Member Info for lselsf

If I were still a shareholder, anything above 20% (3p) would be disappointing as irresponsible. Just because THRU have a one time cash windfall doesn't mean they can afford to **** it away. They had a cost control issue and rather than address that, they decided to kill their revenue stream so now they still have a cost issue, albeit reduced, but have a major income problem. Revenues probably don't even cover salaries of management team. They should invest in marketing and sales to nail down proper deals not just trial runs and prototypes and the odd deployment. "Returning excess funds" in this situation seems more desperate and lacking imagination than rewarding for loyalty. It didn't entice me to stay and won't others,.this is not a share people buy/hold for dividend, it is (supposed to be) growth. I will consider reentry when this drops under 10p or there is genuine, significant positive sales news.

He's head (President) of R&D and gave his intent to leave the company recently.

That is true of course but that was during the crash when it was about an apocalyptic global market sentiment. Now, many are riding high and GSK is one of few in the industry to be struggling. Regarding "approaching fair value", what do you see as GSK's?

I didn't say "turn upside down", please do not exaggerate, I said do something, anything. What has she done to put her mark in her 9 months at the helm? Outsiders come in cold and do things after a few months, she's been there for years and was presumably preparing before the official ointment. As you elude, GSK is like an oil tanker and the more time passes with small adjustments the bigger and more painful the realignment will be. Patience is waiting for something- what is it you are waiting for? To me it looks like a reactive CEO/management in denial or ignorance. A world class team, as should be expecterld for an organisation of GSK's might, would be able to avoid the impending divi cut by looking at division/segment strategies. The diivi cut looks about the only likely event in the horizon at the moment and that is very frustrating.

I don't disagree with your premise but your example is ill chosen. Emma is a "continuity" CEO and it is "more of the same" that is driving the City away. Her approach is precisely the opposite of a Mark Wilson, et al who made changes as you state. From a sentiment perspective it doesn't even matter what the changes are just that she actually try something different. Despite City's message Emma/GSK don't seem to get this, that is the issue and that is why until something significant changes GSK will continue losing blood. The only other angle for an optimistic outlook would be the pipeline, the "miracle blockbuster" people have mentioned which is pure speculation (hope) in the light of any concrete references. When I have asked for detail behind the positive sentiment on pipeline I have only received childish/mocking comments back from the defensive/agitated.

I cited Woodford's position as a reference of someone with good insight into the pipeline who concluded it was not good purely as a reference to those claiming otherwise. We can discuss Woodford but such debates often move away from the point topic at hand. Sentiment is certainly a part, when is it not, but sentiment is based on fundamentals and basic realities. Sentiment isn't just some capricious feeling out of the blue. For example, the sentiment on the CEO is overwhelmingly negative but this is based on the belief that she lacks competence and communication skills in addition to a convincing vision. Most other concerns can all be traced back, start with projected divi cut and work back to revenue then to outlook based on pipeline. Markets can be irrational but this does not mean sentiment is random.

Woodford has been greatly scrutinised in 2017, that is for sure, but selling GSK is one of his less controversial moves, now anyway in hindsight. Moreover, I am not so interested in debating about Woodford specifically. The question is whether anything concrete has materialised or tangible changed since his exit at GSK regards pipeline. Or is it simply Emma's promise of more R&D and possible M&A? So could, might type of stuff and far from "lol, do some research, they have a great pipeline" being implied.

Montecristo, what do you like in GSK's pipeline? When Neil Woodford dumped his stake in GSK after more than 15 years earlier this year, he stated, among other criticisms: "If the company’s one remaining growth engine (ViiV) starts to falter, this could pose a threat to Glaxo’s future revenue growth, earnings and cash flows. This new challenge for the company amplifies several other concerns that I have had and have discussed at length with the company on many occasions. The lack of a rich pipeline, for example, and the lack of strategic options which results from an already stretched balance sheet. These issues loom even larger for the company if ViiV’s growth slows. Together, these concerns now make me less convinced that Glaxo’s dividend is sustainable." Woodford would have known more than you or me due to his access as a major holder but that was some months ago. What is it you know? Please share and educate us.

The negative outlook is not solely due Emma or some "random" market cycle. The pipeline is not great, GSK do not have a competitive advantage other than scale. The competition is far more innovative. Related to this, communicating the likelihood of cutting the dividend on what has typically been seen as a reliable dividend paying share does not help the numbers, it only fuels the negative sentiment. Gone are the days of GSK being a proxy bond or some haven. Emma is a continuity CEO, and not a very competent one at that, while what GSK needs/needed was a someone with a new vision and a strategic approach in line with modern pharma go to market. Changes in US corporwte taxation will only put further pressure on GSK from US based competition which will fully benefit from the cuts. The market makes a strong statement when a major pharma share is discarded at P/E in the twenties. This will continually to drift down until something fundamental changes. This will probably bottom last year with divi cut and only truly recover under a new CEO. If the hope is some miracle drug out of nowhere, there are much better gambling opportunities.

Considering ISAT's problems, a P/E of 11 is hardly a call to "load up as bargain" even if this has currently "bottomed" around the 440 levels. Many will be in it for the high dividend and when that gets looked at within the time frames you are considering there will be an impact. It's the long term (18 months isn't long term, even if it isn't short term either) ISAT should do well but I am pessimistic for 2018.

11% loss in the end, but I'm just glad I managed to sell my remaining shares this afternoon. While I still like the product technology, I have simply lost faith in the business and management of the company. Costs can always be controlled and with the cash injection are not an urgent concern but the revenues are truly pathetic. Regardless of the magnitude and reasons for the losses, with revenue in the hundreds of thousands of pounds this isn't going anywhere. "Good progress" is not good enough. Outside of planning/hoping and waiting for revenues to grow many fold (it's not just doubling or tripling that's needed, which is a dream in itself even with the low margin order book filling THRU are chasing) the only carrot seems to be part of the cash to be "returned to shareholders". It was surprising not to see any detail on this as it has been repeated for a few months now. I do expect a one time 10 to 20% windfall to shareholders from this eventually, any more would be irresponsible management and ultimately detrimental to the share price, but I also see a much stronger possibility of the sp drifting from 15p to 10p, and not back up to 20p, in the next few months so was not worth holding just for this.

Those looking for a quick bounce, be careful and in and out quick. Those considering as cheap for long term or dividend, make sure you understand the debt situation above all else. The drop is no surprise. There is more to come.

No, that sounds amateurish or childish, I am neither. If that is your trading logic or emotions please, please further your knowledge and tactics. I sold at 886 on Mon, you are correct it did touch 910 briefly on Tue but was around 900 mark throughout the day. These levels of intraday differences of a 1 or 2% are neither here nor there. My concern and reason for sale is volatility due to a combination of this share "being discovered" by the general masses and over-enthusiasm for positive results. I want the share price to go up in a consistent, sustainable manner. I have long ago doubled my money on this, I want to protect my capital from sheep spiking this one way then another.

A bizarre change of opinion in under 24 hours. I believe this has much further to fall medium term.

In addition to points 5-6-7, which are most relevant, tax changes in US may also play a part. Ultimately, many are in GSK for the dividend, there's no growth in the business to speak of and the share price over the years reflects this. This is nothing new. With a change to the dividend policy however, this goes from being a not so attractive (or so safe) to outright unattractive. GSK needs to be strategic and this needs a shake up, it won't happen with current continuinty CEO, she was the wrong choice and the sooner this is corrected the better.

450 is more likely than 500 from current 475, now is not the time to enter.

In the short term, indeed. Still reason to be concerned long term.

At the very least more bad publicity and distractions to an already struggling management. Down over 10% already, can easily see it drift towards 700.

The problem starts when a share gets recommended by outlets and picked up by general public. For me this is the sign to move on. Daily rises of 5-6% are not sustainable, the 50% gain in the last 2 months is exaggerated and I am concerned any news that is less than superb may trigger a sell off. If it breaks 950 before year end I will sell my remaining shares.

PE is 43. Where are you getting 22 from?