significantly lower costs for both parties, along with a healthier cash balance from the deal for GlaxoSmithKline.
With a dividend yield of nearly 5%, this steady drug stock could be just what retirees need in their portfolios.''
"Monday 6 NovemberTrading StatementsGrafenia, Kosmos EnergyAGM/EGMMurray Income Trust, Genesis Emerging Markets Fnd, Mid Wynd International Investment TrustTuesday 7 NovemberLSE:HSX:Hiscox helps kick off a round of results from London-listed ..."
LONDON (Reuters) - GlaxoSmithKlines (GSK.L) research and development head Patrick Vallance is set to leave the drugmaker to become the British governments new chief scientific adviser, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday.
His planned departure comes three months after GSKs new Chief Executive Emma Walmsley announced a major shake-up in the pharmaceuticals division and said the group needed to do better in drug development by adopting a sharper commercial focus.
Vallance, who joined GSK in 2006 and has been president of R&D since January 2012, has not yet officially resigned. When he does so, GSK will be obliged to issue a statement, since he is also a board member.
GSK declined to comment on Vallances exit, which was first reported in the Financial Times. The British government was not immediately available for comment.
In his new job, Vallance - a one-time professor of medicine at University College London - will replace Mark Walport as the senior science adviser to the prime minister and other officials. The exact timing of that handover is unclear.
The move is a further sign of change under GSKs new boss Walmsley, who earlier this year poached Luke Miels from AstraZeneca (AZN.L) as her new head of pharmaceuticals. Miels will be a key lieutenant in driving productivity improvements.
GSK has lagged behind rivals in recent years in producing multibillion-dollar blockbuster drugs. It has also suffered a number of high-profile clinical trial failures on Vallances watch, undermining faith in its R&D skills.
In a bid to turn things around, Walmsley said in July she would narrow the focus of the groups drug research by ditching more than 30 drug projects. GSK will in future allocate 80 percent of its R&D budget to respiratory and HIV/infectious diseases, along with two other potential areas of oncology and immuno-inflammation.
Walmsleys plans for overhauling Britains biggest drugmaker have yet to fully convince investors, many of whom worry that the dividend could be risk if she twins a revamp of pharma with a big acquisition in consumer healthcare.
Early stages but it fits with the recent pattern of discovery and approvals successes which I believe and hope will be the way forward for GSK rather than any takeovers or big purchases.
Concerning the sustainability of the dividend, I note that the forecast EPS for 2017/18 are around 110p/113p adjusted and 74p/92p statutory. T
he FCF for 2017 may or may not cover the 80p dividend (as outlines in my earlier post), but the earnings and FCF have improved and moved close to cover and should further improve in 2018. Clearly the market has some concerns but I will hold and may be tempted to add if SP drops much lower.
GSK's investigational BCMA antibody-drug conjugate receives Breakthrough Therapy Designation from US FDA for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma
GlaxoSmithKline plc (LSE/NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has received Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for GSK2857916 monotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma who have failed at least three prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD38 antibody and are refractory to a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent. In October, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted PRIME designation to GSK2857916 for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent and an anti-CD38 antibody. GSK2857916 is an anti B-cell maturation agent (BCMA) monoclonal antibody-drug conjugate.
Breakthrough Therapy Designation is designed to expedite the development and review of drugs that are intended to treat a serious condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapy on a clinically significant endpoint(s). Drugs that receive breakthrough therapy designation are eligible for all features of FDA's Fast Track Programme.[i]
PRIME designation is offered by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to enhance support for the development of medicines that target an unmet medical need. It is based on enhanced interaction between sponsor companies and the EMA to optimise development plans and speed up evaluation so these medicines can reach patients earlier.[ii]
Hi Bill, the detailed reply is much appreciated, many thanks.
When I first mentioned the longer term threat posed by Aldi/Lidl
over on A D Vee fn (trying to avoid moderation) - a poster called me .. essentiallydickless,
which I thought was quite funny!. I think the mistake some made was underestimaing
the scope of their appeal. On seeing the type of cars parked at Aldi Walton on Thames
a number of years ago, it struck me their offer was resonating with a wider demographic.
That store has now reverted back to MKS, who owned the freehold.
"... quick scan of SBRY last night, risk/reward look reasonable?... My concerns are non food mainly, they look to be aggressively expanding their credit card loan book, come the next recession is this a point of potential weakness?... Either MRW is on the dear side of SBRY on the cheap .. perhaps."
Essential - I too think SBRY reasonable value down where it is, very much the "value" play of the main quoted grocers... but with some caveats.
Their business held up well in the early discounter-led carnage, while the likes of TSCO and MRW fell apart... but the latter two are now recovery stories which are (at least thus far) delivering on this story, while SBRY's core food business is flat-lining, with profitability still on the slide (albeit only moderately).
In non-food, the Argos deal looks a good one and will continue to help them - though maybe not enough to fully offset this further core decline. I am ambivalent on the credit card biz, etc - seems to be doing okay, pretty neutral for the investment case IMHO.
"... however you can't escape the fact discounters are continuing to rapidly expand..."
Yes, the discounters are not going away... but I think people miss a point when they assume this means inexorable slow decline for the traditional "Big 4", at least in terms of profitability. The Germans have shaken up the market in the same way that Ryanair and EasyJet have turned the airline biz on its head, and I feel we are only beginning to see the same sort of seismic change on cost structures, retail models, product ranges, etc across all operators. Market share for the "Big 4" will be notably lower again (overall) 5 years from now... but not necessarily their combined profit pool, or resultant quantum of shareholder value.
But there will be winners and losers, and while Asda still seems to be ailing, SBRY will need to make sure they are not squashed between the combination of a resurgent TSCO, a more nimble MRW, MKS still cornering their little part of the market and the Germans' steady secular growth in footprint and market presence.
MRW certainly has been at least "fully valued" in recent times, holding up around 230-240p for some time, but slipping back towards 220p now it is more interesting again - and with another robust trading update this morning. TSCO is on the way up operationally, but it has a long way to go in its recovery and its SP still seems to be assuming a lot.
SBRY is still the one BUY for me... but will likely to have to do more, and do better, to justify any significant sustained re-rating.
I seem to recall in the dark and distant past being taught something in school about the Hanseatic League (Middle Ages) which years later (50 plus) seemed with the benefit of age to have almost been the model for our current trading relationship with the EU.
It fell apart eventually-the HL that is -largely because it appeared to overly favour Germanic interests .
Ring any bells??
I'd be a bit suspicious of Sainsbury. They've been cutting back on staff training and own brand product quality which were the things that differentiated them from Tesco and the rest.
Also seem to be indulging in a bit of ethical slight of hand eg bypassing "fair trade" in favour of a cheaper alternative they dreamed up themselves that sounds the same but isn't.
Is the brand being trashed? If so does it matter?
"But whether it will prove worth the huge medium term cost "
Bill, it's an entirely baseless assumption given that some 80% of the UK (often touted) service business has nothing to do with the EU. UK services business with the US dwarf's that with the biggest EU economy, namely Germany.
The opportunity for the UK to stop wasting money on EU largesse and drive business with the vast majority of te world that is really growing is immense -- and the EU has an awful lot to lose if it throws up barriers to trade to Britain, as it's been rightly pointed out, to those with the capacity to think, that the EU would be see a dramatic reduction in inward investment because of that approach.
The EU main countries make a lot of money selling at high prices it's good to the UK and there is no way they are going to want to jeaopardise that business.
There is absolutely no reason why the UK can not walk away from the EU, pay nothing reataisn all control over it's borders, taxes, laws a defence policies and offer free trade to the EU.
The EU would be pretty stupid to turn it down, they might because there are a lot of stupid people in charge -- like Juncker who is a dangerous shoot from the mouth alcoholic.
Time to move on, and swiftly.
We just need someone with a brain to negotiate - and that usually starts with "NO".
Persuaded by posts here, thank you, that the shares after their weakness are decent value everything considered and the divi might be held in which case a 5% yield should be a support, so bought back. At least the company are saying the divi needs to be covered by FCF if it is not at present.
"... very true statement Bill, and exactly the reason to be free from the EU..."
It is certainly one good reason to be happy enough to be out of the EU, given that is what people have decided... and I always said, had it been a vote to go IN to the EU, I certainly would have said no.
But whether it will prove worth the huge medium term cost and dislocation of change and transition... well, that is quite another matter, and thankfully not one for this board!
"... as for BT -- it's cheap right now isn't it, just about on any measure -- apart from the gargantuan pension fund of course..."
Yes, most likely, and I am watching it closely now... albeit from the sidelines, as yet.
I am generally more relaxed about pension deficits than the market - and it's interesting to see a lot of recent well-informed commentary, from both the media and investment community, to this effect. If it's right, then BT probably has to be a strong Buy, purely on the pension issue.
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.