there seems to be some heavy resistance around these level with a lot of potential upside.

I think 900 would be a good buying oppertunity, as IMHO Swine Flu will return big style this winter with many deaths worldwide.

Recent first quarter results not great, owing primarily to generic competition in the USA, but cash generated from operations still $1.7billion in three months and small increase in dividend helps confidence. I have held for very many years and GSK remains a core long term holding in my PEP/ISA.

p
i have every respect for all your posts.
i do hope you wont mind me suggesting that some growth stocks grow, sort of, well i mean grow old. cant see us getting 2for1 on a regular basis anymore for the long term,
sometimes we need to look for the next Glaxo.
regards
jkd

Morning Jkd,

Could be right, who knows, but I sold out of Reckitt Benckiser 2 years ago thinking the same. Big mistake.
I am looking at Glaxo as the most solid share in my portfolio.

Hi jkd
Agree with greek that you may be right (Jim Slaters "elephants don't gallop"etc) but long term return on my GSK is astounding and whilst they may now be in the "cash cow" stage of their business life they do not yet appear to be heading for decline. I learnt long ago that if you invest in companies with lots of potential, but not yet profitable or cash generative, you need a good spread for the occasional "star" to hopefully make up for all those which will lose you money. Personally I have found it more lucrative to stick to decent proven businesses and try to buy quality at or near the right time ("buy on the bad news, sell on the good" maxim has a lot going for it imo)

Are the FDA none bias.

A 'very' long article so for those interested see http://www.aei.org/outlook/26859

Avandia (Glaxo) is mentioned about 2 para down. Makes you wonder.

Sanofi-Aventis SA of Paris, Baxter International Inc. of Deerfield, Illinois, and GlaxoSmithKline Plc of London are talking with world health authorities about producing shots, the agency said.

Fairly long article, but worth a read.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aUgFPjCFldbw

RNS....GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) today announced that it has agreed to extend its strategic relationship with Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Limited (Aspen) and to acquire a 16% shareholding in the South African based pharmaceuticals company.

Another string added to Glaxo's strategic collaboration plan.

Cherry picking, grasping the low hanging fruit

Morning Falcothou,

A bit of a mixed metaphor.
Cherry picking.....Taking the pick of the Litter or fruit.
Low hanging fruit.... Is never as sweet or as ripe as the fruit at the top of the tree.

I often mix my metaphors, as it makes life more interesting.

Not having a dig, just thought it humorous (made me smile).

Regards Greek.

May be they are doing a combination, I have now idea about the fundies of the companies they are hoovering up, though pharma seems generally as a sector to be out of favour, so I would hope that they are at some discount. Apologise for the mixed metaphors I confused myself

No prob, as said it made me smile, and as you say they may be doing a bit of both.

Sorry if off thread but another mixed metaphor. 'Honourable Member of Parliament'.

As the WHO have now declared a Pandemic, there is a list of countries that are putting or already have a declared Pandemic plan into operation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8022516.stm

As with most bad situations, it will be a case of money being made by the barrow load. Its an ill wind, etc.
Just one quoted example......The US has a stockpile of 50 million courses of anti-viral drugs and has begun distributing the medication. It will spend $251m to buy 13 million more courses of flu medicine. Multiply this several times and it will show just how many millions of doses will be required, world wide.
Whilst under such measures, drugs under patent can be manufactured by none patent holding companies, no doubt a licence fee is still required to be paid to the patent holding company.
Surprised this has not had more effect on the sp.

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=2828597
SP is rudderless Greek , cable not helping, or California being broke

Morning Falcothou,

Broke or not, if the money needed to fight this pandemic is not forthcoming, the cost to these countries will be phenomenal. The world can not afford to not spend the required money. An untreated pandemic will cost far more to the world economy.
As to the sp, I can only agree with you. It matters not what we feel the true sp value is, if the market feels differently.
By the way, it would be nice to see someone else posting. It appears there is only a few of us left on MoneyAm interested in GSK.

Regards Greek.

I've got a hunch we're not the only shareholders

Interesting point re cost/affordability.

LONDON, June 12 (Reuters) - British pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline is planning to cut the prices of many of its leading medicines in emerging markets, CEO Andrew Witty said in an interview with the Financial Times.
"Making sure the price-volume equation is right is a key piece of the strategy," Witty was quoted as saying in the paper's Friday edition.
The plan follows the success of a pilot programme in the Philippines, the paper said. Speaking from the Philippines, Witty said a 60 percent cut in the local price of its cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix had increased sales eightfold.

Presume the cost of Relenza to the customer will reduce as volume increases.

Break out above 1080?

Please I hope your right.

Just a thought.

Could the almost none upward movement of companies such as Glaxo be down to fear.
Whilst there is always the chance of a drug scare release knocking Glaxo's profits, could it be that many punters, PI's as well as institutional investors are in the present financial climate putting more downside on the risk than in so called normal times. In other words are such drug companies as defensive as other so called defensive stock.

There will as we know always be the risk of a adverse report knocking the sp. An example as such follows (could this have been one reason for yesterdays dip)

Tylenol ban will hurt the bottom line.
On Monday, a consortium of drug companies lobbied to an FDA panel, saying, products that include acetaminophen (Tylenol) should stay on the market despite concerns of widespread liver damage. Drug manufacturers offered to more clearly warn buyers about the risks of liver damage linked to the Tylenol instead of the FDAs more drastic options: a full-out ban.

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/435872-www-threebrothershealth-com/10611-tylenol-ban-will-hurt-the-bottom-line

Investors tend to look at the negative sections of such reports....'An FDA ban, or a strict warning, will hurt the bottom-line of these companies'......
instead of looking to the positive effect if these companies win their augment.

Until investors start looking at risk in prospective and excepting that shares in any company no matter how safe they are perceived to be are still a risk, drug companies especially the majors will stagnate at least until confidence in the general financial situation improvises. It is only then that negative reports will be looked at as part of the territory, and these companies will get back to being in their truly defensive positions.

All obviously IMHO.