Bottom Line: SmithKline confounds the critics
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.IN 1989, when SmithKline Beecham, newly emerged from the ashes of SmithKline Beckman and Beecham, produced a corporate strategy that involved the over-the- counter market, the sceptics were too numerous to count.
To many of them it was simply a case of making the best of a bad job - the new pharmaceutical group was stuck with a lot of OTC medicines and had little choice but to put a brave face on things, the argument went.
In those days OTC was viewed as distinctly second-best. The narrow profit margins of such products lacked the lustre of blockbuster prescription drugs such as Zantac or Ventolin.
Today the revisionists are out in force as SmithKline's figures repeatedly demonstrate the soundness of that original strategy.
In the second quarter, for example, sales were up 8 per cent on a year ago in a difficult market, a doubly creditable performance since growth was driven predominantly by new products.
It may have been luck rather than judgement. But the growing burden of healthcare costs, which has led governments to switch public prescription medicine costs into the private over-the-counter sector, was discernible then and SmithKline's management deserves the benefit of the doubt.
So far the main market benefit to SmithKline of getting it right has been reflected in the way its share price has withstood the decline that has shaken the rest of the sector.
Glaxo's share price is 23 per cent down on a year ago and Wellcome's is 26 per cent lower. SmithKline's has dropped only 5 per cent.
Drug stocks will continue to be overhung for the next six months by the uncertainties that Bob Bauman, SmithKline's chief executive, underlined yesterday - a realism much to his credit.
But the sector is probably near the bottom and the gains to shareholders will come now from backing the winning horse emerging from the pack.
SmithKline's strategy and management both still look ahead of the field and the shares should be bought. As an aside, the relative attractiveness of OTC products revealed by SmithKline emphasises how expensive it will be for post-Manoplax Boots to expand its interests in this area if that is its strategy.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments