Why I Am Unable To Shrug Off My Disappointment In GSK

13th Dec '24 by Megan Boxall

28 comments 1726 reads

In the quiet cool down to Christmas, I am keen to take a look at some of the companies that readers have been asking for some more detailed analysis on.

Thank you to johnsmith68 for your GSK (LON:GSK) request. This is the first company I analysed when I became a financial journalist and it taught me a lot about investing in the pharmaceutical industry.

Jargon like ‘blockbuster’ (a drug which makes more than $1bn in revenue in a single year) and ‘patent cliff’ (when big selling medicines are due to lose their patent protection) are crucial to those attempting to navigate the industry. Prior to studying GSK, I didn’t know that pharmaceutical patents only last ten years at which point the active ingredient in medicines becomes an open book, free to face competition from generic competitors. Big pharma companies can prolong their patent cliffs by investing in label extensions or protected delivery mechanisms for their top selling medicines, but innovation in new areas is better.

Back in 2014, the big trends within the pharmaceutical industry were biologics (medicines which use living components, rather than the traditional chemical ingredients found in pharmaceuticals) and genetics (the use of targeted therapies which treat the underlying cause of bodily malfunction, rather than its symptoms). Today those types of medicines dominate the industry. Drugs are increasingly expensive to produce, but far more efficient in treating patients.

A disappointing decade

I tend to look at GSK through a disappointed lens. When I first started covering the company it was reliant on its suite of respiratory medicines, which were protected from the patent cliff by their complex delivery mechanisms. Nearly a decade later and respiratory medicines remain very important at the company, while research and development expenditure has lagged the wider industry meaning sectors like rare disease, neurology and oncology remain conspicuously absent in the GSK drugs pipeline.

It’s also been a disappointing decade for investors. Here is the share price chart for GSK over the last ten years:

AD_4nXdXH5FXlZ2SjPK9BbrLFG2Vb9ZFThm06EVmh21iVZLwmi30Lr0rVp_jyC4IOZFnK2mKUb50TBPrAhcfBkkuYzUaIqYtH3EE1ifRTgmQYWfOitOqnjOrmxjoe4FBN5Rh-Kh5bKcXxQ?key=33mVlHVQT_jWmIA3jxKb7eZV

And here is how that compares to the company’s Danish pharma peer, Novo Nordisk:

AD_4nXd97DtAty9KRuxqoqSg_a0Yr5WMTxuzjyBpkE9IqjK_MMCrSaNSiUKWAFBHlMiZk1ZQeRiij-MiD47J8A94no1wD1zuOZIKJfaOfgTRDQJ_gMBpHOsW7fKUYFEr9dISDKLK47jDrg?key=33mVlHVQT_jWmIA3jxKb7eZV

While Novo’s share price has risen over 500% to make it the largest company in Europe, GSK shares have fallen 15%. It’s true,…

Unlock with Email

Unlock with Google

Already have an account?
Login here

Megan Boxall

13th Dec '24

To be completely honest with you, I knew I was being overly charitable. This really is such a poor company, which has perpetually disappointed investors.

I find the comparison with Astra really interesting. The company was also in a pretty bad way when Pfizer came calling in 2014. It shrugged off the bid, and invested heavily in R&D. Now it's better than GSK even in the areas of medicine that GSK once claimed to be the leader in.

I suppose a positive takeaway is that big British pharma companies can be turned around and in the meantime, you're getting some cash (not an especially exciting amount though). I don't think the current management can do it - GSK need their own Pascal Soriot.

PastPerformance

I was also lured by the apparent cheapness of GSK and held it from 1550 down to 1500 before cutting losses. Whenever I’m staring at something wondering why it’s so cheap and yet getting cheaper I tend to accept that I’ve missed something, and in this case the pipeline quality is just not fathomable unless you’re a sector specialist.

Rusty2

I have found that high value stocks on Stockopedia often carry a lot of debt. I think it is a weakness, of the rankings, that debt is not taken into account enough. Most UK large caps have high debt, most US are cash rich.

CautiousValue

3% stop loss... tight!

I must say, the thought of looking at Novo makes me a lot more excitement than looking at GSK. I had a look at the results of the Polar Capital Healthcare Trust this morning, there are some interesting pharma companies in their portfolio which I also might try and have a closer look at.

Edward Sheldon

Great article - thanks! GSK has certainly been disappointing when you compare it to the likes of Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, etc.

aflash

Your charts say a lot.

By trading in and out one could have made between 3 and 4 pounds a share consistently over those years plus the income if one was holding at ex-dividend time.

Liquid stocks, trading on two exchanges in volume and paying a dividend are my hunting ground. Oil majors, Tobacco stocks and Utilities are other examples. To hold Novo Nordisk or Astra Zenecca all that time I would have to know or research something on the Pharma sector.

General Sentiment towards any sector is another element easier to measure than the fundamental trends you highlight. Buy when out of favour, Sell when too popular. Anyone who bought Novo Nordisk this summer is sitting on a big loss.

Many ways to play the market.

This is a really interesting take, thank you.

tic_tac_toe

apologies all ofr the use of a sharepad chart (!) but here is my take on GSK, buy ~£13, sell ~£18 has worked several times on this range bound share

ACounsell

This level of market timing is well beyond me! Do you have any views on particular chart signals that provide a good indicator of general sentiment enabling one to 'buy when out of favour and sell when too popular'? To achieve the buy and sell positions on your chart implies pretty much perfect timing and if it can be done is likely to be highly profitable.

Matt1975

I would also love you to look at Novo Nordisk A/S (NYQ:NVO) - I have done very well out of it but am interested in whether to hold or take the money! Sadly I also hold GSK (LON:GSK) and completely agree with the downcast sentiment. Fortunately, it is my smallest position but I think this thread has helped me to decide that it will have to go!

Perfect timing is only achieved by liars.

However the general trend can be recognized. Some like to get in early, others wait for confirmation.

I use RSI Relative Strength Indicator a lot. Sell when over 70, Buy when under 30.

WarrantStar

14th Dec '24

Even if the strategy is to buy and hold for a long time, it should contain clearly defined conditions under which the shares should be sold for underperforming. When those conditions are met it, the strategy will help holders to act decisively to cut losing positions, and move on.

djlcollinge

15th Dec '24

Interesting article. Yet, GSK remains a permanent fixture in the R & D breakthrough screen sourced by Jack Hough. I did read that GSK were not bothered about the COVID vaccine market as they had a strong pipeline of longer term drugs. Astra zeneca have been threatened with litigation due to side effects from their vaccine. A mixed picture

WDWombat

I disagree with most of it. The poor performance in the past two years has been caused almost entirely by the ludicrous Zantac legal cases and , recently of more import, by weakness in the vaccine division. Otherwise the comments could be applied to almost any mainstrean pharma company.

roddy10

I sometimes use GSK (LON:GSK) as a case study when I lecture.

1. In the 2000s GSK was a 'thought leader under JP Garnier (despite his many faults).

2. I feel that GSK got affected by the appointment of CEOs and board members whose vision only extended as far as the next dividend payment. Looking at the balance sheet from 2014 you can see that long term debt increased from £15.8bn to £22.58bn (total debt from £18.78bn to £30.5bn) - all numbers from Stocko

3. One might therefore argue that despite the cashflow generation of the business, that acquisitions plus dividends were leading to increasing debt and debt / share so shareholders were confusing return on capital with return of capital (increasing debt to pay dividends is effectively a return of capital). This is also perhaps reflective of the UK Stock market which is (/was) more obsessed with dividends than with total return and led to a number of large caps over-distributing rather than focussing on growth.

4. The business has really failed to get 'escape velocity' in areas outside of its core respiratory, HIV and vaccines businesses. (There may be a few more areas (eg Paxil (depression) / Zantac (stomach ulcers)) I have forgotten but you get the point). I believe that part of this is that the board has comprised the great and the good rather than scientists and true investors - and similarly with the leadership of the company.

5. The spin-out of various bits has been not from a position of strength but from a position of weakness. [Note however the consumer health business etc did mean that overall R&D to income is distorted and it would be wise to look at R&D to income for the pharma division as a stand alone].

6. One very old fashioned number that I look at is book value / share - simply to see if it is growing in order to assess whether the business is overdistributing. The last five years have been disappointing.

7. In some ways GSK is the 'Intel' of the pharma sector. Was once dominant but lost its way. It has then resulted in splitting itself up. But unlike Intel (at least until recently), GSK has not really been led by scientists since about 2008 and that shows.

8. GSK has done various acquisitions / partnerships and other forms of deals. Two examples of this are the GSK - Novartis Consumer Healthcare Joint Venture and the GSK-Pfizer consumer healthcare jv. Forget the economics and the strategic rationale for a moment. To me large cap companies doing such joint ventures always smells of a maturing business where the parent is desperately trying to get growth by synergies of distribution / cost cutting - ie it is an admission that they have neither the ability or the interest to grow the business themselves.

9. GSK has perhaps been tainted by a number of bribery scandals over the years. The issue this raises in my mind is where is the ethical compass within the company.

geoffish62

Thanks Megan for the work put into this review - I found it hepful to have the various ratios (R&D as % of turnover etc) discussed. I was a shareholder for eleven years and - by coincidence - finally threw in the towel on 4th December - 9 days before your article was published. Capital loss over that time = 33% (helped by a few drip feed investments over the first 18 months after the initial purchase, purchased at deceasing prices), dividend income = 51% of investment, so up less than 2% p.a. overall - definitely not the return a blue chip investor expects.

Considered alongside some other blue chips where the dividend looks good but barely makes up for the capital performance (I'm thinking SDRC, RKT that I also sold recently and VOD, thankfully sold years ago) it made me think - would some research/article along the lines of "Is there a corellation between initial dividend yield and the total return achieved 3/5/10 years later? - a blue chip review" be of interest to readers ?

Bronstein

17th Dec '24

I've talked to former employees who say GSK's internal bureaucracy is off the scale compared to that of competitors. This makes me think there is potential here but that it will only be unlocked when they appoint a CEO of the calibre of Pascal Soriot as AZN

cmorgan

excellent article, thank you! Perhaps highlights the Warren Buffett question of why distribute cash if the company is achieving a return on invested capital in excess of the dividend yield?

Snooze you lose

23rd Dec '24

Really interesting, I am buying. One of the 20 stocks in my 2025 portfolio.

Why I am unable to shrug off my disappointment in GSK

Unlock the rest of this article with a 14 day trial

About the Author

Megan Boxall

28 comments

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...

Unlock the metrics for all these stocks and more...