Heard part of a piece on the news yesterday that Trump plans to unveil his drug pricing plans shortly. Previously I think that he had stated that he wanted to bring down prices significantly, which clearly wouldnt be good for the likes of GSK.
I have a few and was planning to add some more (given my newly found cash from exiting prefs !) but I think Ill hang on for the moment.
Anybody know more about Trumps plans in this area ?.
"Vectura was down 4.4% on news it, along with partner Hikma Pharmaceuticals, will be required to conduct an additional clinical endpoint study for the development of a generic to GlaxoSmithKline's Advair Diskus."
Below are some comments from Sharecast regarding recent results
"GlaxoSmithKline, reaffirmed its dividend for this 2018 earlier this month, saying that safeguarding shareholder returns was a higher priority than large-scale mergers and acquisitions.
Unveiling her first full-year results since taking over as chief executive, Walmsley said she was "increasingly confident" that GSK's new suite of products would help it deliver "mid- to high single-digit growth" in the years leading to 2020."
This would suggest nothing ras on the takeover front. Emma seems to have her fingers on the pulse.
I found an interesting piece in the NY Times, from back in October... full text copied below. Two interesting takeaways for me:
(1) Using similar (admittedly, broad) assumptions to my own earlier analysis, it suggests a value of $10bn for the business - this was obviously before we started seeing talk of higher prices (ie. $14/15bn, up to $20bn), begging the question of the original source for these higher figures!
(2) The idea that Pfizer could fold the biz into the existing GSK/Novartis JV, becoming a possible third (and minority) partner in the shared business.
IMHO I agree that $10bn (as per Lupo!) looks about the right value, on a stand-alone basis. The likes of GSK etc, with already-substantial Consumer interests, would be able to justify paying more (and Pfizer would expect them to) given substantial synergies in a market which is all about scale, as the article suggests. But obviously, the more you "pay away" these synergies up front, the less reason to do the deal.
But I like the latter idea... bringing Pfizer into the JV structure (with or without buying Novartis out first) would not only spread the risk and minimise the capital commitment, but it would likely pave the way for less of a premium in the price, with Pfizer retaining a share of upside from both achieved synergies and possible future growth. No idea how much this might appeal to Pfizer, I am sure they'd prefer a clean exit at a good price - but it might be the best deal they can get...
"Painkillers and hemorrhoid cream: These are either the recipe for a terrible night in, or a potentially good corporate deal. Pfizer, the $215 billion United States drug maker, has assigned investment banks to look into a spin off or sale of its consumer-goods division, which makes Advil and Preparation H. GlaxoSmithKlines new boss, Emma Walmsley, would be well placed to offer them a home.
Over-the-counter products are a tiny sideline for Pfizer, accounting for just 6.4 percent of its revenue last year. Ian Read, Pfizers chief executive, therefore loses little from putting the business on the block. While these goods might share manufacturing and shipping processes with prescription medicines, the unique nature of cooking up, testing and distributing drugs to patients suggests there is not much reason to keep them together. Germany-based Merck is considering a similar split.
Of course, some are less dismissive including Ms. Walmsley. She took over as chief executive in April after having run the consumer-goods joint venture Glaxo co-owns with Switzerland-based Novartis. Ms. Walmsley has pledged to focus on Glaxos drugs, like its H.I.V. and asthma meds, rather than her old division, which makes just 15 percent of group operating profit. But as she will know, consumer goods are a game of scale something rivals like Sanofi, Reckitt Benckiser and Johnson & Johnson also covet.
A neat solution would be to fold Pfizers consumer business into the Glaxo-Novartis joint venture. Valued at 15 times operating profit roughly the 10-year average for the consumer-staples sector the business could be worth $10 billion. That assumes Pfizers consumer operating margin is roughly the same 20 percent that Glaxo is targeting. Since Glaxo now values its venture with Novartis at $27 billion, Pfizer could argue for a stake somewhere south of 30 percent. One day, the enlarged company might make for a more lucrative spin off or sale than Pfizer could muster today.
Timing matters. Mr. Read said he will make a decision sometime in 2018. Ideally, Glaxo would buy Novartis out before doing any other deals, since it would otherwise have to pay the Swiss company for its share of any synergies that came from adding Pfizer. Besides, Ms. Walmsley has only been in the job for six months. Nonetheless, she could do worse than toss an offer over Pfizers counter."
I'm no chartist, although I might become one . From a simple chartist's point of view, the 3-year chart looks like an old-fashioned (like me) 'W' formation. Don't any long-term holder compare GSK to the ftse 100 over the same period - it would only make you sad.
LONDON (Alliance News) - Pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline PLC announced Wednesday it has submitted IMPACT study data to the European Medicines Agency for an expanded label for its Trelegy Ellipta treatment for lung disease.
The submission, the FTSE 100-listed company said, is based on data showing Trelegy Ellipta was superior to a number of other treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on endpoints such as reduced flare-ups, improved lung functions, and health-related quality of life.
Trelegy Ellipta is a once daily, single inhaler triple therapy containing fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol. Glaxo said approval would mean physicians could use it to treat a wider number of patients at risk of exacerbations in COPD symptoms.
It was approved in Europe in November as a maintenance treatment for adults with COPD, and Glaxo also has submitted a new drug application to the US Food & Drug Administration which is currently being reviewed.
Head of Respiratory Therapy Area Dave Allen said: "This filing is primarily based on the IMPACT study, which clarifies the type of patient most likely to benefit from once-daily single inhaler triple therapy, and adds to the evidence supporting the clinical profile of Trelegy Ellipta.
"The submission reflects our confidence in this medicine, which we believe has the potential to be an effective treatment option for appropriate patients with COPD who require triple therapy for symptom relief and exacerbation reduction."
Lupo - I have followed GSK for decades, as long as I've followed anything really, but it's never been compelling enough, in either relative or absolute terms... until the recent slump into "value" territory, since when I've followed it with active intent.
Two main things really, one GSK-specific, one more "macro"... first, FY results were broadly encouraging on balance. The dividend message is clearer now IMHO - they'll do whatever they can to defend the current level, and the medium term FCF cover target (ie. 1.25-1.5x) is a prerequisite for growing, not maintaining it. FCF itself still not great, but on an improving trend and the FCF yield is now at least adequate at 5%.
And second... the market sell-off has precipitated stage one of the reinvestment plan for my cash resources I have been mulling for some time, and GSK was merely high enough up my list of targets. Possibly premature? We'll find out soon enough...
Specific risks remain, of course - but when don't they? I think it's odds-against GSK ends up buying the Pfizer unit - perhaps 30% chance? - and even if they do, I am now satisfied that it's more likely to be at an "okay" price (max $15bn) and may even prove a decent deal, over time. There remains a chance they do it at a "bad" price (eg. $20bn), but I think this is a much lower probability.
"I'm somewhat concerned about my holdings in utilities, especially after John McMao's comments, and JC's, at the weekend.... They'd have to get that legislation through for the grand theft to succeed, and unless they get a big majority (if elected) that would not be a given; so I'll keep taking the divis, thanks."
See the NG board today for a slightly more detailed view, but in short - I am not sure JC is going to make it to PM and even if he does, I'm not sure he'd follow through with major renationalisation... but the threat will remain for the foreseeable. In that context, I don't think the UK utilities divi yields are high enough - not when any number of (reasonably) blue-chip stocks are offering similar or even higher yields (GSK being a notable case in point) without the direct existential threat.
Though god knows, if JC gets in we're ALL going to hell in a handcart, so maybe it's a spurious distinction...
Bill - "Bought a reasonable sized slug this morning - my first time on the GSK register"
What made you do the right thing, I wonder.
It's Nr.2 in my portfolio, just behind RDSB, and followed by:-
and I won't bore you further.
I'm somewhat concerned about my holdings in utilities, especially after John McMao's comments, and JC's, at the weekend. They say that investors will be given (ta everso) bonds in return for their shares. They'd have to get that legislation through for the grand theft to succeed, and unless they get a big majority (if elected) that would not be a given; so I'll keep taking the divis, thanks.
"and a new position in WPP (also for the first time). Time will tell, etc...."
interesting, I added to WPP when it dipped close to 1200 -- taken this up to a heady 1.4% of my wad -- It looks good to me, but then again so did ITV at higher prices than it's currently sunk to lol !!
Games - treading carefully at the mo having offloaded a fair chunk in the last 3 months
"... isn't it likely to put downward pressure on the share price of GSK, or will it get carried up with the euphoria of winning the deal?... Is the logic more likely that if the deal doesn't go ahead, there will be a general sigh of relief an the stock starts to tick up?"
Yes Games - on balance I am hoping they don't do it (one way or another) - don't need it! I kind of agree with SM, my hunch is they won't... problem is, I'm not sure I can see RB doing it either right now - would be a bold move indeed (some would say brazen), taking leverage up to a whopping c.5x ND/EBITDA on my (rough) figures.
But if GSK do end up with it, hopefully it will be at the low-end of the putative range, and with chunky synergies and the mitigation of the Consumer JV structure then it may indeed be an okay deal....
Whatever.... I have deliberated long enough and I am in!! Bought a reasonable sized slug this morning - my first time on the GSK register, although it's one I've followed for donkey's. Hopefully a case of 'good things happen to those who wait', etc, etc.
Or... now let's watch - another major sell-off State-side, then EW calmly shimmies up and pays $20bn for the Pfizer assets. At least it would confirm my reputation for being able to call the bottom of any stock... NOT!
FWIW have also bought (in reasonable size, if not massive) some more MKS, some more IMB, and a new position in WPP (also for the first time). Time will tell, etc....
"Crazy money; she won't do it....er. I hope. $10bn tops, Emma."
Lupo et al - interesting piece from Bloomberg's Gadfly column, very much along these lines. Full text copied below.
I don't necessarily agree that RB can afford to pay more - not least as a £10bn deal (the $14bn "low end") is not much more than 1x EBITDA for GSK, but much nearer 3x EBITDA for RB, even with MJ. But they probably do want, and need, it more.
And there is a salutary warning in the Jefferies projection (as below) of a return of just 4.3% on a top-end $20bn deal, 5 years in, even after significant synergies... Nobody needs that, any more than a hole in the head. Getting it for $10bn (rather than £10bn) is a nice idea from Lupo, but it won't happen - Pfizer will keep it at that price. But if it emerges (and it will) that EW has bid low and lost, it won't do any of her, her reputation and the GSK SP any harm....
Don't Take an Advil
Pfizer's $20 Billion Pill Is Too Bitter for Glaxo
GlaxoSmithKline Plc is doing a useful job in providing tension to the bidding for Pfizer Inc.'s consumer healthcare business, fighting it out with Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc. The pharmaceutical giant's investors had better hope it's bluffing in the duel with its fellow British company.
Consumer healthcare assets aren't the hot thing they used to be. The big pharma groups are renewing their efforts in drug discovery. Merck KgaA also has its consumer healthcare unit on the block. But this is still an attractive business for those able to build scale, like Reckitt and Glaxo. It's a fragmented industry and revenues are stable.
Who is Pfizer's unit worth more to? Based on its M&A track record, expect Reckitt to be more aggressive at mining synergies. What's more, Reckitt's consumer healthcare assets are now at a similar scale to Glaxo's if you include its recently acquired Mead Johnson infant formula business. So it's not clear Glaxo has the advantage of bringing more heft to the deal.
If Reckitt can justify paying more, it probably has more flexibility too. The two companies' share prices have fallen sharply over the past year, making equity issuance equally tricky for both. The stability of consumer healthcare cash flows makes them easy for both Glaxo or Reckitt to borrow against. But Glaxo would have to do a deal through its consumer joint venture with Novartis AG to be able to extract savings. While Glaxo controls that, Novartis would almost certainly be able to veto a transaction it didn't like.
It would still make sense for Glaxo to chase a deal if the returns available were worth it. That looks unlikely. Given Reckitt's evident interest in bulking up in consumer healthcare, Glaxo would need a knockout bid. At the mooted $20 billion top-end purchase price, the return on acquisition in five years' time for Reckitt might be just 4.3 percent, assuming it extracted 8 percent of sales in synergy benefits, according to Jefferies research. While consumer healthcare probably has a low cost of capital, such a return looks inadequate -- and Glaxo might not be able to match it.
Now consider the opportunity cost. If Reckitt misses the Pfizer deal, another chance to bulk up its main business so rapidly may not come along for ages. If Glaxo passes, it potentially loses the number one slot but still has sufficient scale. To win the auction, Glaxo needs to outbid a rival that can probably afford to pay more, has fewer constraints and more to lose if it doesn't win.
That doubtless explains why CEO Emma Walmsley was talking up pretty much every other potential use of Glaxo's financial firepower with yearly results on Wednesday. She indicated that she's still looking at the Pfizer asset. Both her shareholders and Pfizer's should cross their fingers that she's just trying to make Reckitt overpay.
(ShareCast News) - Kepler Cheuvreux upped its stance on pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline to 'hold' from 'reduce' on Friday, lifting the price target to 1,360p from 1,340p as it said the worst-case scenario for the stock was now priced in
Kepler's 'reduce' case had been based on investors underestimating the impact of generic US Advair on the pharma business's operating profit, as well as stronger-than-expected HIV competition. But investors appear to now be pricing in worst-case scenarios for HIV and US generic Advair, both of which catalysts have become less negative since the new guidance issued by the company this week.
It noted that the last of the three generic Advair developers had a complete response letter from the FDA on 8 February. The FDA sends a complete response letter when it has completed its review of a new or generic drug application and decided that it will not approve it for marketing in its present form.
Kepler also pointed out that GSK is suing Gilead, the maker of bictegravir and its key HIV competitor, for patent infringement, which could lead to a royalty stream.
Still, it argued that the stock is not a 'buy' given the lack of near-term positive catalysts and the risk of GSK buying Pfizer's consumer unit. In addition, Kepler pointed out that while GSK has made high-quality hires and new management is revitalising R&D productivity, the fruits of this are still a way off.
Kepler now estimates a 5.2% 2016-2010 earnings per share compound annual growth rate, leaving upside to Glaxo's mid to high single-digit guidance.
As reports suggest we are now down to just two bidders - GSK and RB - it is perhaps time to hazard a look at the potential financial implications...
Estimates for deal value range from around $14bn up to $20bn (albeit the latter feels like an optimistic case put about by the company itself). The business had sales of c.$3.5bn in 2017, 2% ahead of 2016 - they don't split out profits (I haven't even seen a reported figure), but it seems reasonable to assume operating margin around 20% (GSK makes just under 18% on its consumer biz, while targeting 20%+ by 2020). This suggests EBIT of $700m (and EBITDA probably between $800m and $900m).
Even on the low end of the range, the implied deal multiples look full indeed (20x EBIT, around 16-17x EBITDA) - similar to multiples (pre-synergies) for the RB purchase of Mead Johnson, but for a relatively mature, low growth business (albeit probably a decently cash generative one).
Easy to see the industrial logic for both GSK and RB here, but investors would be rightly nervous. At $14bn (c.£10bn), an all-cash deal is perfectly affordable for GSK (taking ND/EBITDA from 1.5x to c.2.5x, and EBIT interest cover from c.12x to c.8x) and would doubtless be decently EPS enhancing - but long-term cost of debt is only likely to rise (already is), and with GSK trading at 8-9x EV/EBITDA, it would be highly dilutive to valuation. There will be synergies - but these will need to be chunky indeed for shareholders to embrace such a deal willingly, and obviously the more the price edges up from the $14bn mark, the harder the sell for a CEO already under some pressure.
For RB, the equation is complicated by the MJ deal... although RB is somewhat smaller than GSK, the strong, lowly geared balance sheet pre-MJ could have taken this in its stride, but not now. It's probably still doable on a cash basis, but it will stretch things more than many would like (particularly in the current environment). It would be less dilutive to valuation, given RB's (still) higher multiples, and RB can invoke their superior (historic) track record of driving margins and delivering value from big acquisitions - but they will need to be able to report better news from MJ with FY results next week, or else this credit becomes seriously compromised.
On balance, while both GSK and RB remain interesting at current levels IMHO (more so the former), in an ideal world I'd rather know which way this goes before investing - at the implicit price, I'm not sure I want the Pfizer business, whatever the "industrial logic"... bigger is not necessarily better. Bearing in mind that Pfizer could still pull the auction and retain the business - quite possible IMO, given the respective challenges GSK and RB face in "justifying" anything other than a knock-down price, and the (curious?) fact that other key players (eg. Nestle, J&J) have already walked away without even attempting indicative bids.
"Written 7 February 2018 23:15GSK (LSE:GSK)This week, we've been taking the easy option for 'headline' subjects by choosing shares from our email. Today, it's LSE:GSK:GlaxoSmithKline's turn under the spotlight, a well established share currently ..."
LONDON, Feb 8 (Reuters) - GlaxoSmithKline has won another reprieve for its blockbuster Advair lung drug after U.S. regulators delayed approval of a generic copy from Novartis's Sandoz division.
The Swiss drugmaker said in an emailed statement on Thursday it had received a so-called complete response letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a generic Advair launch this year was now "highly unlikely".
" GSK (LSE:GSK) This week, we've been taking the easy option for 'headline' subjects by choosing shares from our email. Today, it's GSK's turn under the spotlight, a well established share currently showing some rather unexpected potentials for ..."
Excellent post Bill. Thank you for your insights. I too thought the results were good and I hoped for a bit more of a bounce today. Good news on sales, margins, EPS, pipeline, pensions and lower debt. I've held GSK since 2001 with a few top ups and profit taking in between but always held a decent chunk. 17 years of lovely dividends. I reckon the downside risk is minimal at these levels and 12/13 quid represents very good value. The SP performance has been disappointing this last year but historically (I know ... should never look at past performance) they usually recover from these levels. We are overdue a pharmas comeback. While I wait I'll keep picking up that juicy divvy. Strong Buy.
A good comment on the results, thank you and 9 blueys so others agree, I also thought the results overall make the shares look good value even after the bounce today to 1294p.
Must have a look at the results presentation but subject to that my view FWIW is that GSK may continue to be a profitable trade buying around this level and selling £16 plus. For the time being there is also a nice 6% yield while one waits for the £16 plus to exit.
I don't entirely dismiss what many see as a credible story as to why GSK could be a good long term investment, but if that's right I see it as a bonus.
what good analysis and comment everyone thank you. And how refreshingly honest from GSK about what may happen next year and how it could affect numbers. Even I understood most of it, if only CLLN had been slightly less cryptic. No doubt someone will find something in the detail to challenge.
Walmsley we can trust maybe?
If I had any spare cash in the pot I might add a little on today's update and the extra assurance over a 6%+ dividend. Maybe there will still be a chance, consensus anywhere between 1340 and 1650 suggests today's splendid pick up has some way to go.
""RDSB as low as £13 - recently £26
HSBA as low as £4 - recently £7
BLT as low as £6 - recently £15
AZN as low as £38 - recently £52""
Herald, all good points, however for every analysts one up you get as many down - like Capita, Provident, North West Biotherapeutics etc etc.
Analysts by and large have little clue over the stock price direction, let alone the value of the companies they are supposed to be analysing.
I guess you must draw your own conclusions based on some basic numbers, a feel for what the company is developing, how well it develops it and spends shareholders money, and who are the competitors ready to eat their lunch.
LONDON (Alliance News) - GlaxoSmithKline PLC on Wednesday reported rise in earnings for the recently ended financial year and said that earnings outcome for the new financial year is dependent upon timing and impact of potential US generic competition to asthma treatment drug Advair.
For the year ended December 31, Glaxo's pretax profit rose to GBP3.53 billion from GBP1.94 billion the year prior. Revenue grew to GBP30.19 billion from GBP27.89 billion the year before.
Profit performance was partly helped by a sharp fall in operating expenses to GBP1.61 billion from GBP3.01 billion the year prior. The drop was primarily due to the lower accounting charges related to its Shionogi-ViiV Healthcare joint venture, the acquisition of Novartis AG's former vaccines business and Pfizer put options over its ViiV business.
Revenue was boosted by year-on-year growth across all of the company's main units. Pharmaceuticals revenue advanced 7% to GBP17.3 billion, Vaccines revenue grew 12% to GBP5.2 billion and Consumer Healthcare unit revenue was up 8% at GBP7.8 billion. On a constant-currency basis, revenue grew 3%, 6% and 2%, respectively.
Annual adjusted earnings per share advanced to 111.8 pence - in line with the company's guidance - which is 11% higher that 2016 on a reported basis and 4% higher at constant exchange rates.
GSK declared a unchanged fourth quarter dividend of 23 pence per share, giving a total payout of 80p for 2017, also unchanged from 2016. For 2018, GSK expects to declare a dividend of 80p.
"In 2017 GSK delivered encouraging results from across the company with sales growth in each of our three global businesses, an improved group operating margin, adjusted earnings per share growth of 4% at constant exchange rates and stronger free cash flow," Chief Executive Emma Walmsley said.
"We are focused on competing effectively across our current portfolio and delivering three new launches which bring significant benefits to patients: Trelegy Ellipta which provides three medicines in a single inhaler to treat COPD; Juluca, the first 2-drug regimen, once-daily, single pill for HIV, helping to reduce the amount of medicines needed, and Shingrix, our new vaccine which represents a new standard for the prevention of shingles," Walmsley added.
"Improving our Pharmaceuticals business remains our main priority and we are strengthening our pipeline with a focus on priority assets in two current therapy areas, Respiratory and HIV, and two potential areas, Oncology and Immuno-inflammation," Walmsley continued. "We will provide a further update to investors at second quarter on our plans for R&D."
"We continue to make changes across GSK to drive improvements in performance and we have made several new appointments to key leadership positions," Walmsley said.
"Looking ahead," Walmsley continued, "in 2018 we could see a potential generic version of Advair in the US and our 2018 guidance reflects this. With the sales momentum we anticipate from new and recent launches and focused improvements in operating performance we are increasingly confident in our ability to deliver mid to high single digit growth in Adjusted EPS compound annual growth rate."
Walmsley emphasised cash generation continued to be a "key focus" and that in 2017 GSK generated GBP3.44 billion in free cash flow. GSK remained committed to paying an 80 pence per share dividend in 2018, the same as in 2017.
Looking towards 2018, GSK said adjusted EPS growth was "uncertain" depending on the timing of generic competition to its blockbuster Advair product in the US.
Should no generic arrive in 2018, adjusted EPS is expected to grow between 4% and 7% on a reported basis. Should it arrive mid-year, adjusted EPS growth should emerge between flat and 3% for 2018.
In a mid-year launch scenario, GSK expects a GBP750 million revenue his to US advair sales. In 2017, Advair made GBP1.61 billion in sales in the US which is equivalent to 5.3% of tot
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.