The calculation is very simple 33p x 15, I'll let you practice with your calculator to work out the answer.
I would have jumped on the 33p as for me it would have been a fast buck, but I get that for others 33p would have been a huge hair cut so you can only hope that the £150m see's us through to clear waters and a steady sail to beyond 33p.
But I think that will take some years to reach, but I'm not an arse about it.
Hopefully you will make a killing if you got in between 120 -140.
I could not average down further, already to much invested here as a % of my portfolio. But may actually dare to look at my shares next week if this continues.
I see you say net debt is about £25 billion, I assume you mean current liabilities. I thought it was worth exploring this as you are absolutely right that even in 2015 current liabilities were only a meager £13 billion.
So that is a doubling of debt in 5 years.
However, in that time revenues have also grown, from £23billion to £33 billion a 43% increase. So debt as a proportion of revenue has not grown as much as rapidly.
in 2015 current liabilities were 56% of revenues
In 2019 current liabilities are 77% of revenues
This is not great but when I compare to Astra Zenica I find that they have a similar debt to revenue ratio 18/24 = 74%.
The difference is that GSK profits have been starting to grow again in the last few years and both remain fairly steady in terms of cash on hand.
I would like to see GSK start to reduce debt, but probably unlikely in the current climate but if they can hold steady at the level and not add too much more debt there is no reason to worry just yet. If that increased debt leads to longer term growth in profits then that is good debt. If it just pays dividends then that would be a poor outcome.
Yes the placing price is 180p so even a large movement will only recover those investors to break even on the new capital, but all those people and institutions will hold more shares at even higher values.
So my break even is 300p,so even with a vaccine I'm not expecting to see any money for a few years.
Undisclosed sum, so may have been too small to have a bearing on the SP and if the business was already closed then any costs saved would also have already been accounted for.
Yep all the European stocks are struggling with the combined effects of COVID and BREXIT. I have just had a quick check through the last set of company reports to ensure I was not way off base. Yes the US is a larger market for GSK products, but Europe does have a significant market as well for GSK.
So really it comes down to will we get a deal or not, if we do then I would bet GSK will rally.
If we don't then that is a new scenario to just normal elections and currency movements.
GSK can take steps to mitigate the impact but lets say we move to WTO rules, is that an extra 10% on GSK products made in the UK? Will it delay products at ports (some of which may have a shorter shelf life?)
I appreciate the currency issue, but the currency fluctuations don't account for a 15% fall in the share price. I'm more inclined to think that a lack of restricted access to EU markets would be a bigger impact long term.
I've watched this share being walked down from 1600p and I just wonder how big a factor the lack of progress on a BREXIT deal is for this share.
A deal on goods would surely be a positive for this share as GSK will export a great many products, similarly a no deal would hit this share as there will be competitors in say Canada who will have a more advantageous position with lower tariffs.
If this is the price for a few 100 fishing vessels then to me it is a bad miscalculation by the HMG. Normally at this price I would be jumping in with both feet, but to me the lack of progress on a deal with the EU makes calling the bottom all the more difficult.
I don't think there will be corporate action and yes we all expected some drop in the SP initially.
However a drop of 33% to 120p from the open offer price of 180p, which was already a low point for the share is not exactly a ringing vote of confidence in the strategy by the market. I'm only a lowly PI so I can't effect the day to day movement of this share. That is down to the wider market.
But we have to remember that this strategy was not the only available avenue and therefore PI's will view the outcome of this strategy as measured against the strategy not offered to PI's which was the 33p offer ( 495p).
That is the yard stick the BOD has set itself by choosing a different strategy (rightly or wrongly). Yes we don't know the conditions attached to that offer but that is up to the BOD to inform us, if they choose not to inform of the conditions all we can know is the offer price that was rejected.
There is nothing left to do but hold and hope but that 33p or £4.95 per share seems to look more and more like a terrible call by the board of directors to reject with out even putting the terms to the shareholders.
I won't say anything libelous but I'm thinking it. Not sure any Pi's who bought in before or at consolidation will see a ROI. Certainly £4.95 is a pipe dream maybe 5 - 10 years away. 33p today would have been much more welcome than 33p in 5 years time.
Given it is less than a month since the conversion/consolidation its not unreasonable for LTH to translate the current SP into the old SP.
It's been decades since we went metric and yet we still have people converting C - F and Kg to Stone/pounds.
In my head I'm still saying anything below 180p means those who recapitalized at 12p are below water. Its not a big deal to have both prices.
I've had to put the current SP out of my mind for the time being as clearly the current SP is shocking. Either sell at a loss or hold fast and give the new boss time to make the needed changes.
However, the numbers here just seem crazy.
Capital raised 1 week ago £100m
Current market cap £177m
The 33p share offer would have been equivalent to a market cap of £680m
The 2020 financials put the net asset value of the business at £588m
Basically the current SP has swallowed the entire £100 capital raise and decided the company is worth either the same or even less than it was before the £100 was injected into the business.
I don't get why people think that a consolidation will protect the SP.
Shorters (especially pros) are not going to be put off by a higher Sp.
If they were going to short 0.5% of the shares at 15-10p they will still do so at £2.25 - £1.50.
It may stop some smaller holders giving away their shares but at 10p you needed 120 shares just to cover the dealing charges with say HL. How many trades were actually at that level.
Positive discrimination does have a place when it is a short term tactic to balance out longstanding structural issues.
I did say earlier that the major problem is inertia, board members are not hired based on fair and open competition. When was the last time a ftse 100 board job was advertised openly.
Firms may say they are looking for a new chief exec, but its not a case of submitting cvs. They hire people to go head hunting.
Headhunting in itself is a discriminatory practice as you can only really head hunt people who are in your circle of knowledge which usually reflects your own socioeconomic background.
So it's not that people actively decide to discriminate when head hunting but that practice has unfairness built in.
If you force the process to at least consider that imbalance in the range of choices they put forward by stating that actual when looking for a position you must interview at least a proportion of BAME, women etc then if the best candidate happens to be a white male then you will still get the best person for the job as the white male chosen will have been the best they could have got with or without forcing the process to interview a more diverse mix.
However by forcing the process to interview a more diverse mix than traditional headhunting you may consider someone who would not have been identified due to them being outside your normal circle of knowledge.
The issue of diversity at the boardroom level is one of inertia.
People on boards of directors tend to be recruited from other boards, so if you have FTSE 100 companies hiring/head hunting from other FTSE 100 companies you are fishing in a very limited pool.