Member Info for casapinos

This mornings company response to Elliott, comprehensively misses the point. It is now apparent that Elliott see the largest potential secure growth in a separated consumer products company . The city chatter is that they may even be angling for a PE buyout (with allies?)of the consumer division in the belief that as per the usual PE playbook, they can drive it harder, maximise revenue , load it with debt against stronger revenue streams and pass it on in a few years as a company with a market cap. of £40 bill +. I think battle lines are now drawn .I suspect that Elliott are less interested in the risks attached to the high R&D, unreliable outcomes of vaccine development , or the pipeline of drugs under development which may or may not succeed in Phase 3 trials.

South coast ..... you've got a friend???

sorry couldn't resist

I hesitate to return to the debate here as I am clearly identified as a doubter.BUT I fully accept that somewhere in the flurry of recent post there is the basis of a positive outcome for this share.Others here have a much better handle on the moving parts and prospects for the future , My input is specific and confined to the financial implications of the current situation.
As a counterbalance to the possible upside let me set out the WORST case (which if holders are lucky may not happen). I posit that an entity interested in a ready made green , promising tech company is available at a knock down price, they do a deal with the receivers to buy 49% of SAE for (let's say) £13-15 mill, that's just a little over the current market value and absent a bidding war the receivers will snatch their hand off.Said entity is then required to make an offer for the rest of the equity,and prices that offer at , let's say 50% over the current SP. There is little doubt that they would receive enough acceptance to acquire a controlling interest , despite the probable protests from PI's . II's who hold will rush for the exits and control is a certainty . Anyone who has bought here in the last few weeks makes a nice profit, but holders with an average anywhere in double figures are assured losers.
OK that may not happen , but it is reasonable to recognise that the downside is there and will remain until a home for the GFG shareholding is found.

fleccy Fair enough, I do think today's announcement throws a ring fence around Openreach and its CP customers and makes it somewhat harder for new(ish) entrants to the market. Mutual benefit to those inside the ring is being offered , and will IMV be accepted gratefully.

Denby TBH I take almost no notice of daily/weekly/monthly price movements, I think charts are one step below fortune telling and I rely entirely on fundamental analysis of companies. That often means that I have to wait months or even years before my analysis bears fruit in the form of SP rises (or sometimes it just never does!). However this fits with both my somewhat obsessive personality and very long term horizons . I have been investing for decades now and am happy to accumulate slowly , sometimes very slowly!

Denby Agreed, Elliott have quite shrewdly put GSK management in an unenviable position , they either make radical changes or run the risk of deep embarrassment if the Revenue and profits don't start to rise in the medium term.
As I was once memorably told by my CEO when I berated him for taking consultants advice . "If I take their advice and it works I'm a genius, if I take their advice and it fails they're fools ,so I can't lose, but if I ignore their advice and we succeed I survive, if ignore their advice and we fail i'm sacked . "

A quick summary of the Elliot letter
It is a scathing indictment of GSK's present and previous management and makes strong recommendations for more Pharma based recruitment , with a barely concealed demand for the dismissal of EW and many of the managers she has recruited during her tenure.
It recommends an "Americanisation " of the management structure, targets and rewards, ie high ambition , demanding targets and lucrative management rewards if/when they are hit.
It makes significant play of the misguided persistence of paying a high dividend , at the expense of a larger R&D budget and the adverse consequences for growth.
It recommends a further, lower level split of "NEW GSK" between Vaccines and pharma .
GSK's recent outline of their plans implies that they were aware of at least some Elliott's Likely proposals and have done something to head them off, in response Elliot have gone public with proposals which urge a much more ambitious and more comprehensive revamp.
This matter is far from over, and I suspect that GSK will be pushed to do more, aim higher and restructure more comprehensively to quell this debate

A very inappropriate post title.Today's announcement is very shrewd , it builds on the very generous OFCOM settlement reached a while ago and IMV pretty much undermines any possible complaints from BT's CP customers , who are being offered exactly the same long-term pricing certainty which OFCOM has offered BT. It's a win win win for BT , for third party resellers and for fibre customers.The prospects of long term , profitable, growing fibre based profits is secured . While BT will remain a utility style market dominant player , so long as it ceases to indulge in ill thought out vanity projects like BT sport it will become exactly the sort of company I love to invest in , with a BUFFET-style "moat", steadily growing earnings , set against falling costs of delivery, in a rapidly expanding market . In short a long-term, near impregnable cash machine. I look forward to holding and adding to an already ( by my standards) large position

Denby in the unlikely event that you read this can you explain in terms simple enough for me to understand what point you are trying to make?

TR64 GSK Consumer health was created in 2019 by a merger of GSK and Pfizer's consumer products divisions see this from the GSK website.

"On 1 August 2019, we announced that we'd completed our transaction with Pfizer to combine our consumer healthcare businesses into a new world-leading Consumer Healthcare Joint Venture. Within three years of the closing of the transaction, we intend to separate the Joint Venture via a demerger."
I assume that Pfizer were consulted and were in agreement with GSK then and now.
After demerger GSK/Pfizer consumer health will be an independent company with 32% owned by Pfizer,54.4% owned by ex-GSK shareholders and 13.6%% owned by " NEW GSK".
Obvious problem is that Pfizer need to divest 2%+ or bid for the rest.Pfizer is currently worth $220 bill so could easily if they chose bid for and buy out GSK and us , but presumably don't want to or the deal would be constructed differently , or they may also choose to float off their share of the new company.I hadn't thought about it until your question but if NEW GSK are charging consumer £8 bill for their freedom , in essence Pfizer are paying ~ one third of that . WHY? AFAIK Pfizer have been silent on their intentions for their part in the joint consumer products company , so their options are open, do they want it or will they just hold their stake and collect the divis/ value increase?
We shall have to wait and see.

lp... I suggest you look at the share charts on this site (which are not corrected for the RI) and match them up with the RI RNS dates to see the effect on the SP. What happened was that the SP fell very sharply because of the enormous discount on RI shares , to a price roughly equivalent to 70p , the recovery from that point was actually very sharp, though momentum has now clearly dissipated, at least temporarily.

lptcc .....you should remember that pre-dilution shares carried a 10 for 3 at 32p bonus offer, so as I said at the time they were a call option tagged on to a share. Todays shares have no such bonus included.

I seldom worry about day to day SP movements as I am a very long term holder, and may well top up a few at these prices BUT when a major FTSE constituent starts to fall a few percent (now >10% in a week)while the FTSE is broadly flat, it sometimes presages bad news. You no doubt all know that the city gossips and news of impending announcements (actual or imagined)impacts prices. Those of you trading short term movements , will have been hit recently and their may be more pain coming.

Strangy .....I see from your posting history that you are a committed holder of SAE, your earliest posts are from the days when the SP was in the middle 20's, it is now 5.5p. On a quick scan I couldn't find one negative or even cautious post from you.That's your prerogative, my presence here as an ex-holder (and maybe a future one) is to offer a balance. Todays RNS is significant , both for the cavalier way in which the board are treating their shareholders and the significant implications of the auditors qualification .It means that , worst case and despite the success of the technology , the company might fail in its present form . I believe it right for those of us who understand the risk to flag it up in bold terms to those who perhaps don't. I don't know whether you fall in to that category but there may be other posters who do .

SAE's results are out and while they are quite comprehensive they appear to devote only this sentence to the elephant in the room

"On 18th May 2021, receivers were appointed over the shares of the Company's major shareholder, SIMEC UK Energy Holdings Ltd ("SUEH"). At the date of the publication of these results, the Company is in productive discussions with the receivers of SUEH and continues to focus on the tidal, Uskmouth conversion project and hydro projects with vigour and intent."
IMV this is unreasonable, there is reference to the notes to the account, notes 1 and 3 and I strongly suggest you read them, as there is no breach of copyright involved I extract the following from the auditors.

"Ernst & Young LLP are unable to form an opinion on the Group and Company financial statements due to the potential interaction of the uncertainties outlined in note 1 of this statement and the possible cumulative effect on the appropriateness of the going concern assumption used in the preparation of the Group's and Company's financial statements. The successful outcomes of these crucial assumptions and events are inherently uncertain and have become more so after the recent appointment of a receiver for the Company's major shareholder, SIMEC UK Energy Holdings Limited and negative developments about the financial difficulties faced by the major shareholder's ultimate beneficial owner."
While I strongly hope that the company continues to trade, it is clear that there are significant concerns.

You have my sympathy, I watched Southend a few times on a Friday night when I lived in Rayleigh back in the 70's.

SUFC...(are you really a mackem?)All UK banks and insurers are a proxy for the FTSE 'cos they hold £billions of assets and lots of that is FTSE 100 companies , so every major move in the FSTE inflates or deflates their asset base by tens of millions.Part of the LLOY SP growth in recent months is as you surmise, based on their asset growth as opposed to profits from business.If you ever want to bring on a headache sit down and study the accounts of a bank , or watch Sunderland play!

denby ... don't know what I've written to upset you and have no problem with the fact that investors should get a return either as divi or capital growth or preferably both.In the case of GSK it has been divi only for two decades now (unless of course you time your entries and exits well).If that suits your investment model then good for you , as for me I aim to make inflation plus 10% pa from my portfolio, so until recently GSK just hasn't met that standard or in truth ever looked like doing so . The company's technology , the quality of it's research and the development of its drug portfolio has been perennially disappointing as have it's financial results.. I have invested of late in the hope that substantial change is coming and will hold for a year or two in that expectation, BUT I never fall in love with a share and if my expectations are not met I will move on .I applaud your recent profits and hope that we can both get out of this share what we hope for.Incidentally I don't think any company director loses sleep over the fate of their PI's!!

Grib.... do you check twice cut once by any chance?

TR64 WADR I think there are several misconceptions implicit in your post. "the 32% they don't control once it is floated"is the same 32% they don't control now and I suspect that within the current GSK senior management they will all be keener to be part of the fashionable, high investment high growth "new GSK " rather than the boring , predictable profitable consumer company.As the board of "new GSK" the board of directors does NOT have control of the 20% of consumer , you the shareholder and all the rest of us have . Directors duty is to manage the assets for the benefit of shareholders(though I share your cynicism as to how well that is done!)
There will undoubtedly be provisions in the set up of "new GSK " which set out rewards for directors but NONE of those can pertain to the success of what by then is an independent company. Far more likely that achievable targets and generous rewards are built in because there will be no "history " to measure against.
Finally board members cannot and do not "hold shares in the other company"(except perhaps through a "blind trust ") ie investments managed on their behalf by an independent entity.
It is highly probable that "new GSK" directors will do well out this exercise and there is little we can do about that . I hold here because I also think that after years of stagnation , this, or another even more radical approach will eventually extract the value inherent in this company.